CHAPTER 1I: APPROACH AND METHODS 21
were gathered and incorporated into this CWCS where possible. Other interested parties also
contributed to the process through comments via the MDWFP CWCS website.
One of the eight elements required by Congress in the development of this strategy was to coordinate
with “Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the state or administer programs
that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats.” There is on native American
tribe listed on the federal register in Mississippi — the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. They own
almost 29,000 acres in several counties primarily in east-central Mississippi. We invited the Chief to
send a representative to participate in our Advisory Committee via phone, mail and e-mail. While we did
not receive a response, we will continue to invite their participation and assistance in the further
planning and implementation of the CWCS in our state.
A list of agencies and organizations that provided input in the development of the CWCS is listed in
Appendix II.
Part 4. Criteria for Selecting and Prioritizing
Mississippi’s Species of Gr eatest Conservation Need
The Mississippi NHP, under the auspices of the MDWFP through its MMNS, maintains a database on
approximately 1,500 species of animals in Mississippi. This includes all vertebrates and a large number
of invertebrates native to the state. To develop conservation priorities, each of these species is ranked
according to the number of occurrences, population trends, and threats (a complete list of rank
definitions follows). The NHP formally tracks populations of the rarer species (S1 through S3 including
the borderline ranking of S3S4). There are 336 such species on this Mississippi Track List, and these are
designated as Animals of Special Concern. The location of each population of each of these species is
mapped by the NHP, and population status is monitored within the database.
In late 2003 and early 2004, the Special Animals list was evaluated by the CWCS Technical Committee
and our Expert Team consisting of other biologists with expertise relative to those species. These
biologists assessed the ranks and provided extensive input via a survey regarding those ranks and the
population status, species distribution and habitat status (see survey in Appendix III). This survey was
sent to 81 individuals around the state and region and 46 responded by completing 1,004 surveys.
The list that was evaluated did not include tracked gastropods and insects, marine fish and marine
invertebrates which were deemed insufficiently well-known to warrant status evaluation
comparable to that possible for the vertebrates, mussels and crayfish. Their exclusion from the
first round of prioritization is not an indication of the absence of conservation concerns within
these groups, but thorough basic survey work is needed first and is recommended in this
document.