CHAPTER 1I: APPROACH AND METHODS 20
changes in SRANKS (see Part 4 in this Chapter for a description of state and global ranks used in
the NHP). A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix III and a list of experts who responded to
the survey is in Appendix II. A total of 1004 surveys were returned.E. Articles about the CWCS development have been included in several internal and external
publications such as: the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science newsletter; the Mississippi
Wildlife Federation magazine — Mississippi Wildlife; several issues of MDWFP’s electronic
newsletter – Wildlife Notes; local newspapers such as the Bolivar Commercial (August 24, 2005),
Spirit of Morton (August 24, 2005), Deer Creek Pilot (August 25, 2005), Port Gibson Reveille
(August 25, 2005), Picayune Item (August 28, 2005), Leader Call (August 28, 2005), Simpson
County News (August 25, 2005) and Jasper County News (August 19, 2005), and MDWFP’s
external magazine — Mississippi Outdoors. A press release inviting additional public review and
comment was issued statewide in August, 2005 (see Appendix VI for samples of articles).
F. Collaboration with bordering states and other CWCS planners occurred primarily during
national and regional meetings hosted by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (IAFWA). National CWCS meetings were in Texas in January 2004 and in Nebraska
August 2004. Mississippi CWCS coordinators actively participated in all national meetings and
collaborated with other southeastern states through the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) Ad Hoc Working Group for CWCS which met in Montgomery,
Alabama in September 2003, in Atlanta, Georgia in July 2004, and in Ridgeland, South Carolina in
January 2005. Also, planners from states bordering Mississippi met in September 2004 in
Vicksburg, Mississippi to compare species lists and approaches. Mississippi CWCS coordinators
corresponded with other state coordinators between meetings via mail, e-mail and telephone. Within
the SEAFWA Ad Hoc committee meetings, efforts were made to share information and approaches
in an effort to improve consistency in the plans of these states. Representatives of these southeastern
state agencies are continuing discussion in this area after submission of the first CWCS in order to
eventually develop regional conservation strategies for SGCN and habitats.
G. The CWCS Coordinators and Technical Committee members made presentations to internal
MDWFP groups such as district staff, other museum staff, district managers and wildlife and
fisheries staff throughout the process. They included updates in internal staff publications as well.
Part 3. Coordination with Other Agencies
Development of this CWCS was accomplished in coordination with a variety of public wildlife agencies,
universities, conservation organizations and land managers in Mississippi. This coordination was
ensured by inclusion of representatives of these agencies and organizations on the Advisory Committee,
through individual and organization briefings and presentations and through contact with the Expert
Team and Technical Committee. Conservation planning documents and tools provided by other agencies