ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE RECOVERY PLAN 

(Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) 

DRAFT 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

SOUTHEAST REGION
Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan 

for the 

ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE 

(Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) 

Prepared by 

Panama City Field Office, Florida 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Panama City, Florida 

for 

Southeast Region 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Atlanta, Georgia 

April 2009 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

ii

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover 

and/or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, 

and other affected and interested parties. Objectives of the plan will be obtained and any 

necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting parties 

involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other 

parties to undertake specific tasks and may not necessarily represent the views nor the 

official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in developing the plan, 

other than the Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the Service only

after they have been signed by the Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans 

are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and the 

completion of recovery actions. 

By approving this recovery plan, the Regional Director certifies that the data used in its 

development represent the best scientific and commercial information available at the time it 

was written. Copies of all documents reviewed in the development of the plan are available 

in the administrative record at the Panama City Field Office, in Panama City, Florida. 

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL 

Permission to use the copyrighted cover illustration in the final version of this recovery plan 

has been granted by the copyright holders. This illustration is not placed in public domain by 

its appearance herein. It cannot be copied or otherwise reproduced, except in its printed 

context within this document, without the written consent of the copyright holder. 

Cover illustration of St. Andrew beach mouse by Marilyn Knight. 

Literature Citation Should Read As Follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Technical Agency Draft Recovery Plan for St. 

Andrew Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 93 pp. 

Additional copies may be obtained from: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Panama City Field Office 

1601 Balboa Avenue 

Panama City, FL 32405-3721 

Telephone: (850) 769-0552 

Recovery plans can be downloaded from Service website: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/Index.html#plans
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Service would like to thank the following individuals for their commitment and efforts 

toward the recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse. Without their assistance and input at 

stakeholder meetings and other steps along the way, this plan would not have been possible. 

Dr. Jeff Gore 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Laura Slaby 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Bob Miller 

Eglin Air Force Base 

Harold Mitchell 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Dr. Jack Mobley 

Tyndall Air Force Base 

Steve Shea 

St. Joe Company 

Additional thanks go to the following Service staff and supervisors: 

Dr. Jon Hemming, Brian Martin, Janet Mizzi, Lorna Patrick, and Sandra Sneckenberger 

A special thank you goes to Marilyn Knight for the cover illustration.
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Executive Summary 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Current Status: The St. Andrew beach mouse is federally listed as endangered. Currently, 

there are two populations of the St. Andrew beach mouse: East Crooked Island, Bay County, 

and St. Joseph Peninsula, Gulf County, Florida. 

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: The St. Andrew beach mouse inhabits the 

primary, secondary, and scrub dunes within the coastal ecosystem. Beach mice require well 

developed dune systems in which to live out their life cycle. They dig their burrows into the 

face of the dunes near vegetative cover. Their diet is comprised primarily of the seeds and 

fruits of plants within their dune habitat with insects providing seasonal supplements. 

Threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse consist of habitat loss/alteration from land 

development and associated human use, hurricanes and other tropical storm events, nonnative predators, and recreational activity associated with development and tourism, that 

weaken and encroach on the dune ecosystem. Other potential threats are shoreline erosion, 

feral hogs, competition from house mice, intra-specific crossbreeding with Choctawhatchee 

beach mice, and artificial lighting. Availability of suitable habitat may be a limiting factor 

during periods of population expansion or following catastrophic weather events. 

Recovery Strategy: The St. Andrew beach mouse is faced with numerous threats to its 

populations and to its habitat. Due to its limited range and fragmentation of habitat, these 

threats combined continue to present a threat to its existence. Through population 

reestablishment, habitat protection, minimization or removal of known threats, and public 

education and stewardship, this subspecies could be downlisted from endangered to 

threatened and eventually removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. 

Recovery Goals: The long-term recovery goal for the St. Andrew beach mouse is to 

perpetuate the long-term viability of the subspecies in the wild. This goal is represented by 

the delisting and removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The 

interim recovery goal is to downlist from endangered to threatened status. 

Recovery Objectives: 

1. Reestablish additional populations 

2. Threat minimization or removal. 

3. Habitat protection and/or restoration. 

4. Outreach/Education to the public. 

Recovery Criteria: 

Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened Status (Downlisting) 

1. A stable or increasing population trend is maintained at St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park and East Crooked Island on Tyndall Air Force Base 

over a 10 year period based on data obtained from accepted, standardized, 

monitoring methods. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Executive Summary 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

v

2. An additional viable or self-sustaining population is reestablished at St. 

Joe Beach that shows a stable or increasing trend, after the initial 

repopulation of unoccupied habitat, over a 10 year period based on data 

obtained from accepted, standardized, monitoring methods. 

3. At least 87% of designated St. Andrew beach mice critical habitat is 

protected and under a management plan that addresses conservation of 

beach mice. The plans, at a minimum, address the following: 

a) Impact of commercial/residential development and recreational use 

including pedestrians and motorized vehicles to beach mice habitat.. 

b) Impact of shoreline erosion to beach mice habitat. 

c) Impact of artificial lighting on beach mice habitat. 

d) Control of feral cats and hogs in beach mice habitat. 

4. Non-native predators, including free roaming cats and cat colonies, are 

controlled in areas with known populations of beach mice (Tyndall Air 

Force Base’s property at East Crooked Island, St. Joseph Peninsula State 

Park, and their respective adjacent private lands) at levels in which they do 

not pose a threat to beach mice. 

5. County or local government, within the range of the St. Andrew beach 

mouse, have regulations or other protection mechanisms that: 

a) Minimize impacts to dunes in beach mice habitat due to recreational 

use. 

b) Prohibit free-roaming cats and cat colonies. 

c) Minimize impacts of commercial and residential developments in 

primary, secondary, and scrub dunes. Measures include minimizing 

footprints; preserving connectivity between primary, secondary and 

scrub dunes; using native landscaping; and constructing boardwalks 

over dunes for beach access. 

d) Minimize impacts of artificial lighting in beach mice habitat by 

requiring sea turtle lighting, in areas visible from the beach and 

wildlife lighting, in areas not visible from the beach. 

6. Emergency response plan is prepared to prevent extirpation of any 

population of St. Andrew beach mice from tropical storms/hurricanes and 

other disasters. 

7. If determined to be necessary, an Action Plan is prepared to address the 

potential threat of cross-breeding with Choctawhatchee beach mice from 

W. Crooked Island. 

8. Capture of house mice in beach mouse habitat shows a declining trend 

over a period of 10 years and no new infestations are found within the 

range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

Removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Delisting) 

1. A stable or increasing population trend is maintained at St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park, East Crooked Island on Tyndall Air Force Base, and 

St. Joe Beach over a 20-year period based on data obtained from accepted, 

standardized, monitoring methods. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Executive Summary 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

vi

2. An additional viable population is reestablished at Cape San Blas, Eglin 

Air Force Base, and has a stable or increasing population trend over a 10 

year period based on data obtained from standardized monitoring methods. 

3. At least 87% of designated St. Andrew beach mice critical habitat is 

protected and under a management plan that addresses conservation of 

beach mice, priority is given to those lands that provide connectivity. The 

plans, at a minimum, manage for the following: 

a) Impact of commercial/residential development and recreational use 

including pedestrians and motorized vehicles to beach mice 

habitat.. 

b) Impact of shoreline erosion to beach mice habitat. 

c) Impact of artificial lighting on beach mice habitat. 

d) Control of feral cats and hogs, including free ranging cats in beach 

mice habitat 

4. Non-native predators, including free roaming cats and cat colonies, are 

controlled within all critical habitat that is protected and under a 

management plan at levels that they do not pose a threat to beach mice. 

5. County or local government regulations or other protection mechanisms as 

set forth in the downlisting criteria for Factor D have adequate compliance 

and enforcement. 

6. No captures of house mice occur during standard monitoring for 5 years. 

Actions Needed: 

1. Monitor status of existing populations and reestablish populations of St. Andrew beach 

mice. 

2. Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. Andrew beach mouse habitat. 

3. Remove or investigate non-native predator threat to St. Andrew beach mice populations. 

4. Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, strengthening, and enforcement 

of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal dunes and minimize or remove identified 

threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse on private lands. 

5. Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manmade threats. 

6. Facilitate stewardship of St. Andrew beach mice recovery through increased public 

awareness and education. 

Estimated Cost of Recovery: The implementation of recovery tasks, from which cost 

estimates can be made over a 5-year period of recovery effort will total approximately 

$2,093,500.
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Executive Summary 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

vii

Cost Estimate (in thousands) 

Year Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Action 6 Yearly 

Total 

FY1 80 92 52 27 298.5 47 596.5 

FY2 235 105 34 7 206 20 607 

FY3 255 70 24 2 56 10 417 

FY4 80 77 24 2 31 10 224 

FY5 80 77 24 2 56 10 249 

Grand 

Totals 730 421 158 40 647.5 97 2093.5 

Date of recovery: The estimated date for recovery completion is 2029, provided that funds 

are available to accomplish the required recovery actions and that the recovery criteria are 

met. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... iv 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... ix 

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. x 

PART I. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1 

A. STATUS OF THE SPECIES................................................................................................. 1 

B. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY ........................................................................ 2 

C. POPULATION TRENDS AND DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................... 3 

D. LIFE HISTORY/ECOLOGY ............................................................................................... 7 

E. HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS/ECOSYSTEM ..................................................................... 9 

F. CRITICAL HABITAT ...................................................................................................... 12 

G. REASONS FOR LISTING/THREATS ................................................................................. 16 

H. THREAT ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................. 25 

I. CONSERVATION MEASURES......................................................................................... 28 

PART II: RECOVERY ....................................................................................................... 32 

A. RECOVERY STRATEGY ................................................................................................. 32 

B. RECOVERY GOALS ....................................................................................................... 32 

C. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES............................................................................................... 32 

D. RECOVERY CRITERIA................................................................................................... 33 

Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened Status (Downlisting)..................... 33 

Removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Delisting)............... 35 

E. THREATS TRACKING TABLE......................................................................................... 37 

F. RECOVERY ACTION OUTLINE ...................................................................................... 40 

G. RECOVERY ACTION NARRATIVE.................................................................................. 44 

PART III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE................................................................. 59 

PART IV. LITERATURE CITED..................................................................................... 67 

PART V. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 75 

APPENDIX A. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................ 75 

APPENDIX B. THREAT ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS AND RANKING VALUES........................ 77 

APPENDIX C. THE NATURAL CYCLIC NATURE OF BEACH MICE POPULATIONS................... 80 

APPENDIX D. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONSERVATION MEASURES TO PROTECT BEACH 

AND DUNE HABITAT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES .............................................................. 81 

APPENDIX E. COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONSERVATION MEASURES TO PROTECT BEACH 

AND DUNE HABITAT FOR MULTI-FAMILY OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ..................... 82 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE List of Figures 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

ix

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. HISTORIC RANGE OF THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTUS 

PENINSULARIS).................................................................................................................... 4

FIGURE 2. REFERENCE LOCATION MAP WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE.

........................................................................................................................................... 5

FIGURE 3. “STUMP HOLE” AREA NORTH OF CAPE SAN BLAS. .................................................... 6

FIGURE 4. GENERALIZED DUNE SYSTEM PROFILE FOR THE GULF COAST................................. 10

FIGURE 5. DUNE HABITAT AT ST. JOSEPH PENINSULA STATE PARK ........................................ 11

FIGURE 6. DUNE HABITAT ON EAST CROOKED ISLAND. .......................................................... 12

FIGURE 7. CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE............................. 14

FIGURE 8. DUNE WALKOVER BY PEDESTRIANS SHOWING IMPACT TO DUNE VEGETATION AND 

DUNE STRUCTURE... ....................................................................................................... 17

FIGURE 9. BOARDWALK ACCESS TO THE BEACH (EAST CROOKED ISLAND, TYNDALL AFB

PROPERTY). ...................................................................................................................... 18

FIGURE 10. FENCING TO CONTROL AND CHANNEL PEDESTRIANS THROUGH THE DUNES (ST.

JOSEPH PENNINSULA STATE PARK).................................................................................. 18

FIGURE 11. SIGNAGE TO MANAGE PEDESTRIAN WALKING IN THE DUNES (ST. JOSEPH 

PENNINSULA STATE PARK)... ......................................................................................... 19

FIGURE 12. GENERAL GRAPHIC DEPICTING CYCLIC NATURE OF BEACH MICE POPULATIONS OVER 

TIME................................................................................................................................. 80 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE List of Figures 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

x

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1. CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE ........ 14

TABLE 2. THREAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE.................................... 27

TABLE 3. THREAT TRACKING TABLE OF THE CURRENT AND PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED THREATS 

FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE, BY THE FIVE LISTING FACTORS, WITH THEIR 

ASSOCIATED RECOVERY CRITERIA AND RECOVERY ACTIONS............................................ 37 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

1

PART I. BACKGROUND 

A. Status of the Species 

The St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) was federally listed as 

endangered on December 18, 1998 (63 FR 70053). Prior to Federal listing, the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) listed the St. Andrew beach mouse (SABM) 

as endangered (Chapter 39-27.002 FL Admin. Code). This subspecies has a recovery priority 

of 3c, meaning it has a high degree of threat, high potential for recovery, and it is a 

subspecies. 

The Service determined, at the time of listing, it was not prudent to designate critical habitat 

for this subspecies. On September 29, 2003, the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit 

against the Service alleging that the Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing 

to designate critical habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse. In response to this litigation, 

the Service agreed to reevaluate their critical habitat determination. Critical habitat was 

designated on October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60238). 

An attempt was made to quantify the percent decline of this subspecies when it was listed. 

Analysis of historic habitat showed approximately 41 linear miles (mi) (66 kilometers (km)) 

of suitable habitat encompassed the range of the mouse (63 FR 70053). By the mid 1990s 

only about 12.4 mi (20 km) of St. Joseph Peninsula were known to be occupied (Gore, in litt., 

1994, 1995). This indicated a 68% reduction in its historic distribution (63 FR 70053). An 

effort to reestablish a population of the St. Andrew beach mouse at East Crooked Island, Bay 

County, Florida, was initiated around the time of listing (Moyers et al. 1999); however, the 

above figure did not take this into account since the success of the reintroduction was not 

known at the time (63 FR 70053). 

The best documentation of the species’ decline can be seen from trapping and/or tracking 

surveys

1

 conducted at various times throughout its range. By the mid- to late 1980s, 

concerns were raised when trapping efforts failed to result in captures at West Crooked 

Island (Gore, in litt., 1987). By 1990 the St. Andrew beach mouse appeared to occupy only a 

small portion (approximately 11.8 mi (18 km)) of its original range: the west end of East 

Crooked Island and within St. Joseph Peninsula State Park (Gore, in litt., 1990). The St. 

Andrew beach mouse’s apparent decline was observed into the mid-1990s. In 1994 the 

population on East Crooked Island was “presumed to be extinct” (Wooten and Holler 1999), 

leaving only one known population on St. Joseph Peninsula (Moyers et al. 1999), occupying 

only the northern portion of the peninsula (Gore, in litt., 1994, 1995). Subsequent 

reintroduction efforts in 1997-1998 appear to have reestablished a population on East 

Crooked Island (Moyers et al. 1999). Of the 83.3 km estimate of current suitable habitat 

within the historic range of the SABM, 44.5 km remains occupied. (Loggins et.al 2008).

 

1

 The surveys presented herein had variable effort and coverage. As a result, the absence of mice can not be 

definitively stated, unless extensive survey effort and coverage were conducted at that site. Results presented 

here are based on the stated results of the cited literature. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Overview 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

2

Like the other beach mouse subspecies found along the northern Gulf coast the main threats 

to this subspecies include coastal development, recreational use of dunes, hurricanes (James 

1992, Holler 1992), and non-native predators, particularly feral cats (Bowen 1968, 

Humphrey and Barbour 1981, Van Zant and Wooten 2003

B. Species Description and Taxonomy 

The St. Andrew beach mouse is a member of the genus Peromyscus. Peromyscus can 

usually be identified “by their large ears and eyes and their white underparts” (Whitaker and 

Hamilton 1998). Within the genus Peromyscus, Peromyscus polionotus, oldfield mice 

(James 1992), are differentiated from other Peromyscus by their small body size and their 

small hind feet, usually 0.71 inches (in) (18 millimeters (mm)) or less. They are further 

differentiated by their light pelage (fur) and their habitation of sandy soils in the southeast 

(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). There are 16 recognized subspecies of Peromyscus 

polionotus; of these subspecies eight are adapted to living in dune ecosystems (James 1992). 

These subspecies are commonly called “beach mice” (Howell 1939). The St. Andrew beach 

mouse is one of five subspecies of beach mice that inhabit the northern Gulf of Mexico coast, 

hereafter, Gulf coast (James 1992). It was first described and given its trinomial name (P. p. 

peninsularis) by Howell (1939) based on a type (location) specimen taken from St. Andrew 

Point Peninsula (located on what is currently referred to as East Crooked Island) in Bay 

County, Florida. 

All beach mice are characterized by white feet, large ears, and large black eyes (Hall 1981). 

The St. Andrew beach mouse’s fur is a pale, buff/brown color on its head and back with 

extensive pure white coloration on its underparts, sides, feet, face, and tail (Howell 1939). 

They have two distinct rump color patterns, tapered or squared (Bowen 1968). Their average 

size is: head and body length, 2.95 in (75 mm); tail length, 2.05 in (52 mm); and hind foot 

length, 0.73 in (18.5 mm) (James 1992). 

Beach mouse subspecies can be differentiated from each other by the non-overlapping 

geographic distributions of the subspecies and pelage coloration (Bowen 1968). Howell 

(1939) noted that the St. Andrew beach mouse is more similar in appearance to the Santa 

Rosa beach mouse (P. p. leucocephalus) than the other Gulf coast subspecies, but it is darker 

in coloration on its ears and back. 

The sub-specific classification of beach mice was based on the geographic variations in 

pelage characteristics and skeletal measurements. These variations were thought to be 

genetically based (Bowen 1968). Wooten and Holler (1999) conducted genetic analyses, 

using microsatellite data to look at the historic relationship of the two known populations of 

St. Andrew beach mouse (St. Joseph Peninsula State Park and Crooked Island) and the 

population of Choctawhatchee beach mouse (P. p allophyrs) found on Shell Island in Bay 

County. Their results indicated a rather complex genetic relationship between these 

populations. When comparing the alleles of the three populations they found the St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park population’s alleles were unique and its allele frequencies are 

substantially different from that of the Choctawhatchee beach mouse population on Shell 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Description & Taxonomy 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

3

Island. They found, however, that all the alleles of the St. Andrew beach mouse population 

on Crooked Island were found in both of the other two populations. Furthermore, they found 

two of the alleles were “uniquely shared” with either the St. Andrew beach mouse population 

on St. Joseph Peninsula State Park or the Choctawhatchee beach mouse population on Shell 

Island. These results revealed that beach mice inhabiting Crooked Island East historically 

may have had some genetic exchange with beach mice inhabiting Shell Island 

(Choctawhatchee beach mice). However, the analyses did not suggest that beach mice 

inhabiting Crooked Island East should not be classified as St. Andrew beach mice. Recent 

genetic research, based on DNA sequencing, (Van Zant 2006) suggests that Crooked Island 

East was historically inhabited by Choctawhatchee beach mice, contradicting the accepted 

historic ranges of the subspecies. These findings have yet to be peer reviewed. 

C. Population Trends and Distribution 

The St. Andrew beach mouse is the eastern most beach mouse subspecies occurring along the 

northern Gulf coast (James 1992). Based on historic collection records from St. Andrew 

Point, Cape San Blas, St. Joseph Spit, locations near the town of Port St. Joe and near Money 

Bayou, Bowen (1968) constructed the currently accepted historic range for the St. Andrew 

beach mouse. Its range is defined as extending from the East Pass of St. Andrew Bay 

(Crooked Island) in Bay County, Florida, southward along the mainland coastline adjacent to 

St. Joseph Bay, to St. Joseph Peninsula and east to Money Bayou along the Gulf of Mexico 

in Gulf County, Florida (Bowen 1968, James 1992) (Figure 1). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Trends & Distribution 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

4

Figure 1. Historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis). General 

range is depicted in shaded area. Shoreline data depicted in the map is based on 1993 data. 

Prior to the 1980s, there were two known populations of St. Andrew beach mice. One 

population was found on St. Joseph Peninsula, which included St. Joseph Peninsula State 

Park, and the other was located on the eastern portion of Crooked Island (Moyers et al.

1999). In 1975, Hurricane Eloise fragmented Cooked Island into two separate land bodies, 

forming eastern and western segments now known as East Crooked Island and West Crooked 

Island, respectively (James 1987, Moyers et al. 1999). Trapping efforts conducted by 

Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in 1985 and 1986 on West Crooked Island failed to capture 

any mice (Gore, in litt., 1987). Moyers et al. (1999) reported that no St. Andrew beach 

mouse tracks had been found on West Crooked Island as recently as 1998 (Figure 2). During 

the mid to late 1980s, trapping and track survey efforts conducted on East Crooked Island 

showed mice were still present on the eastern segment of the island (Gore, in litt., 1987, 

1990; James 1987; Figure 2). By 1992-1993, trapping efforts were unsuccessful in 

producing captures of St. Andrew beach mice on East Crooked Island and the population 

was, therefore, thought to be extirpated (Gore, in litt., 1994; Alabama Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, in litt., 1997). Due to the apparent extirpation of the Crooked Island 

population, leaving only one known population of St. Andrew beach mice at St. Joseph 

Peninsula, concern for the subspecies’ conservation grew. The Service gave high priority to 

the reestablishment of a second population on East Crooked Island (Moyers et al. 1999). 

Plans to reintroduce St. Andrew beach mice, using individuals from the St. Joseph Peninsula 

State Park population, were initiated in 1994 (Moyers et al. 1996; Figure 2). Reintroduction 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Trends & Distribution 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

5

of 43 individuals from St. Joseph Peninsula State Park took place in November 1997 (16 

individuals) and January 1998 (27 individuals), and December 1998 (4 individuals). 

Subsequent monitoring efforts to assess the effectiveness of the reintroduction resulted in the 

capture of 38 individuals in February 1998 and 34 individuals in May 1998 (Moyers et al.

1999). Trapping efforts in 2000 and 2002 resulted in the capture of 132 individuals and 41 

individuals, respectively (Lynn, unpub. data 2000a; Lynn, in litt., 2002). Furthermore, in 

April 2001, 55 St. Andrew beach mice were captured on private lands south of Tyndall AFB 

property (Moyers and Shea, in litt., 2002). Recent work by the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC) have found St. Andrew beach mice on the Tyndall AFB 

property of East Crooked Island (Slaby, in litt., 2005). Surveys conducted on East Crooked 

Island between May 2005 and January 2007 found beach mice were present on Tyndall AFB 

property and also on adjacent private lands southeast of Tyndall AFB property (Loggins et 

al., in litt., 2007). Loggins et al. (in litt., 2007) estimated an average of 59.5 +/- 4% of East 

Crooked Island was occupied by St. Andrew beach mice. These results seem to indicate that 

St. Andrew beach mice have become reestablished on East Crooked Island. 

Figure 2. Reference location map within the range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Trends & Distribution 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

6

Trapping and track surveys were also conducted on St. Joseph Peninsula from the mid 1980s 

through the early 2000s. These efforts showed a continued presence of St. Andrew beach 

mice on St. Joseph Peninsula State Park (James 1987; Gore, in litt., 1990, 1995; Bates 1992; 

Moyers et al. 1996, 1999; Loggins et al., in litt., 2007). South of the Park and at Cape San 

Blas, Gore (in litt., 1990) was unable to capture any St. Andrew beach mice during his 

trapping effort in 1989. In 1992 and 1993, St. Andrew beach mice were captured south of 

the Park and north of Cape San Blas (Gore, in litt., 1994). Trapping in 1996, at Rish Park 

and neighboring private parcels, showed a continued presence of St. Andrew beach mice 

south of the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park, (Holler, in litt., 1996; Loggins et al., in litt., 

2007; Figure 2). In November 2004, track surveys south of the Park showed a presence of 

beach mice from the Park boundary south to approximately the “stump hole” (the area on the 

Peninsula, just north of Cape San Blas, where the peninsula constricts (Figure 3)) vehicle 

access point at the reinforced rock portion of Highway 30E (J. Gore, FWC, pers. comm., 

2005). Surveys conducted again between 2005 and 2007 south of the Park showed a 

presence of mice (Loggins et al., in litt., 2007). Tracking surveys in 2005 by the FWC 

showed that mice were present at St. Joseph Peninsula State Park (Slaby, in litt. 2005). 

Surveys conducted between May 2005 and April 2006 within the State Park showed the 

continued presence of beach mice (Loggins et al., in litt., 2007). Loggins et al. (in litt., 2007) 

estimated an average of 61.0 +/- 9% of St. Joseph Peninsula State Park was occupied by St. 

Andrew beach mice. 

Figure 3. “Stump hole” area north of Cape San Blas. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Trends & Distribution 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

7

Track and/or trapping surveys were conducted outside areas supporting the two known 

populations of St. Andrew beach mice. None of these other survey efforts were successful in 

identifying mouse activity or capturing St. Andrew beach mice (James 1987, between 

Tyndall AFB and St. Joseph Peninsula State Park in 1987; Gore, in litt., 1990, east of Mexico 

Beach in 1988; Gore, in litt., 1994, at Money Bayou in 1989, and again east of Mexico Beach 

in 1990 and 1992; Lamont et al. 1997, at Cape San Blas, Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in 

1994; Moyers and Shea, in litt., 2002, at St. Joe Beach and at Dixie Bell Curve, Gulf County 

in 2001; and J. Gore, pers. comm., 2005, from Money Bayou area to Cape San Blas area, 

Eglin AFB in November 2003; Loggins et al., in litt., 2007, at Cape San Blas, Eglin AFB in 

May 2006; Figure 2). 

Over time, the eastern end of Shell Island has slowly expanded southward, due to accretion 

of sand. This resulted in the complete connection of West Crooked Island and Shell Island at 

East Pass in 1998 (Lynn in litt., 2004). This land bridge provided the opportunity for 

Choctawhatchee beach mice inhabiting Shell Island to expand their range into the 

unoccupied northern-most historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse on West Crooked 

Island (Moyers et al. 1999). Subsequently, tracks, possibly from beach mice, were seen on 

the east side of the closed pass (J. Gore and G. Wallace, FWC, pers. comm., 2000; Lynn in 

litt., 2004; J. Mobley, Tyndall Air Force Base, pers. comm., 2000; L. Patrick, FWS, pers. 

comm., 2000). The presence of Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island was 

confirmed by trapping in 2000 and continued to persist on West Crooked Island based on 

trapping in 2002 ,2003 and 2007(Lynn, in litt., 2004). Recent trapping and tracking tube 

work (Loggins et al. 2008) confirms the presence of SABM in 2008. 

D. Life History/Ecology 

 

Basic life history and ecology information for the St. Andrew beach mouse is limited. Where 

possible, we used published information specifically on the St. Andrew beach mouse; where 

this is not possible, information was taken from the published literature for other Gulf Coast 

beach mouse subspecies. 

Reproduction. Studies suggest that P. polionotus are generally monogamous (Foltz 1981, 

Lynn 2000b), apparently forming pair bonds for life (Blair 1951). It appears, however, that 

some paired males may also mate with unpaired females (S. Sneckenberger, FWS, pers. 

comm., 2005). Breeding activity is greatest during the fall and winter months (Blair 1951, 

Rave and Holler 1992). 

Female P. polionotus can become sexually mature as early as around 30 days old (Clark 

1938). Gestation ranges from 23 to 24 days or 25 to 31 days for lactating females (Whitaker 

and Hamilton 1998). Litters average 3-4 in size, but can range from one to five individuals, 

with litter size tending to be positively correlated to female size (Caldwell and Gentry 

1965a). Over a lifetime, under laboratory conditions, a female beach mouse can produce 80 

young or more (Bowen 1968). 

Longevity. Rave and Holler (1992) found, of the mice they trapped, 63% of the mice lived 4 

months or less, 37% lived 5 months or longer, and 21 individual mice lived 12-20 months 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Life History/Ecology 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

8

beyond first capture. There is no significant difference in survival rates between males and 

females. However, mice that disperse from their natal grounds persisted significantly longer 

(males: 138 ± 19 days; females: 125 ± 18 days) than mice that remain in their natal grounds 

(males: 96 ± 10 days; females: 92 ± 8 days) (Swilling 2000). 

 

Population dynamics. Demographic data from beach mouse populations in Alabama suggest 

a 10-year cycle of fluctuation (Appendix C) (Auburn University, Unpublished data; Swilling 

et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). The physical and biological cues influencing the 

population fluctuations are not known. Rainfall patterns and trends in food resource 

availability may be involved as they have widespread effects on beach mouse populations. 

Food resource levels affect survival, reproduction and rainfall patterns, which determine 

water table levels and the flooding and drying of wetlands, influence the amount of habitat 

available to beach mice. 

Movements. P. polionotus exhibit a typical nocturnal behavior (Wolf and Esher 1978). 

Beach mice are most active during stormy, rainy, and dark nights, while their activity levels 

decreased during periods of increasing moonlight (Blair 1951). Under periods of the full 

moon, P. polionotus surface activity decreased by around 70%. Furthermore, under a threequarter moon, half moon, and quarter moon, surface activity levels decreased by 56%, 32%, 

and 23%, respectively (Wolfe and Summerlin 1989). 

Swilling and Wooten (2002) looked at the dispersal distance of subadult Alabama beach 

mice (P. p. ammobates). They found the average dispersal distance was 525.6 +/- 853.0 feet 

(ft) (160.2 +/- 260.0 meters (m)). The average dispersal distance of Santa Rosa beach mice 

was 1415 +/- 89 ft (431.3 +/- 27 m), with a minimum distance of 980 ft (299 m) and a 

maximum distance of 1970 ft (600 m) observed (Blair 1951).

Home range. Beach mice appear to inhabit a single home range during their lifetime (Blair 

1951). The sizes of home ranges reported by others varied among species/subspecies and 

technique used to determine home range size. The mean home range size of Santa Rosa 

beach mice ranged from 1.97 +/- 0.26 acres (ac) (0.80 +/- 0.11 hectares (ha)) to 10.66 +/- 

1.46 ac (4.31 +/- 0.59 ha) (Blair 1951). Blair found that home range size was significantly 

larger during the spring than during the fall in both beach-dune habitat and open areas (4.28 

+/- 1.67 ac (1.73 +/- 0.68 ha)). Based on trapping data, Swilling and Wooten (2002) found 

that the mean home range size of Alabama beach mice was 0.89 ac (0.36 ha). Lynn (2000b) 

also used trapping data to determine the mean home range size of Alabama beach mice. He 

found the mean home range size of males was 1.01 +/- 0.16 ac (0.41 +/- 0.06 ha) and for 

females, 1.36 +/- 0.19 ac (0.55 +/- 0.08 ha). Looking at home range sizes based on trapping 

data, Novak (1997) found the mean home range size of Choctawhatchee beach mice was 0.78 

+/- 0.93 ac (0.32 +/- 0.38 ha). Radio telemetry has also been used for calculating home range 

size of Peromyscus. The results have been found to be comparable to that of live trapping 

(Wolff 1985). Therefore, Lynn (2000b) also calculated home range size using radio 

telemetry. His results showed the mean home range size for males was 1.68 +/- 0.27 ac (0.68 

+/- 0.11 ha) and for females, 1.73 +/- 0.39 ac (0.70 +/- 0.16 ha) 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Life History/Ecology 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

9

Females, on average, were less concentrated (individuals/home-range area) than males. 

Males were most concentrated in May (4.24 resident males/home-range area) and least 

concentrated during November (1.92 resident males/home-range area). Females were most 

concentrated in late December (2.56 individuals/home-range area) and least concentrated 

during early November (1.36 individuals/home-range area) (Blair 1951). 

Burrows. Beach mice usually maintain a few burrows (S. Sneckenberger, FWS, pers comm. 

2006), often located near the base of a shrub, grass clump or other type of vegetative cover, 

within their home range (Blair 1951). When constructing a burrow, beach mice appear to 

select sites with lower soil compaction, steeper dune slopes, greater vegetative cover, more 

stable daily soil temperatures, higher soil moisture content, and greater height above sea level 

(Lynn 2000b, Sneckenberger 2001). Ehrhart (1978) found the burrows of the Pallid beach 

mouse (P. p. decoloratus) were made up of three main parts: “1) the entrance tunnel, usually 

descending obliquely for some distance and then continuing straight into the bank, 2) a nest 

chamber, formed at the end of the level portion of the entrance tunnel at a depth of 0.6 to 0.9 

m. (2-3 ft.), and 3) an ‘escape tunnel,’ which rises steeply from the nest chamber to within 

about 2.5 centimeters (cm.) (1 in.) of the surface.”

Food Habits. The frontal dunes provide a more diverse food resource for the beach mouse 

than does the scrub habitat, although the food is cyclic in its availability. Scrub dunes 

provide a more stable, but less diverse, food source and are believed to provide a food source 

for times when food resources in the frontal dune systems are low (Sneckenberger 2001). 

Sneckenberger (2001) found no significant difference in the calorie, protein, or fat content of 

the food plants in each habitat. Diets are driven by the availability of food within the habitat 

and food item shifts both seasonally and yearly (Moyers 1996). 

No diet studies have been conducted on St. Andrew beach mice specifically; however, 

studies have been conducted on other beach mice subspecies along the northern Gulf Coast 

(Blair 1951, Ehrhart 1978, Holler 1992, Moyers 1996). Moyers (1996) found that the diets 

of Perdido Key beach mouse (P. p. trissyllepsis), Alabama beach mouse, and Santa Rosa 

beach mouse were similar (Moyers 1996). 

Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and sea oats (Uniola paniculata) were most frequently 

visited (Blair 1951); however, Moyer (1996) found beach mice showed no preference to any 

food item, instead their selection of food items appeared to be based on availability. The 

seeds of sea oats and bluestem and the fruits of dune spurge (Chamaesyce bombensis), 

ground cherry (Physalis angustifolia), and evening primrose (Oenothera humifusa) are 

utilized in autumn, while sea rocket (Cakile lanceolata), dune toadflax (Linaria floridana), 

and evening primrose make up the spring diet (Moyers 1996). Furthermore, insects, 

primarily Coleoptera beetles (Holler 1992), fire ants (Solinopsis invicta) and harvester ants 

(Pogonomyrmex badius) (Moyers 1996) have been found to make up a part of the beach 

mouse diet (Ehrhart 1978, Moyers 1996). 

E. Habitat Characteristics/Ecosystem 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Habitat Characteristics 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

10

The coastal dune ecosystem is comprised of a series of dunes and intervening areas referred 

to as frontal dunes (comprised of the primary and secondary dunes), inter and intra-dunal 

swales, and scrub dunes (Figure 4). The frontal dunes are closest to the shoreline. They are 

the most recently formed dunes, and are highly dynamic. Beach mice inhabit the complex of 

coastal dune systems composed of frontal dunes and adjacent inland scrub dunes (Blair 1951, 

Bowen 1968, Holliman 1983, Holler 1992, James 1992, Moyers et al. 1996, Sneckenberger 

2001). 

Figure 4. Generalized dune system profile for the Gulf Coast. 

The final listing rule provides a detailed description of the dune habitat in which this 

subspecies occurs (63 FR 70053): 

“The foreslope of primary dunes grades into the developing frontal dunes on the open 

beach. Frontal dunes on the Gulf Coast are sparsely vegetated, usually by sea oats 

(Uniola paniculata), bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum), beach grass (Panicum 

amarum), and sea rocket (Cakile constricta). Primary dunes also support stands of 

these species and include other broad-leaved plants such as seaside pennywort 

(Hydrocotyle bonariensis), seashore elder (Iva imbricata), and beach morning glory 

(Ipomea stolonifera) (Clewell 1985). Secondary dunes consist of one or more dune 

lines landward of the primary dune with a similar, though denser, vegetative cover. 

Interdunal swales are wet or dry depressions between primary and secondary dunes, 

while intradunal swales occur within primary dunes as a result of wave action, storm 

surges, and wind erosion. Wet swales are those whose water table is at or near the 

surface. Swale vegetation includes plants found on primary and secondary dunes as 

well as salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), rushes (Juncus sp.), sedges 

(Cyperus sp.), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Scrub dunes are the oldest of the 

dune habitat types and are dominated by woody plants including saw palmetto 

(Serenoa repens), myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia), sand live oak (Q. geminata), sand 

pine (Pinus clausa), slash pine (P. elliottii), seaside rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides), 

greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and bush goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa). Reindeer 

moss (Cladonia leporina) often covers otherwise bare dune surfaces. Some primary 

and secondary dune vegetation is also present but at reduced densities (Blair 1951, 

Gibson and Looney 1992). Size and density of understory and overstory vegetation 

may vary.” 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Habitat Characteristics 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

11

The primary and secondary dunes were considered optimal beach mice habitat since it is 

there that the mice were thought to generally reach their highest densities (Blair 1951, 

Meyers 1983, Holler 1992). Because the scrub dunes appeared to support lower densities of 

beach mice, this habitat was believed to be of lower quality (Blair 1951, Bowen 1968). As a 

result, the scrub dunes were not considered to be of great importance to beach mice (Swilling 

2000) and little attention was paid to this habitat (Sneckenberger 2001). More recent 

research has illustrated that beach mice use interior scrub habitat on a permanent basis, and 

that this habitat has an invaluable role in the persistence of beach mouse populations after 

storm events (Swilling et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Recent studies have also shown no 

significant difference between the two habitat types in availability of food resources or 

burrow sites, beach mouse body mass, survival rate, reproductive rate, and home range size 

(Swilling 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). 

The habitat in which the two known/primary populations of St. Andrew beach mice occur 

differ primarily in the dune structure. In St. Joseph Peninsula State Park the mice inhabit 

“well-developed high front dunes,” where sea oats are the dominant plant cover and the 

higher secondary dunes are vegetated by sea oats and rosemary (James 1992; Figure 5). The 

high primary dunes, in which mice were found, were made up of a matrix of open sand and 

herbaceous cover (James 1987). On Crooked Island, the mice inhabit the low frontal dunes 

and even lower secondary dunes that are vegetated by bunch grass (Andropogon) and beach 

grass (Panicum) (James 1992; Figure 6). 

Figure 5. Dune habitat at St. Joseph Peninsula State Park. Photo by Paul A. Lang/FWS 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Habitat Characteristics 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

12

Figure 6. Dune habitat on East Crooked Island. Photo by Paul A. Lang/FWS 

Loggins et al. (2008) conducted surveys of beach mice habitat (primary, secondary and scrub 

dune habitats) along the St. Joseph Peninsula, at Eglin AFB’s Cape San Blas property, and 

across East Crooked Island between May 2005 and January 2007. They described the habitat 

at each of the sites surveyed as follows: East Crooked Island, the habitat was “generally of 

good quality”; Cape San Blas, the habitat was “narrow and generally of poor quality”; St 

Joseph Peninsula south of the State Park, the habitat was “highly fragmented and of varying 

quality”; St. Joseph Peninsula State Park, the habitat quality was not noted; however, mice 

were detected in all habitats surveyed, likely indicating higher quality habitat. Ideal habitat is 

best described as an undisturbed, intact and functioning system of unconsolidated marine 

substrate, beach sand, primary natural sand dunes, secondary and scrub dunes. 

F. Critical Habitat 

 

Critical habitat was designated for the St. Andrew beach mouse on October 12, 2006 (71 FR 

60238). Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the 

species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the 

species, we have determined that the critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCE) for 

Gulf Coast beach mice include: 

1. A contiguous mosaic of primary, secondary and scrub vegetation and dune 

structure, with a balanced level of competition and predation and few or no 

competitive or predaceous nonnative species present, that collectively provide 

foraging opportunities, cover, and burrow sites. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

13

2. Primary and secondary dunes, generally dominated by sea oats that despite 

occasional temporary impacts and reconfiguration from tropical storms and 

hurricanes provide abundant food resources, burrow sites, and protection from 

predators. 

 

3. Scrub dunes, generally dominated by scrub oaks, that provide food resources and 

burrow sites, and provide elevated refugia during and after intense flooding due to 

rainfall and/or hurricane induced storm surge. 

 

4. Functional, unobstructed habitat connections that facilitate genetic exchange, 

dispersal, natural exploratory movements, and recolonization of locally extirpated 

areas. 

5. A natural light regime within the coastal dune ecosystem, compatible with the 

nocturnal activity of beach mice, necessary for normal behavior, growth and 

viability of all life stages. 

We have designated critical habitat on lands that have been determined to be essential to the 

conservation of St. Andrew beach mice. An area is considered essential if it possesses one or 

more of the primary constituent elements and one of the following characteristics: (1) 

supports a core population of beach mice; (2) was occupied by St. Andrew beach mice at the 

time of listing; or (3) is currently occupied by the beach mouse and is an area essential to the 

conservation of the species because it represents an existing population needed for 

conservation. 

Three units were designated for the St. Andrew beach mouse: East Crooked Island Unit 

(SABM-1) in Bay County, Palm Point Unit (SABM-2) in Gulf County, and St. Joseph 

Peninsula Unit (SABM-3) in Gulf County (Figure 6). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

14

SABM-3

St. Joseph Peninsula Unit

SABM-1

East Crooked Island Unit

SABM-2

Palm Point Unit

ST JOSEPH BAY

St. Andrew Sound

GULF CO

BAY CO

GULF OF MEXICO

-

048 2 Miles

048 2 Km

FLORIDA

Critical Habitat

Figure 6. Critical habitat units for the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

The three units total 2,490 acres (1,008 ha) found on Federal, State and Local or Private land 

within Bay and Gulf counties (Table 1). 

Table 1. Critical habitat units designated for the St. Andrew beach mouse 

St. Andrew Beach Mouse 

Critical Habitat Units 

Federal 

Acres 

State 

Acres 

Local and 

Private 

Acres 

Total 

Acres 

1. East Crooked Island Unit 649 0 177 826 

2. Palm Point Unit 0 0 162 162

3. St. Joseph Peninsula Unit 0 1280 222 1502

Total 649 1280 561 2490

The East Crooked Island Unit (SABM–1) consists of 826 acres in Bay County, Florida. This 

unit encompasses essential features of beach mouse habitat on East Crooked Island from the 

entrance of St. Andrew Sound to 1 mi (1.6 km) west of Mexico Beach, and the area from the 

MHWL (mean high water line) to the seaward extent of the maritime forest (not including 

Raffield Peninsula). Beach mouse habitat in this unit consists of primary, secondary, and 

scrub dune habitat and possesses all five PCEs. St. Andrew beach mice were known to 

inhabit the unit in 1986 and 1989 (James 1992), though the population was presumably 

extirpated after 1989 due to impacts from hurricanes. The East Crooked Island population 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

15

was reestablished with donors from St. Joseph State Park in 1997. This unit was occupied at 

the time of listing. Recent live-trapping confirms present occupation of mice (Moyers and 

Shea 2002, Service 2002b, Loggins et al. 2008). This unit maintains connectivity along the 

island and this unit is essential to provide a donor population following storm events. 

The majority of this unit is federally owned (Tyndall AFB), while the remaining habitat is 

privately owned. Threats specific to this unit that may require special management 

considerations include artificial lighting, presence of feral cats as well as other predators at 

unnatural levels, and high recreational and military use that may result in soil compaction, 

damage to dunes, or other decrease in habitat quality. 

The Palm Point Unit (SABM–2) consists of 162 acres of private lands in Gulf County, 

Florida. This unit encompasses habitat from Palm Point 1.25 mi (2.0 km) northwest of the 

inlet of the Gulf County Canal to the southeastern boundary of St. Joe Beach and the area 

from the MHWL to the seaward extent of the maritime forest. We consider beach mice to 

have been present in this unit at the time of listing, because St. Andrew beach mice were 

documented in the area by Bowen (1968). Since St. Andrew beach mouse habitat is limited 

to only two other areas, protecting this mainland site located within the species’ historic 

range is needed for the subspecies’ long-term persistence. As other viable opportunities are 

limited or nonexistent, this unit is essential to reduce the threats of stochastic events to this 

subspecies. Furthermore, as this unit is on the mainland, it is somewhat buffered from the 

effects of storm events. This area provides frontal and scrub dune habitat (PCEs 2 and 3), 

but may provide limited connectivity between habitats. Threats specific to this unit that may 

require special management considerations include habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, 

artificial lighting, presence of feral cats as well as other predators at unnatural levels, and 

high residential use that may result in soil compaction, damage to dunes, or other decrease in 

habitat quality. 

The St. Joseph Peninsula Unit (SABM–3) consists of 1,502 acres in Gulf County, Florida. 

This unit encompasses essential features of beach mouse habitat within the boundary of St. 

Joseph Peninsula State Park (Park) as well as south of the Park to the peninsula’s constriction 

north of Cape San Blas (also known as the “stumphole” region) and area from the MHWL to 

the seaward extent of the maritime forest. Beach mouse habitat in this unit consists of 

primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat, and provides a relatively contiguous expanse of 

habitat within the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. This unit possesses all five 

PCEs and was occupied at the time of listing. St. Andrew beach mice were known to inhabit 

this unit in 1986 and 1987 (James 1992), 1989, 1992, 1993, and 1994 (Gore 1994). In 

addition, recent tracking efforts suggest that mice continue to occupy private lands south of 

the Park. The Park alone does not provide sufficient habitat to allow for population 

expansion along the peninsula, which may be necessary for a population anchored by the tip 

of a historically dynamic peninsula. A continuous presence of beach mice along the 

peninsula is the species’ best defense against local and complete extinctions due to storm 

events. The population of St. Andrew beach mice inhabiting this unit appears to possess 

unique genetic variation and displays greater than expected genetic divergence from other 

populations (Wooten and Holler 1999). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

16

Portions of this unit are managed by the Florida Park Service, while the remaining area is 

privately owned. Threats specific to this unit that may require special management 

considerations include artificial lighting, habitat fragmentation and habitat loss, presence of 

feral cats as well as other predators at unnatural levels, and high recreational use that may 

result in soil compaction, damage to dunes, or other decreases in habitat quality. The 

population inhabiting this unit may also be particularly susceptible to hurricanes due to its 

placement within St. Joseph Bay (the peninsula is a thin barrier peninsula with a north–south 

orientation). 

G. Reasons for Listing/Threats 

Section 4(a) of the ESA set forth legislation for the listing of species that are determined to 

be either threatened or endangered with extinction. Threats to the species are identified at the 

time of listing by five general factors (referred to as “listing factors”). In order to create 

continuity between the final listing rule and the recovery plan, the threats that were identified 

at the time of listing are addressed below. Furthermore, changes to these threats are noted 

and any new threats are presented. 

The primary threats to St. Andrew beach mice were noted as “severe storms, coastal land 

development and its associated activities, and non-storm related, natural shoreline erosion” 

(63 FR 70053). These continue to threaten the St. Andrew beach mice; however, additional 

threats have been identified. The known threats facing this subspecies are presented below. 

Listing Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range

Land Development. Development continues to occur along the coastline of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Land development tends to destroy the secondary and scrub dunes (63 FR 70053). 

Typically, hurricanes wash away the primary dunes, leaving vast areas of open sand, where 

dunes once existed, and islands of secondary dunes surrounded by water. Beach mice appear 

to take refuge on these “islands” and within the scrub dunes (Swilling et al. 1998). It is from 

these dunes that the beach mice appear to repopulate the frontal dunes as they recover from a 

storm’s impact (Swilling et al. 1998, Sneckenberger 2001). When development destroys or 

degrades these dune systems, beach mice are not able to find refuge from the storm’s impact 

within these dune systems. Furthermore, land development can segregate the population into 

small groups isolating them from one another (Meyers 1983). Overall these could result in a 

greater likelihood that the population may be extirpated or reduced in numbers to a point that 

they may not be able to recover (63 FR 70053). 

Military Exercises on East Crooked Island. In 1987, James (1987) noted that military 

exercises conducted on Tyndall AFB’s lands on East Crooked Island were severely 

impacting the dune systems. These military exercises, noted at the time of listing, have 

ceased. Measures are in place to address other proposed military missions on East Crooked 

Island (see Conservation Measures). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

17

Dune Encroachment. Dune encroachment by vehicles and pedestrians, in the form of driving 

on or walking over dunes, was identified as a threat to the St. Andrew beach mouse (63 FR 

70053). These activities result in the destruction and/or degradation of the dune habitat, 

killing vegetation, and compaction of the soil (Figure 7). This leads to the potential for 

blowouts in the dunes from wave and wind action at these points (Kimball in litt., 1996). 

The degree or severity to which this occurs is dependent upon the type of activity and the 

inherent susceptibility of the system (Leatherman 1979). 

Figure 7. Dune walkover by pedestrians showing impact to dune vegetation and dune structure. Photo 

by Paul A. Lang/FWS 

Dune encroachment by vehicles and pedestrians still poses a threat; however, it is believed to 

be less now than at the time of listing (L. Patrick, pers. comm., 2005). This is due, in part, to 

management actions that have been conducted on public lands and beach driving regulations 

established on the St. Joseph Peninsula. Management actions like boardwalks (Figure 8), 

fencing (Figure 9), signage (Figure 10), etc., have been put in place on public beaches to 

protect the dunes from dune encroachment (J. Mobley, pers. comm., 2005; H. Mitchell, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), pers. comm., 2005; L. Patrick, 

pers. comm., 2005). For more details on specific management actions related to dune 

encroachment, see Conservation Measures. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

18

Figure 8. Boardwalk access to the beach (East Crooked Island, Tyndall AFB property). 

Photo by Paul A. Lang/FWS 

Figure 9. Fencing to control and channel pedestrians through the dunes (St. Joseph Penninsula State 

Park). Photo by Paul A. Lang/FWS 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

19

Figure 10. Signage to manage pedestrian walking in the dunes (St. Joseph Penninsula State Park). Photo 

by Paul A. Lang/FWS 

Natural Shoreline Erosion. Throughout the range of the St. Andrew beach mouse, non-storm 

related shoreline erosion and accretion is seen to some degree along parts of East Crooked 

Island (J. Gore, pers. comm., 2005), but is greatest from Cape San Blas to St. Joseph State 

Park (Foster and Cheng 2001). Approximately 485,000 cubic yards (370,809 m3) per year of 

beach erodes annually along St. Joseph Peninsula and is re-deposited either at the tip of the 

Peninsula or at Cape San Blas. This is one of the highest rates within the State of Florida 

(Coastal Tech and Preble-Rish, Inc. 1998). Although shoreline erosion destroys habitat, it is 

considered a natural event in which the species that inhabit coastal systems have adapted. 

When combined with loss of habitat, mainly due to land development, this natural threat is 

exacerbated. The beach mice would naturally move further inland as the effects of erosion 

are seen in the frontal dune systems. When development destroys this inland habitat, the 

mice do not have anywhere to move (J. Gore, pers. comm., 2005). 

The combination of impacts to beach mouse habitat can result in the reduction, 

fragmentation, and isolation of beach mouse populations. This prevents movement of 

individuals between habitat blocks, ultimately resulting in a reduction or lack of gene flow. 

This lack of gene flow can result in a reduction of the fitness of the population. Furthermore, 

fragmentation breaks up the population into small groups further isolating them and 

potentially making them more susceptible to extinction due to catastrophic events or the 

combination of cumulative threats (63 FR 70053). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

20

Artificial Lighting. The effects of artificial lighting are well documented for sea turtles 

(Witherington and Martin 2003); however, the effects of artificial lighting within the habitat 

of the beach mouse have not been extensively studied. Natural illumination of the dune 

systems due to moon phases is known to have a direct effect on beach mouse activity. As 

natural illumination increases beach mice activity levels decrease (Blair 1951, Wolfe and 

Summerlin 1989). Bird et al. (2004) found that beach mice foraging behavior was altered as 

a result of artificial light. They found mice behavior was altered in two ways: 1) reduction 

in use of patches around illuminated areas, and 2) reduction in seed harvest. They also 

suggested that artificial lights may cause habitat fragmentation due to altered movement 

patterns. 

Feral Hogs. As feral hog (Sus scrofa) populations continue to grow, more evidence of their 

destructive activities within the dune systems are being seen on some of the areas in which 

beach mice occur (J. Mobley, pers. comm., 2005). Feral hogs may pose a potential threat to 

beach mice, as they are not native to coastal areas, destroy to the habitat as they root-up large 

areas while foraging. However, little is known at this time as to the degree of the potential 

threat (J. Gore, pers. comm., 2005). 

Listing Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes

At the time of listing, this factor was not known to be applicable to the decline of the St. 

Andrew beach mouse. At the time of the writing of this recovery plan, this factor does not 

pose a threat to the beach mouse. 

Listing Factor C. Disease or predation

Disease and parasites are not known to present a threat to the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

However, non-native predators, primarily feral cats, do pose a threat to beach mice (Bowen 

1968; Humphrey and Barbour 1981; Gore, in litt., 1990; Moyers et al. 1996; Taylor et al.

2005). This threat in conjunction with other threats may result in “significant adverse 

impacts” to the St. Andrew beach mouse (63 FR 70053). 

Feral/Cat Colonies/Free Roaming Domestic Cats. Bowen (1968) reported that feral cats 

were becoming such a problem that they discontinued trapping wherever they found cat 

tracks. In fact, they were unable to find any mice tracks or holes over a 2-mi (3.2-km) stretch 

that corresponded with a 1-mi (1.6-km) stretch of beach abundant with cat tracks. This was 

not an isolated incident; the results of data collected by Humphrey and Barbour (1981) 

supported this growing concern. In 2002, Van Zant and Wooten (2003) tracked a house cat 

for two days that consumed a beach mouse fitted with a radio collar. This added credence to 

the notion that feral cats preyed on beach mice. Gore (in litt., 1994) lists the introduction of 

house cats, in addition to habitat loss, as one of the “most serious threats to beach mice 

populations.” When the effects of predation by domestic house cats on the Alabama beach 

mouse were modeled, the results showed a tremendous impact on the population. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

21

Other Non-native Predators. Other non-native predators, such as red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) 

and coyotes (Canis latrans), are thought to be potential predators of beach mice (Meyers 

1983, Van Zant and Wooten 2003). Their tracks have been seen within dune systems where 

St. Andrew beach mice are known to occur (Bates 1992). Non-natives move into natural 

systems for many reasons; vacuums created by the absence of native predators, non-natives 

out-compete natives and/or drive them off, high numbers of non-natives enter an area as a 

result of nearby development, etc. Both coyote and red fox are known to predate sea turtles 

and shorebird nests (Leland 1997, Daniel 2002, Northwest Florida Partnership 2002). 

However, the degree to which they pose a threat to the St. Andrew beach mouse is unknown. 

The concern is that these non-native predators are not part of the natural system in which 

beach mice existed; they have moved into these areas relatively recently and, therefore, pose 

a potentially additive threat to the subspecies (63 FR 70053). 

 

Listing Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Currently there are both state and/or local level regulatory mechanisms (laws, ordinances, 

policies, directives, etc.) in place related to many of the threats identified for the St. Andrew 

beach mouse. These regulations were developed for the general protection of the 

environment or for the common good of the people. They were not designed specifically 

with beach mice in mind. Therefore, many of them are inadequate in their current state to 

remove threats facing the St. Andrew beach mouse. While the intent of these mechanisms is 

good, there are various reasons why many of them may be inadequate: 1) The language may 

not be protective enough for the conservation of the beach mouse (e.g., land development); 

2) They may not be fully implemented or enforced due to limitations in staffing or expertise 

and or public unpopularity, or 3) They may not be effective in their primary intent. 

Beach Driving. One of the threats listed under Factor D at the time of listing was lack of 

enforcement of regulations restricting people from driving vehicles within the dunes on Eglin 

AFB’s property at Cape San Blas. Beach driving can compact the sand, exacerbate erosion 

of dunes, and result in lost and/or degraded habitat quality. The limited ability to keep 

people from driving within the dunes was attributed to the lack of enforcement personnel and 

the difficulty of enforcement due to the distance from the main base (63 FR 70053). In 2003, 

Ordinance 2003-7, an amendment to Gulf County Ordinance 97-02 (Gulf County Board of 

Commissioners 2003), established the enforcement of their beach driving ordinance on Eglin 

AFB land at Cape San Blas by Gulf County. In addition to enforcement responsibility being 

provided by Gulf County, lack of enforcement is not believed to be a threat, because St. 

Andrew beach mice are not currently known to inhabit Cape San Blas (Eglin Air Force Base 

2002) and have not been found there during surveys (Lamont et al. 1997; J. Gore, pers. 

comm., 2005). It is doubtful that the limited enforcement of dune driving was a factor in the 

disappearance of St. Andrew beach mice from Eglin AFB property at Cape San Blas (Gore, 

pers. comm., 2006). However, if reestablishment of St. Andrew beach mice on Eglin AFB 

property at Cape San Blas were to occur in the future, the enforcement of beach/dune driving 

restrictions within the dune systems would need to be reassessed to determine if beach 

driving would pose a threat to the mice. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

22

Coastal Barrier Resources Act. In recognizing the importance of coastal barrier islands along 

the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 

1982 and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) in 1991. The purpose of CBRA is “...to 

minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and the damage to 

fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with the coastal barriers along the 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts by restricting future Federal expenditures and financial assistance 

which have the effect of encouraging development of coastal barriers, by establishing a 

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), and by considering the means and measures by 

which the long-term conservation of these fish, wildlife, and other natural resources may be 

achieved” (Coastal Barrier Resources Act 1982). Congress established CBRS units for 

which the CBRA applies. Within the known range of St. Andrew beach mice the following 

units were established: P30/P30P (Cape San Blas unit, which includes all of St. Joseph 

Peninsula) and P31 (St. Andrews unit, which includes East and West Crooked Islands). 

Despite CBRA’s restrictions on Federal funding, development has continued within these 

designated barrier islands. However, many private insurance companies ceased providing 

insurance for homes in areas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

reclassified in 2002 as “higher risk” flood zones (Niemi, K. 2006). As a result, many people 

are unable to obtain insurance for their homes within the Cape San Blas unit. In 2003, 

Congressman Boyd introduced H.R. 3333 to the 108th Congress that proposed making 

exempt any areas within units P30 (Cape San Blas unit) and FL-92 (Indian Peninsula unit) 

from limitations imposed by CBRA on Federal expenditures and financial assistance. It also 

proposed making exempt the limitations imposed by the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968 on flood insurance coverage (H.R. 3333, 2003). The bill was referred to the 

Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. No further action was reported 

(Library of Congress 2007a). In July 2005, Congressman Boyd introduced H.R. 3280 to the 

109th Congress. H.R. 3280 contained the same language as H.R. 3333 Congressman Boyd 

introduced to the 108th Congress (H.R. 3280 2005). As reported by the Library of Congress 

(2007b) the following actions took place: The bill was referred to both the Committee on 

Financial Services and the Committee on Resources. The Committee on Financial Services 

then referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. No 

further action was reported within the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 

Opportunity. The Committee on Resources referred the bill to the Subcommittee on 

Fisheries and Oceans. The Subcommittee held a hearing in April 2006 on this proposed bill. 

The Service testified at the hearing reaffirming the appropriate designation of P30 and FL-92 

as defined by the law at the time of designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). No 

further action was reported for H.R. 3280 (Library of Congress 2007b). 

If unit P30 was removed from the CBRS, the landowners in that unit within beach mice 

habitat would be eligible for Federal assistance. Furthermore the limitations of the National 

Flood Insurance Act placed on these landowners would be removed, allowing them to 

receive flood insurance (National Flood Insurance Act 1968). By removing the restrictions 

CBRA and the National Flood Insurance Act places on these lands, in effect, the disincentive 

to develop this area would be removed. This could make the area more desirable for 

development; thereby, seriously compromising the original intent of CBRA to: “...minimize 

the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and the damage to fish, 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

23

wildlife, and other natural resources associated with the coastal barriers...” (Coastal Barrier 

Resource Act 1982). 

Feral Cats/Feral Cat Colonies. Both Gulf and Bay counties have ordinances that address 

animal control (98-11 and 89-20, respectively) (Gulf County Board of Commissioners 1998, 

Bay County Board of Commissioners 1994); however, these ordinances do not specifically 

address or prohibit feral cat colonies. While it is unlawful to abandon pets or other animals 

on state or private property without the express permission of the landowner, enforcement is 

relatively non-existent. Advocates of feral cat colonies are very passionate and vocal and 

there is little political will to enforce laws or ordinances regarding pets and feral cats. 

Land Development. Bay County has passed land development regulations “to protect and 

promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of 

residents, landowners, and businesses within the County and to protect and preserve the 

natural, cultural, and historic resources therein” (Bay County Board of Commissioners 2004). 

These codes include regulations on construction in coastal areas; however, they are general 

(e.g., “shall make every effort to avoid damaging dunes”) and do not provide guidance on 

how to minimize impact to dunes. Specific language is needed to guide landowners and 

developers within these systems so as to maintain connectivity between the dunes and 

minimize impacts to the habitat. 

Gulf County’s Unified Land Development Regulations set forth requirements for land 

development within the county. These regulations address a wide variety of land 

development issues. Some of these relate directly to the protection of the natural resources 

and the coastal areas. While some level of protection of coastal areas exists, these 

regulations tend to be general (Gulf County 1996). In order for these land development 

regulations to provide protection and/or the removal of some of the threats to the St. Andrew 

beach mouse, Gulf County land development regulations need to have clearer, more specific 

language. This language must provide clear, detailed guidance on how to protect and 

minimize impacts to the coastal dune systems. Without the more detailed regulations and 

enforcement, development will continue to pose one of the greatest threats to the recovery of 

the St. Andrew beach mice since the habitat on private lands is very important in providing 

connectivity and resiliency of the beach mice populations. 

Listing Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Hurricanes. Natural habitat alteration, as a result of severe tropical storm events, poses a 

threat to beach mice. Hurricanes potentially could result in catastrophic impacts to beach 

mice and their habitat given their very limited distribution (FWS 1987, Gore, in litt., 1994). 

Every year the threat of a hurricane(s) hitting within the range of the St. Andrew beach 

mouse is eminent. From 1851 to 2004 there have been a total of 55 hurricanes (27 Category1, 16 Category-2, 12 Category-3, 0 Category-4, and 0 Category-5) that have hit northwest 

Florida (Blake et al. 2005). 

In the past 30 years, several major hurricanes, in particular, have impacted the St. Andrew 

beach mouse. In 1975, Hurricane Eloise cut through Crooked Island, separating the island 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

24

into two disjunct segments (James 1987, Moyers et al. 1999). Subsequent trapping efforts on 

the western part of the island did not yield captures of beach mice (Gore, in litt., 1987; 

Moyers et al. 1999). The population on the eastern part of the island continued to exist into 

the mid to late 1980s (Gore, in litt., 1987, 1990; James 1987). By 1992-1993, however, mice 

did not appear to be present on the eastern part of the island and the population was believed 

to be extirpated (Gore, in litt., 1994; Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

in litt., 1997). Hurricanes Elena and Kate hit the Gulf Coast in 1985, causing extensive 

damage to the dune systems within the range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. These 

hurricanes created “huge blowouts in the high dunes of the St. Joseph spit” (James 1992). In 

1995, the Gulf Coast was hit by another major hurricane, Hurricane Opal. Hurricane Opal 

impacted the dune systems throughout the St. Andrew beach mouse’s range (Gore, in litt., 

1995, Moyers et al. 1999), severely eroding the beaches and dune system (Leadon 1996). 

Gore (in litt., 1995) estimated that 40% of the available habitat along each kilometer was lost 

due to the washing away of the frontal dunes, resulting in a loss of potentially half the St. 

Andrew beach mouse population. In 1998 Hurricanes Earl and Georges caused severe 

erosion to the eastern portion of Crooked Island. Hurricane Earl caused minor erosion along 

the northern 7.5 mi. (12.0 km) of St. Joseph Peninsula and minor to major erosion south of 

the State Park to Cape San Blas (Leadon et al. 1999). Six years later Hurricane Ivan made 

landfall just west of Pensacola, FL. The western end of Mexico Beach (just east of East 

Crooked Island) sustained moderate/minor beach erosion, while the St. Joseph Peninsula just 

south of the State Park to Cape San Blas sustained major beach and dune erosion (Leadon 

2004). However, since the extent of the impact to dune habitat was concentrated south of the 

Park, the St. Andrew beach mouse was relatively unaffected by the passage of Hurricane 

Ivan (L. Patrick, pers. comm., 2005). This was not the case, however, in 2005 when 

Hurricane Dennis caused extensive coastal erosion and flooding throughout the entire St. 

Joseph Peninsula (FDEP 2005). 

House Mouse Another potential threat to St. Andrew beach mice is from house mice (Mus 

musculus). House mice may pose a competitive threat to beach mice (63 FR 70053) and 

have been documented in St. Andrew beach mice habitat (Gore in litt., 1987, 1990, 1994). 

However, the competitive relationship between beach mice and house mice is not clearly 

understood (63 FR 70053; Gore in litt., 1990). There appears to be an inverse relationship 

between densities of house mice and inland oldfield mice (Caldwell and Gentry 1965b, 

Gentry 1966). This relationship takes the form of a mutually exclusive distribution pattern 

(Humphrey and Barbour 1981). At some sites, historically occupied by St. Andrew beach 

mice, only house mice or predominantly house mice have been found (Gore, in litt., 1987). 

Diminished beach mouse populations in areas coinciding with expanded house mouse 

populations may be an indirect result rather than a direct result of competition between the 

two species (S. Sneckenberger, pers. comm., 2007). The presence of house mice is 

associated with human activities (i.e., trash, habitat alteration, etc.) and houses or other 

buildings (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). This degraded habitat quality, due to human 

activity, may be the driving force that leads to reductions in beach mice populations (S. 

Sneckenberger, pers. comm., 2007); after which house mice invade the disturbed areas 

(Briese and Smith 1973). Therefore, the presence of house mice within known or former St. 

Andrew beach mouse habitat may actually be an indicator of degraded beach mice habitat. 

The degree to which house mice pose a threat to beach mice populations is unclear (63 FR 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Reasons for Listing/Threats 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

25

70053). With continued land development within beach mice habitat, however, this potential 

threat may increase as more human development usually correlates with higher incidence of 

house mice. 

Intra-specific Cross-breeding. A new, potential threat to the St. Andrew beach mice on East 

Crooked Island is the presence of Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island. In 

2000, Choctawhatchee beach mice were confirmed to have expanded their range from Shell 

Island into unoccupied St. Andrew beach mice habitat on West Crooked Island via a land 

bridge created when East Pass closed and the islands joined together (Lynn, in litt., 2004. 

There is concern that East Crooked Island and West Crooked Island might join back together 

again at some point in time removing the separation of the two subspecies. This would result 

in the potential for cross-breeding of Choctawhatchee and St. Andrew beach mice. 

Currently, we do not know the implications of this threat; therefore, research needs to look at 

the genetic effect of this potential threat (S. Sneckenberger, pers. comm. 2007). 

H. Threat Assessment 

A threat assessment was conducted for the St. Andrew beach mouse. It was based, in part, 

on The Nature Conservancy’s (2000) site conservation assessment guidance for ranking 

stressors. This threat assessment provided a means for identifying the relative priority of 

each threat by ranking the known threats based on a predetermined group of parameter 

categories that assessed the degree of the threat, the extensiveness of the threat, and the 

manageability of the threat. In development of the assessment, all the known threats 

(stressors) were listed along with their identified source (Table 2). These were related back 

to the five listing factors, in order to maintain consistency between the final listing rule and 

the recovery plan. The parameter categories (severity, scope, management) were broken 

down into threat assessment parameters that further describe different aspects/measures of 

the parameter categories. In order to determine the relative priority/rank of the known 

threats, each of the threat assessment parameters were assigned ranking values. The ranking 

values were a measurement of the threat level for that parameter. These values were 

subsequently assigned a corresponding numeric equivalent for which the threats would be 

scored. The threats were scored according to the relative degree that the threat parameter 

applied. Once all stressors were assigned ranking values an overall score was calculated. 

The overall score took into account the perceived severity of the threat, the pervasiveness of 

the threat, and the manageability of the threat. This provided an overarching priority for each 

of the stressors (the higher the score, the higher the overall priority). While this is helpful in 

determining the relative priority of the threats, it can also mask the relative degree of threat 

an individual stressor poses to the subspecies, since the overall score takes into account 

management of the threat. Therefore, by subdividing the overall score into its components (a 

threat score and a management score) we were able to look at the components separately, 

which can be helpful in obtaining a better understanding of the threats and prioritizing 

recovery actions based on an individual’s or agency’s roles and responsibilities. For 

instance, a land manager may select recovery actions that address threats that have higher 

management scores, while a resource biologist at a state or federal level, for instance, may 

choose to implement recovery actions that have higher threat scores (see Appendix B). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Threat Assessment 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

26

A total of twelve stressors/threats were assessed in the threat assessment. Ranking values 

were determined based on current literature, expert opinion, or a combination of the two. 

Overall scores could range from a total of 24 (highest priority) to a low of 7 (lowest priority). 

Based on the threat assessment, the overall scores for the identified threats to the St. Andrew 

beach mouse ranged from a low of 12 (non-native predators and feral hogs) to a high of 23 

(feral cats – which included free roaming domestic cats and feral cat colonies). Feral cats 

pose a high degree of threat to the subspecies. In the PHVA analysis conducted for the 

ABM, the addition of one feral cat that consumed one beach mouse per day to the model 

resulted in the extinction of the ABM every time the model was run (Traylor-Holzer et al. 

2005). Additionally, feral cats pose a threat to one or more areas within the St. Andrew 

beach mouse range in any given year. Implementation and enforcement of management 

actions such as feral and free ranging cat removal and non native predator control, has a high 

likelihood of greatly reducing or possibly removing the threat as long as vigilance is 

maintained. 

Artificial illumination due to artificial lighting and habitat destruction due to land 

development are the second and third ranked threats, respectively. These two threats differ 

primarily in their management priority. While land development poses a higher level of 

threat (Threat Priority Rank Score: 15 for land development and 14 for artificial 

illumination), artificial illumination is a more manageable threat. 

For a detailed description of the parameter categories, threat assessment parameters, the 

ranking values and their numeric equivalents, and how the scores were calculated see 

Appendix B. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 27Table 2. Threat assessment for the St. Andrew beach mouse 

Severity Scope Management 

Threat/Stressor1 Source(s) Listing Factor Level of 

Impact Immediacy Likelihood Spatial Extent Temporal Extent Response Feasibility T

Predation Cats2 C,D High Current High Partial Continuous High Feasible Artificial Illumination Artificial lights A Medium Current Moderate Partial Continuous High Feasible Habitat Destruction 

Land development A,D High Current Moderate Partial Continuous Medium Possible 

Dune encroachment Pedestrian A,D Medium Current Low Partial Continuous High Feasible Dune encroachment Vehicle A,D Low Current Low Partial Continuous High Feasible Habitat Destruction Hurricanes E Medium Current Moderate Entire Seasonal Medium Possible Habitat Degredation/ Inter-specific competition 

House mouse E Low Potential Low Partial Continuous Medium Feasible 

Dune encroachment 

Military exercises - TAFB A Low Potential Low Local Seasonal High Feasible 

Habitat Destruction Shoreline erosion A Low Current Low Partial Continuous Low Possible Intra-specific cross breeding 

Choctawhatchee beach mouse E Low Potential Low Local Continuous Unknown Possible 

Non-native predators 

Red foxes, coyotes C Unknown Potential Low Unknown Unknown High Feasible 

Habitat Destruction Feral hogs A Unknown Potential Low Unknown Unknown High Feasible 

1Some of the ranking values may differ for a given threat depending on whether they are considered for public lands or for private 

considered at the population level or the subspecies level. The ranking values, in this assessment, were based on how the threat relprivate and public lands collectively and how the threat relates to the subspecies at the population and subspecies levels collectivel

2Cats are defined as including feral cats, feral cat colonies, and free roaming domestic cats.
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Conservation Measures 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

28

I. Conservation Measures 

A variety of conservation measures have been completed and/or are being implemented for 

the protection of coastal dune habitats. These measures may or may not be directly related to 

the protection of St. Andrew beach mice. However, regardless of the intent of these 

measures they are all of benefit to the conservation of the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

Reestablishment. In the wake of the apparent extirpation of the East Crooked Island 

population (Gore, in litt., 1994; Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, in 

litt., 1997), the Service began plans in 1994 to reestablish this population (Moyers et al.

1999). Even though there remained a large and apparently healthy population at St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park (Bates 1992; Gore, in litt., 1995; Moyers et al. 1996), there was concern 

that some extinction factor (i.e., hurricane) or combination of extinction factors (i.e., 

hurricanes and habitat destruction) may impact the remaining population and result in the 

subsequent extinction of the subspecies (Moyers et al. 1999). Plans to translocate mice from 

the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park population in 1996 to East Crooked Island were delayed 

due to the extensive damage to the dune systems on East Crooked Island caused by 

Hurricane Opal (Moyers et al. 1996). In cooperation with Auburn University, reintroduction 

efforts eventually took place during the winter of 1997-1998 when a total of 43 individuals 

were translocated. By 1998 mice were present on East Crooked Island and recruitment was 

seen, indicating that the population had established itself (Moyers et al. 1999). Based on 

most recent trapping efforts, St. Andrew beach mice continue to exist on East Crooked Island 

Moyers and Shea, in litt., 2002; (Lynn, in litt., 2004; Slaby, in litt., 2005, Loggins et al., in 

litt., 2007). This effort resulted in the reestablishment of a second known population of St. 

Andrew beach mice (Moyers et al. 1999). 

Eglin Air Force Base. Eglin AFB owns 750 ac (303.5 ha) of land at Cape San Blas (Eglin 

Air Force Base 2002). Beach mice have not been found on Cape San Blas (Gore in litt., 

1990, 1994; Lamont et al. 1997; J. Gore, pers. comm., 2005) since the first specimens taken 

from this area (Bowen 1968). The management of Cape San Blas is addressed in Eglin 

AFB’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (Eglin Air Force Base 

2007) and their Threatened and Endangered Species Component Plan (Eglin AFB 2006). 

The purpose of the plan is to “provide interdisciplinary strategic guidance for natural 

resources management on Eglin AFB for the period 2007-2011.” Habitat loss from 

storms, erosion, and human disturbance may have contributed to the decline of beach mice, 

since they occur in well-developed dunes with sea oat vegetation and higher back dunes with 

live oak and rosemary. Because Eglin’s Cape San Blas property has some of the last 

remaining high quality dune habitat in the area, there is the possibility that it could support

St. Andrew beach mouse in the future. Eglin posts these high quality dune areas with “Keep 

Out - Endangered Species” signs to protect this habitat. Eglin’s intent is to provide quality 

habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse if it were to migrate to Eglin property. There is also 

the possibility that the beach mouse might be translocated to Eglin’s Cape San Blas property. 

Tracking tubes will be used to monitor the presence of St. Andrew beach mice at Cape San 

Blas. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Conservation Measures 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

29

While no management activities are being implemented at Cape San Blas specifically related 

to beach mice (B. Miller, Eglin Air Force Base, pers. comm., 2005), other management 

activities involving coastal areas and other coastal species that are being implemented may 

benefit St. Andrew beach mice if they are found on their property or reintroduced. Eglin 

AFB is participating in the non-native predator control program through the Service/U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Endangered Species Protection program. In their INRMP they 

have identified beach driving as an issue at Cape San Blas. They currently are addressing 

this issue in coordination with the Service and Gulf County. At present, Gulf County 

Ordinance 97-02, which regulates beach driving, encompasses Cape San Blas (Gulf County 

Board of Commissioners 1997). Ordinance Amendment 2003-09 provides for the 

enforcement of Gulf County Ordinance 97-02 on Eglin AFB property (Gulf County Board of 

Commissioners 2003). 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The FDEP’s Florida Park Service (FPS) is 

another primary landowner within the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. They 

own and manage St. Joseph Peninsula State Park. In December 2000 (FDEP 2000), FPS 

drafted a management plan that sets forth the “policy and direction for the management of St. 

Joseph Peninsula State Park as a unit of Florida’s state park system.” As stated in the 

management plan, a primary goal is to “Continue to implement natural systems management, 

whereby primary resource management emphasis is placed on restoring and maintaining the 

natural processes that shape the structure, function and species composition of the natural 

communities of the park.” There are 10 objectives listed in support of this overall goal. One 

objective states the park would “designate protected zones” which includes the St. Andrew 

beach mouse habitat. A second objective is the monitoring of state and Federal listed 

species. To this end the park is involved in monthly track surveys for St. Andrew beach mice 

(H. Mitchell, FDEP, pers. comm., 2005). Signs of beach mice activity continue to be seen 

within the park. A third objective is to “Continue and improve cooperative programs with 

other state and federal agencies in order to improve habitat, decrease visitor impacts on listed 

species...” (FDEP 2000). In meeting this objective, the Park is managing beach and dune 

habitat through the planting of sea oats where necessary to recover the dune systems. It is 

also protecting the dunes from recreational users by constructing boardwalks over the dunes 

(H. Mitchell, pers. comm., 2005). Another objective stated in the management plan is to 

“Continue effective exotic plant and animal removal programs” (FDEP 2000). The park has 

established an active non-native predator control program, including the removal of coyotes, 

red foxes, and feral cats (FDEP 2000; H. Mitchell, pers. comm., 2005). 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The FWC, with funding from the 

Service, initiated a project in 2004 to determine the presence and absence of St. Andrew 

beach mice throughout its range (Slaby, in litt., 2005). The FWC found SABM present in St. 

Joseph Peninsula State Park and Crooked Island east, and portions of the St. Joseph 

Peninsula south to private lands north of Cape San Blas. No SABM were detected between 

Cape San Blas and Crooked Island East (Loggins et.al. 2008). The FWC has also been 

working with St. Joseph State Park providing technical assistance for their track survey 

monitoring program (J. Gore, pers. comm., 2006). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Conservation Measures 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

30

Gulf County. Gulf County Ordinance 97-02 strictly prohibits the driving of any vehicles in, 

on, or over any coastal sand dunes within the County. Furthermore, it prohibits driving in, 

on, or over vegetation. Beach access, for individuals issued a Beach Driving Permit, is 

limited to only four designated access points; all other access is prohibited (Gulf County 

Board of Commissioners 1997). 

Gulf County adopted Ordinance 98-11 (Animal Control Ordinance) in May 1998. This 

ordinance sets forth regulations for animal owners as to the control of their animals (as 

defined by the Ordinance, “an animal shall mean dog, cat, or other domestic animal fowl of 

any nature”). It stipulates that unrestrained animals off of the owner’s property shall be 

considered “at large” and that “at large” animals are subject to impoundment by the Gulf 

County Animal Control Authority ...” (Gulf County Board of Commissioners 1998). 

Gulf County has also constructed boardwalks at Cape Palm and Salinas Park. These 

boardwalks provide protection of the dunes from pedestrians walking directly on the dune in 

order to access the beaches (L. Patrick, pers. comm., 2005). 

St. Joe Company. St. Joe Company currently has St. Andrew beach mice inhabiting their 

Mexico Beach property, which is part of East Crooked Island south of Tyndall AFB. 

Additionally, St. Joe is proposing to develop a St. Andrew beach mouse reestablishment and 

management plan for St. Joe Beach as a conservation measure for development activities 

proposed at Mexico Beach. This would establish a third population of St. Andrew beach 

mice. They also own property at St. Joe Beach; however, currently St. Andrew beach mice 

are not known to inhabit this land. St. Joe Company is actively managing their dune habitat 

to protect and conserve these systems (S. Shea, pers. comm., 2005). These management 

activities include the monitoring of St. Andrew beach mice at Mexico Beach on a quarterly 

basis and St. Joe Beach on an annual basis. They also have taken measures to prevent beach 

driving in order to protect the dunes from being destroyed by vehicular traffic. In addition 

they are actively controlling non-native predators on their property (Moyers and Shea, in litt., 

2002). 

Tyndall Air Force Base. Tyndall AFB is one of the primary landowners within the known 

range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. They manage a majority of the land on East Crooked 

Island. Tyndall AFB has engaged in many coastal dune restoration and protection activities 

on East Crooked Island that have directly or indirectly benefited the St. Andrew beach mouse 

(J. Mobley, pers. comm., 2005). James (1987) noted that military exercises conducted on 

Tyndall AFB were responsible for the degradation of dunes on East Crooked Island in the 

early to mid-1980s. Presently no military activities are conducted by Tyndall AFB on these 

beaches; however, other branches of the military have requested to conduct their military 

activities there. Tyndall AFB requires an Environmental Assessment (in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act) for all of these proposed activities. In addition, a formal 

base review of the proposed exercise, which includes the review by Tyndall Natural 

Resources Branch (NRB), is initiated. Tyndall NRB set requirements, based on the proposed 

activity, which must be followed in order for the exercise to be conducted. The primary 

objective of the requirements is to ensure the protection of the coastal dune systems and their 

associated coastal species, which includes the beach mouse. Tyndall AFB also restricts 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Background – Conservation Measures 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

31

beach driving on its property, except in special situations (emergencies, resource 

management activities, military exercises). All personnel must follow beach driving 

instructions that were developed based on a biological opinion, provided to Tyndall AFB by 

the Service in 1998, regarding mission related vehicle access and driving on the beach at 

Tyndall AFB. This restriction is actively enforced by Tyndall NRB Law Enforcement. 

In addition to the management of proposed military exercises on the beach and the restriction 

of beach driving, non-native predator control is being conducted on the Base. This 

management activity is conducted via a partnership of Federal, state, and public land 

managers, including the Service, to protect threatened and endangered species in northwest 

Florida through the control of non-native predators on coastal public lands. Although the 

primary focus is the protection of sea turtles on the Base, the St. Andrew beach mouse 

benefits from this work since several of the species (coyotes, red foxes, feral cats, and feral 

hogs) have been noted as potential threats to beach mice (Bowen 1968; Humphrey and 

Barbour 1981; Gore, in litt., 1990; Moyers et al. 1996; 63 FR 70053). 

Tyndall AFB has implemented several coastal dune conservation efforts which have resulted 

in the establishment of large, vegetated dunes (Lynn 2002). These efforts have included: 1) 

the construction of a boardwalk at the east end of East Crooked Island in 2001-2002 to direct 

recreational users to the beach and protect the dunes, 2) the placement of fencing along the 

boardwalk to keep users from getting off the boardwalk, and 3) the installation of sand fences 

and the planting of sea oats to encourage the establishment of dunes. The apparent benefit of 

these activities may be indicated by the continued presence of St. Andrew beach mice on 

East Crooked Island, as evidenced by recent surveys conducted by the FWC (Slaby, in litt., 

2005). 

Finally, Tyndall AFB has completed their INRMP (Tyndall 2006). Their Threatened and 

Endangered Species Management Plan calls for the continuation of the following actions to 

manage beach mice: rebuild dunes; maintain boardwalk system to eliminate disturbance of 

dunes by pedestrian traffic; minimize light pollution of dunes; vehicle control; monitor mice 

with annual tracks survey and biennial trapping in cooperation with FWS and FWC; predator 

control including feral cat (PIT tag monitoring of cats and dogs on base in cooperation with 

Vet); and maintain law enforcement presence. Critical habitat has been designated on 

Tyndall AFB for the SABM at east Crooked Island as Tyndall’s INRMP had not been 

approved by the Service at the time of designation. 

Other Measures. Emergency response to coastal erosion within St. Andrew beach mouse 

habitat, due to Hurricane Ivan, has included FEMA and State-funded berm projects. 

Additional funds have been provided by the State of Florida in 2005 to determine the 

feasibility of a beach restoration project on St. Joseph Peninsula (P. Flood, FDEP, pers. 

comm., 2005). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Goals, Objectives, Criteria 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

32

PART II: RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Strategy 

The St. Andrew beach mouse was once thought to range throughout dune systems along the 

coastline from Crooked Island in Bay County, around the tip of St. Joseph Peninsula to 

Money Bayou in Gulf County (Bowen 1968, Howell 1939, Hall 1981). Over the years this 

subspecies’ range decreased to only one known population by the early 1990s (Gore, in litt. 

1994, Holler, in litt., 1997). This was approximately a 68% reduction in its historic 

distribution (63 FR 70053). Due to concerns for the subspecies, its range was expanded 

through reintroduction efforts during 1997 and 1998. This effort resulted in the 

establishment of an additional population, making a total of two known populations (Holler, 

in litt., 1996; Moyers et al. 1999; Lynn, in litt., 2002; Moyers and Shea, in litt., 2002). 

Although this expanded the species’ distribution, because of the reduced range and habitat 

fragmentation due to development, this subspecies faces additional, multiple threats (e.g., 

hurricanes, increased predation pressures by non-native species, particularly feral cats, 

impacts to dunes from recreation and unrestricted beach access, etc.) to its long-term 

persistence. Achieving long-term viability of the St. Andrew beach mouse will depend upon 

maintaining existing populations, establishing additional populations throughout its historic 

range, and removing or minimizing those known threats so that existing and reestablished 

populations can survive and persist in the wild. 

This recovery plan outlines how this will be accomplished through recovery actions that 

address the known threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse. The recovery of this subspecies 

will depend on the partnership and cooperation of multiple Federal, state, and local 

governments and private landowners. 

B. Recovery Goals 

The recovery goal for the St. Andrew beach mouse is to perpetuate the long-term viability of 

the subspecies in the wild. This goal is represented by the delisting (i.e., removal) of the 

subspecies from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11). 

The interim recovery goal is to downlist from endangered status to threatened status. 

C. Recovery Objectives 

The recovery goal will be accomplished through four primary, overarching, 

objectives: 

1. Reestablish additional populations: Species that have a small number of 

populations, as does the St. Andrew beach mouse, have a greater risk of extinction 

due to random events (i.e., tropical storms) (Shaffer and Stein 2000). In order to 

protect against or reduce the likelihood of such random events causing the 

extinction of a species, multiple populations distributed throughout their range are 

needed (Shaffer and Stein 2000). Therefore, a primary priority of this recovery 

program is to reestablish as many self sustaining populations as possible on the 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Goals, Objectives, Criteria 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

33

remaining continuous blocks of suitable habitat within its historic range. This 

builds in the redundancy and resiliency necessary to ensure long-term survival of 

a species (Shaffer and Stein 2000). 

2. Threat Minimization or Removal: The St. Andrew beach mouse is faced with 

multiple threats to its populations. These threats range from those that directly 

eliminate individuals to those that destroy or degrade the habitat in which the 

species lives. Although individually some of these threats may not pose a 

significant risk to the existence of the subspecies, in combination they threaten the 

existence of this subspecies. To ensure the long-term conservation of existing and 

reestablished populations, these threats need to be minimized or eliminated. 

Therefore recovery actions which remove or minimize the known threats to the 

St. Andrew beach mouse are additional priorities of this recovery program. 

3. Habitat Protection and/or Restoration: Habitat is key to the existence of any 

species. If a species does not have habitat or their habitat is degraded to a point 

that it is no longer suitable, the species will decline and eventually go extinct. 

Several of the known threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse impact its habitat 

directly. These threats work to fragment the habitat within the mouse’s historic 

range, resulting in smaller and smaller areas available for the mice that are 

generally spread further and further apart. This results in the further isolation of 

populations due to the lack of suitable habitat connecting these populations. We 

need to strive to protect and/or restore key areas that will provide for the 

necessary connectivity to reverse the negative impact fragmentation has on 

species. 

4. Public Outreach/Education: The St. Andrew beach mouse cannot be fully 

recovered without the active participation of private landowners. Conservation of 

beach mouse habitat on private lands would support the populations on public 

lands. One of the keys to the successful recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse 

is an education program for and stewardship by the public. Meyers (1983) noted 

the importance education and outreach plays in the conservation of beach mice 

subspecies. He stated that few people know about these mammals and that 

coordinated efforts between Federal and state agencies can help to inform people 

of beach mice and their needs as well as the significance of the coastal dune 

habitat to protection of homes, businesses, and livelihoods. 

D. Recovery Criteria 

Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened Status (Downlisting) 

The St. Andrew beach mouse will be considered for downlisting to threatened 

status when the following measures are achieved: 

Demographic Criteria. Demographic criteria (1 and 2) provide a means of 

measuring the fitness of the St. Andrew beach mouse subspecies, which measures 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Goals, Objectives, Criteria 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

34

the success of the conservation actions implemented for its recovery. Criteria are 

intended to take into account the natural cyclic nature of beach mice populations. 

See Appendix C for justification on the designated time period listed within the 

demographic criteria. 

1. A stable or increasing population trend is maintained at St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park and East Crooked Island on Tyndall Air Force Base 

over a 10 year period based on data obtained from accepted, standardized, 

monitoring methods. 

2. An additional viable or self-sustaining population is reestablished at St. 

Joe Beach that shows a stable or increasing trend, after the initial 

repopulation of unoccupied habitat, over a 10 year period based on data 

obtained from accepted, standardized, monitoring methods. 

3. At least 87%2

 of designated St. Andrew beach mice critical habitat is 

protected and under a management plan that addresses conservation of 

beach mice. The plans, at a minimum, address the following: 

a) Impact of commercial/residential development and recreational use 

including pedestrians and motorized vehicles to beach mice habitat.. 

b) Impact of shoreline erosion to beach mice habitat. 

c) Impact of artificial lighting on beach mice habitat. 

d) Control of feral cats and hogs in beach mice habitat. 

4. Non-native predators, including free roaming cats and cat colonies, are 

controlled in areas with known populations of beach mice (Tyndall Air 

Force Base’s property at East Crooked Island, St. Joseph Peninsula State 

Park, and their respective adjacent private lands) at levels in which they do 

not pose a threat to beach mice. 

5. County or local government, within the range of the St. Andrew beach 

mouse, have regulations or other protection mechanisms that: 

a) Minimize impacts to dunes in beach mice habitat due to recreational 

use. 

b) Prohibit free-roaming cats and cat colonies. 

c) Minimize impacts of commercial and residential developments in 

primary, secondary, and scrub dunes. Measures include minimizing 

footprints; preserving connectivity between primary, secondary and 

scrub dunes; using native landscaping; and constructing boardwalks 

over dunes for beach access. 

d) Minimize impacts of artificial lighting in beach mice habitat by 

requiring sea turtle lighting, in areas visible from the beach and 

wildlife lighting, in areas not visible from the beach. 

. 

 

2

 This is the percent of St. Andrew Beach mouse critical habitat that is state or federally managed land. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Goals, Objectives, Criteria 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

35

6. Emergency response plan is prepared to prevent extirpation of any 

population of St. Andrew beach mice from tropical storms/hurricanes and 

other disasters. 

7. If determined to be necessary, an Action Plan is prepared to address the 

potential threat of cross-breeding with Choctawhatchee beach mice from 

W. Crooked Island. 

8. Capture of house mice in beach mouse habitat shows a declining trend 

over a period of 10 years and no new infestations are found within the 

range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

Removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Delisting) 

The St. Andrew beach mouse will be considered for delisting when all the 

downlisting criteria have been met and the following delisting criteria are 

achieved. 

Demographic Criteria. Criteria (1 and 2) are intended to take into account the 

natural cyclic nature of beach mice populations. 

1. A stable or increasing population trend is maintained at St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park, East Crooked Island on Tyndall Air Force Base, and 

St. Joe Beach over a 20-year period based on data obtained from accepted, 

standardized, monitoring methods. 

2. An additional viable population is reestablished at Cape San Blas, Eglin 

Air Force Base, and has a stable or increasing population trend over a 10 

year period based on data obtained from standardized monitoring methods. 

3. At least 87% of designated St. Andrew beach mice critical habitat is 

protected and under a management plan that addresses conservation of 

beach mice, priority is given to those lands that provide connectivity. The 

plans, at a minimum, manage for the following: 

a) Impact of commercial/residential development and recreational use 

including pedestrians and motorized vehicles to beach mice habitat.. 

b) Impact of shoreline erosion to beach mice habitat. 

c) Impact of artificial lighting on beach mice habitat. 

d) Control of feral cats and hogs, including free ranging cats in beach 

mice habitat 

4. Non-native predators, including free roaming cats and cat colonies, are 

controlled within all critical habitat that is protected and under a 

management plan at levels that they do not pose a threat to beach mice. 

5. County or local government regulations or other protection mechanisms as 

set forth in the downlisting criteria for Factor D have adequate compliance 

and enforcement. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Goals, Objectives, Criteria 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

36

6. No captures of house mice occur during standard monitoring for 5 years. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Thre

DRAFT 4/21/2009 37

E. Threats Tracking Table The threat tracking table is used as a planning tool to ensure that the identified threats are being addressed by 

and that, in turn, each of these threats are adequately addressed by recovery actions. Each of the identified thcategorized by its corresponding listing factor. This is done in an effort to build continuity between the listinrecovery plan. Because some threats may apply to multiple factors (i.e., land development causes habitat desbe the result of inadequate regulatory mechanisms), some threats are listed more than once. The recovery criaction(s) developed are presented in relation to their corresponding threat. This table also allows the stakeho

reference to the recovery criteria and the subsequent actions that were developed to address the threats. Table 3. Threat tracking table of the current and previously identified threats for the St. Andrew beach mouse, 

factors, with their associated recovery criteria and recovery actions. 

THREAT TRACKING TABLE 

LISTING FACTOR 

THREAT RECOVERY 

CRITERIA 

RECOVERY ACTION 

Factor A  Land 

Development 

3,5 Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, st

enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse Facilitate stewardship of St. Andrew beach mice recovery awareness and education (Actions: 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 6.2

 Military 

Exercises on East Crooked Island 

Threat removed since listing 

 Dune 

Encroachment 

3,5 Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. Andrew beach m

stewardship of St. Andrew beach mice recovery through 

awareness and education (Actions: 2.2.1.1a, 2.2.1.1b, 2.2

2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2, 2.2.3, 6.2) 

 Natural Shoreline 

Erosion 

3 Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. Andrew beach m

(Action: 2.4.1, 2.4.2) 

 Artificial 

Lighting 

3,5 Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manma

5.3.1.1 – 5.3.1.3, 5.3.2.1 – 5.3.2.3) 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Thre

DRAFT 4/21/2009 38

THREAT TRACKING TABLE (cont’d)

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTION

Factor A cont’d  Feral Hogs 3 Remove or investigate non-native predator threat to St. A

populations (Action: 3.3) 

Factor B 

None At Present

Factor C  Feral Cats/Cat 

Colonies/Free Roaming Cats 

4,5 Remove or investigate non-native predator threat to St. A

populations; Facilitate stewardship of St. Andrew beach m

increased public awareness and education (Actions: 3.1.

 Other Non-native 

Predators 

4 Remove or investigate non-native predator threat to St. A

populations (Action: 3.2) 

Factor D  Beach Driving 3,5 Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, st

enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse (Actions: 4.1.1) 

 Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act 

5 Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, st

enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal 

remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse (Actions: 4.1.6)

 Feral Cats/Cat 

Colonies/Free Roaming Cats 

4,5 Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, st

enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal 

remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse (Actions: 4.1.2) 

 Land 

Development 

3,5 Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, st

enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse (Actions: 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6) 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Thre

DRAFT 4/21/2009 39

THREAT TRACKING TABLE (cont’d)

LISTING FACTOR 

THREAT RECOVERY 

CRITERIA 

RECOVERY ACTION 

Factor E  Hurricanes 6 Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manma

5.1.1, 5.1.2) 

 Intra-specific 

Cross-breeding 

7 Monitor status of existing populations and reestablish pop

beach mice; Remove, minimize, or investigate 

other natu

(Actions: 1.3.1, 5.4.1, 4.4.2) 

House Mouse 8 Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manma

5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2) 

Listing Factors: Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, Educational Purposes (not a factor) Factor C: Disease or Predation (no known diseases) Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Outline 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

40

F. Recovery Action Outline 

1. Monitor status of existing populations and reestablish populations of St. Andrew beach 

mice 

1.1. Implement long-term monitoring programs 

1.1.1. Establish monitoring program for all known populations on St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park (Florida Parks Service), East Crooked Island (Tyndall 

Air Force Base), East Crooked Island (St. Joe Company) 

1.1.2. Establish monitoring programs for reestablished populations as well as areas 

where reintroduction has occurred but presence is not confirmed. 

1.2. Reestablish populations at sites within known historic range 

1.2.1. Reestablish population at Cape San Blas and at St. Joe Beach 

1.2.1.1. Prepare reintroduction plan for reestablishment of mice at St. Joe 

Beach 

1.2.1.2. Prepare reintroduction plan for reestablishment of mice at Cape San 

Blas 

1.2.1.3. Determine which existing population(s) is best source for 

reestablishment program 

1.2.1.4. Translocate St. Andrew beach mice to St. Joe Beach and Cape San 

Blas 

1.2.2. Investigate reestablishment of additional populations 

1.2.2.1. Identify additional reestablishment sites 

1.2.2.2. Prepare feasibility study for establishing populations at additional 

reestablishment sites, if additional potential sites are found 

1.2.2.3. Implement a captive breeding feasibility study 

1.3. Increase genetic understanding of St. Andrew beach mice populations 

1.3.1. Investigate the genetic differences between Choctawhatchee beach mice on 

West Crooked Island and St. Andrew beach mice on East Crooked Island 

1.3.2. Conduct further genetic analyses of historic populations on Crooked Island 

1.3.3. Further investigate the genetic variation within and among St. Andrew 

beach mice populations 

2. Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. Andrew beach mouse habitat 

2.1. Map and evaluate current habitat 

2.1.1. Map all suitable habitat throughout its range 

2.1.2. Determine the condition of the suitable habitat 

2.1.3. Determine areas of occupied and unoccupied suitable habitat 

2.2. Protect and monitor dunes from vehicular driving and pedestrians crossing 

2.2.1. Protect dunes from pedestrian crossing 

2.2.1.1. Construct boardwalks or other accepted methods to cross dunes on 

public lands and public access sites 

2.2.1.1a Map sites where dunes are impacted by pedestrians and 

determine appropriate sites for public access 

2.2.1.1b Install boardwalks or appropriate dune crossovers at all public 

access sites without boardwalks 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Outline 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

41

2.2.1.1c Investigate other methods of providing beach access that 

protects the dunes and survives storm events 

2.2.1.2. Install appropriate dune crossovers for beach access at private and 

commercial developments 

2.2.1.2a Identify developments in need of boardwalks 

2.2.1.2b Establish boardwalks where the needs have been identified 

2.2.2. Protect dunes from vehicular driving 

2.2.2.1. Map dunes impacted by vehicular driving 

2.2.2.2. Increase enforcement and implement preventive measures where 

possible 

2.2.3. Establish or continue monitoring program to document impacts to dunes 

from vehicular driving and pedestrian crossing 

2.2.4. Research the degree feral hogs pose a threat to beach mice habitat and 

implement removal program if deemed necessary 

2.3. Restore dune systems 

2.3.1. Map dune systems in need of restoration 

2.3.2. Develop restoration plan for dune systems on public lands 

2.3.3. Restore dune systems on public lands 

2.3.4. Develop or update existing restoration guidance for dune systems on private 

lands 

2.3.5. Restore dune systems on private lands 

2.3.6. Establish a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of restoration 

efforts 

2.4. Identify, map, and monitor areas where shoreline erosion is occurring adjacent to 

known, occupied beach mice habitat 

2.4.1. Investigate options for shoreline erosion protection if monitoring indicates a 

threat 

2.4.2. Implement option(s) for shoreline erosion protection, if deemed feasible 

3. Remove or investigate non-native predator threat to St. Andrew beach mice populations 

3.1. Remove free-roaming cats, feral cats, and cat colonies from areas with known or 

reestablished beach mice populations 

3.1.1. Identify areas where cats are present 

3.1.2. Continue to implement cat removal program on public lands 

3.1.3. Identify areas with no cat removal program and establish a removal program 

3.1.4. Monitor effectiveness of free ranging cat (domestic and feral removal) 

efforts 

3.2. Research the degree of threat other non-native predators (i.e., coyote and red fox) 

pose to known beach mice populations and implement removal program as 

appropriate 

4. Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, strengthening, and enforcement 

of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal dunes and minimize or remove identified 

threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse on private lands 

4.1.1. Work with Bay County to provide protection of all beaches and dunes, 

within the county, from vehicular driving 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Outline 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

42

4.1.2. Work with Bay and Gulf counties to adopt a feral cat removal program and 

mechanism(s) prohibiting feral cat colonies and free roaming cats 

4.1.3. Work with Bay and Gulf counties, where applicable, to require boardwalk 

access to all beaches from single-family, multi-family, and commercial 

developments 

4.1.4. Work with Gulf and Bay counties, where applicable, to establish regulations 

for residential construction within the primary, secondary, and scrub dunes 

that minimize impacts to dunes and provide for connectivity of beach mice 

habitat 

4.1.5. In partnership with Gulf and Bay counties, the Service consults on all 

development within the coastal dune system to provide guidance to the 

landowner on ways to minimize impacts to coastal dune system 

4.1.6. Monitor and enforce compliance with regulatory mechanisms for land 

development, cats, dune vehicular driving, and boardwalks 

4.1.7. Determine, in the Service’s review, whether designation of CBRA units 

P30/P30P met the definition of the Act and/or whether there was a technical 

error in mapping at the time of designation as requested by Congress 

5. Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manmade threats 

5.1. Minimize the potential catastrophic effect of tropical storm and hurricane events on 

the St. Andrew beach mouse 

5.1.1. Develop and implement emergency response plan, if warranted 

5.1.2. Establish a monitoring program for the effectiveness of the emergency 

response plan 

5.2. Minimize and investigate the threat of house mice populations within coastal dune 

systems 

5.2.1. Minimize the occurrence of house mice within known beach mice habitat 

5.2.1.1. Install animal proof garbage containers on public lands and public 

beach access sites 

5.2.1.2. Work with private landowners to remove or minimize factors that 

attract house mice 

5.2.1.3. Monitor the effectiveness of conservation efforts to reduce 

occurrence of house mice within beach mice habitat 

5.2.2. Conduct further research on house mice inhabiting beach mice habitat 

5.2.2.1. Conduct research on the competitive effects of house mice on beach 

mice within a natural setting 

5.2.2.2. Conduct research on condition of the coastal dune habitat in which 

house mice occur 

5.3. Minimize and investigate the effects of artificial lighting on beach mice 

5.3.1. Conduct further research on the effects of various artificial light regimes on 

beach mice behavior 

5.3.1.1. Determine what artificial lighting regimes have the greatest and least 

effect on beach mice behavior 

5.3.1.2. Determine the effects of artificial lighting on the long term survival 

of beach mice 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Outline 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

43

5.3.1.3. Investigate the effects of artificial lighting relative to fragmentation 

of beach mouse habitat at the landscape level 

5.3.2. Minimize the effects of artificial light on public and private lands within the 

coastal dune systems inhabited by beach mice 

5.3.2.1. Install approved sea turtle lighting or dark sky lighting within the 

dunes on public lands 

5.3.2.2. Work with public land managers to develop plans for their areas that 

address artificial light pollution in coastal dune systems on public 

lands 

5.3.2.3. Work with private landowners and local governments in coastal 

areas to replace conventional, artificial lighting with sea turtle or 

wildlife lighting 

5.4. Determine the potential threat of the closing of the channel separating 

Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island from St. Andrew beach mice 

on East Crooked Island 

5.4.1. Develop a management plan to prevent the hybridization of Choctawhatchee 

beach mice and St. Andrew beach mice at West and East Crooked Island, 

respectively, if deemed to pose a threat 

5.4.2. Implement management plan to prevent the hybridization of 

Choctawhatchee beach mice and St. Andrew beach mice at West and East 

Crooked Island, respectively, if deemed to pose a threat 

6. Facilitate stewardship of St. Andrew beach mice recovery through increased public 

awareness and education 

6.1. Develop a public outreach plan for addressing threats to St. Andrew beach mice and 

to the coastal dune systems they inhabit 

6.1.1. Investigate what outreach materials/efforts are currently available and 

determine their target audience 

6.1.2. Identify what areas and/or issues are not being addressed by current 

outreach materials/efforts 

6.1.3. Determine the effectiveness of existing outreach efforts 

6.1.4. Develop a coordinated outreach program effort for various target audiences 

6.2. Continue outreach efforts that increase the public’s awareness of factors relating to 

identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mice 

6.3. Establish partnership with Bay and Gulf counties’ Environmental Services/ 

Permitting sections. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

44

G. Recovery Action Narrative 

1. Monitor status of existing populations and reestablish populations of St. Andrew 

beach mice. 

1.1. Implement long-term monitoring programs. A long-term monitoring program 

would be established for a period of 10 years to determine the status and trend of the 

St. Andrew beach mouse population over time. The monitoring program would use 

currently accepted protocol and procedures for monitoring beach mice. Information 

gathered from the monitoring program would be used, in part, toward determining if 

recovery benchmarks have been achieved. 

1.1.1. Establish monitoring program for all known populations on St. Joseph

Peninsula State Park (Florida Parks Service), East Crooked Island (Tyndall

Air Force Base), East Crooked Island (St. Joe Company). Sites known to be 

currently occupied by beach mice would be monitored to determine their 

status and trends. 

1.1.2. Establish monitoring programs for reestablished populations. A long-term 

monitoring program at sites with reestablished populations would be 

conducted to determine the effectiveness of the reestablishment program. 

1.2. Reestablish populations at sites within known historic range. The establishment 

of additional populations would help protect the St. Andrew beach mouse from the 

threat of extinction due to potential catastrophic effects of storms. By establishing 

multiple populations the likelihood of a single event completely wiping out the 

subspecies is greatly reduced. 

1.2.1. Reestablish population at Cape San Blas and at St. Joe Beach. Two 

sites have been identified as potential reestablishment sites: Cape San Blas, 

Eglin AFB and St. Joe Beach, St. Joe Company. These sites were selected 

because data indicated St. Andrew beach mice historically occupied the site 

(Howell 1939), because of the presence of suitable habitat and, in the case of 

St. Joe Beach, as mitigation for development elsewhere in occupied SABM 

habitat. 

1.2.1.1. Prepare reintroduction plan for reestablishment of mice at St. Joe

Beach. A reintroduction plan would explain how the 

reestablishment would be accomplished: when mice will be 

released, where mice will be released, what donor population will be 

used for the release, what type of release will be used, how many 

mice will be released, etc. 

1.2.1.2. Prepare reintroduction plan for reestablishment of mice at Cape San

Blas. A reintroduction plan would explain how the reestablishment 

would be accomplished: when mice will be released, where mice 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

45

will be released, what donor population will be used for the release, 

what type of release will be used, how many mice will be released, 

etc 

1.2.1.3. Determine which existing population(s) is best source for

reestablishment program. In order for a reestablishment program to 

be initiated a source population must be identified. This source 

population must be healthy enough to withstand the withdrawal of 

individuals for its population without adversely impacting its longterm viability. 

1.2.1.4. Translocate St. Andrew beach mice to St. Joe Beach and Cape San

Blas. Upon completion of Action Items 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2, and 1.2.1.3 

reestablishment of populations at Cape San Blas, Eglin AFB and St. 

Joe Beach, St. Joe Company will be conducted. 

1.2.2. Investigate reestablishment of additional populations. The establishment 

of populations in addition to those identified in Action 1.2.1 would help in 

the long-term recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

1.2.2.1. Identify additional reestablishment sites. Identify existing land 

within the historic range, based on data obtained from Action 2.1.1, 

which would potentially be suitable for reestablishing an additional 

population(s). 

1.2.2.2. Prepare feasibility study for establishing populations at additional

reestablishment sites, if additional potential sites are found Initiate a 

feasibility study of those sites identified in Action 1.2.2.1 which 

looks at habitat quality, amount of habitat, presence of threats, etc. to 

determine the potential success of a reestablishment project at each 

site. 

1.2.2.3. Implement a captive breeding feasibility study. In order to 

supplement the stock of mice potentially being reestablished at 

additional sites, there may be a need to establish a captive breeding 

program. A study into the feasibility of establishing a captive 

breeding program would be necessary to determine if such a 

program would be successful or not. 

1.3. Increase genetic understanding of St. Andrew beach mice populations. A better 

genetic understanding of the St. Andrew beach mouse subspecies would aid in 

guiding the recovery of this subspecies. 

1.3.1. Investigate the genetic differences between Choctawhatchee beach mice on

West Crooked Island and St. Andrew beach mice on East Crooked Island. 

In the light of the current potential for Choctawhatchee beach mice to 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

46

expand their range if the channel that separates East and West Crooked 

Island naturally closes, a better understanding of the genetic differences of 

these two subspecies is necessary. This information would help to 

understand the implications of species introgression if the channel naturally 

closes and the range of the two subspecies subsequently overlaps and they 

interbreed. 

1.3.2. Conduct further genetic analyses of historic populations on Crooked Island. 

By having a better genetic understanding of the original specimens that 

occupied Crooked Island prior to their extirpation we would be better 

equipped to manage the proper genetic stock on Crooked Island. This 

would be accomplished by conducting further genetic research, using the 

latest genetic research technologies, on the museum specimens of St. 

Andrew beach mice collected on Crooked Island at the time it was first 

discovered. 

1.3.3. Further investigate the genetic variation within and among St. Andrew

beach mice populations. While we have some understanding of the genetic 

makeup of the St. Andrew beach mice populations we need further studies 

to help determine whether loss of genetic variation is a threat to the 

subspecies and which populations would be an appropriate donor for any 

reestablishment efforts. 

2. Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. Andrew beach mouse habitat.

2.1. Map and evaluate current habitat. Mapping existing habitat, determining its 

current condition, and occupancy would provide valuable information that could be 

used for various conservation efforts. This information would aid in identification 

of potential reestablishment sites, prioritize areas for acquisition or other landowner 

conservation tools, identification of linkages for connectivity of populations, 

identify areas for restoration, etc. 

2.1.1. Map all suitable habitat throughout its range. The first priority in 

identifying current beach mice habitat is to map suitable habitat. Due to the 

geographic extent of the mapping effort, initial mapping will need to be 

done in a GIS, using the latest available, high-resolution, aerial photography 

and, if necessary, other spatial data sets. However, this must be combined 

with extensive ground-truthing to validate the data, due to the limitation of 

identifying habitat remotely. The Service and the Florida FWC have 

independently initiated mapping of suitable habitat. Coordination needs to 

occur so that a single beach mice suitable habitat data layer is developed. 

This data would directly support Action 1.2.2.1. 

2.1.2. Determine the condition of the suitable habitat. Once the suitable habitat is 

mapped (Action 2.1.1.). The current condition (habitat quality) of these 

areas needs to be determined. As new technologies are developed, some of 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

47

this work may be possible through GIS and Remote Sensing; however, there 

will still be the need to conduct statistically-sound sampling to validate the 

GIS/Remote Sensing analysis and/or to classify the current condition of the 

mapped suitable habitat. This information would support Action 1.2.2.2 and 

2.3.1. 

2.1.3. Determine areas of occupied and unoccupied suitable habitat. Using current 

survey data collected throughout the range of the St. Andrew beach mice, 

areas of occupied and unoccupied suitable habitat need to be identified. This 

information in combination with the quality of the habitat will help to 

determine what recovery tools should be used within the area. 

2.2. Protect and monitor dunes from vehicular driving and pedestrians crossing. 

Impacts to dunes by vehicles and pedestrians continue to be an issue that needs to 

be addressed to aid in the recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse. People walking 

directly over and vehicles driving on the dunes destroy the dunes by killing 

vegetation and compacting the soil. This leads to blowouts in the dunes from wave 

and wind action (Kimball in litt., 1996). The degree or severity to which this occurs 

is dependent upon the type of activity and the inherent susceptibility of the system 

(Leatherman 1979). 

2.2.1. Protect dunes from pedestrian crossing. 

 

2.2.1.1. Construct boardwalks or other accepted methods to cross dunes 

on public lands and public access sites. Boardwalks are currently 

the accepted means of effectively and safely provide access to 

beaches while protecting the dunes (NPS 2000). Boardwalks keep 

people from walking on and through dunes which cause the loss of 

vegetation. This loss of vegetation allows the dune to erode and 

eventually result in the destruction of the dune (Walton and Skinner 

1983). The design of boardwalks may vary depending on the 

situation. Walton and Skinner (1983) provide blueprints for the 

design of boardwalks for heavy and light foot traffic.

2.2.1.1a Map sites where dunes are impacted by pedestrians and

determine appropriate sites for public access. An important 

step in protecting the dunes is to identify areas impacted by 

pedestrians crossing. These sites are known to be weak points 

in the dune system (Kimball in litt., 1996) that could result in 

the erosion of the dunes and the subsequent loss of 

effectiveness of the dunes to protect interior beach mouse 

habitat (NPS 2000). These sites need to be mapped so that 

future efforts could be initiated to construct boardwalks if none 

are present (see Action 2.2.1.1b) or fenced off to keep 

pedestrians off of the dunes. In addition, sites need to be 

identified where it is appropriate to provide public access. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

48

2.2.1.1b Install boardwalks or appropriate dune crossovers at all public

access sites without boardwalks. In order to accomplish Action 

2.2.1.1 it is necessary to identify public access points within St. 

Andrew beach mice habitat that do not have boardwalks for 

public access and install boardwalks or appropriate dune 

crossovers at these sites. 

2.2.1.1c Investigate other methods of providing beach access that

protects the dunes and survives storm events. Because of the 

impacts of recent, frequent storms to dune crossover structures, 

other methods to provide public access while protecting the 

dunes need to be investigated. 

2.2.1.2. Install appropriate dune crossovers for beach access at private 

and commercial developments. In order to establish habitat 

connectivity between public lands and adjacent private lands, private 

landowners within St. Andrew beach mice need to implement 

appropriate measures to require construction of appropriate dune 

crossovers to access the beach from their property.

2.2.1.2a Identify developments in need of boardwalks. Developments 

needing boardwalks, because of the impacts patrons or the 

residence are having on the dunes through accessing the beach, 

need to be identified. This would allow for areas that are being 

degraded and resulting in fragmentation of habitat to be 

targeted for actions established in Action 2.2.1.2b. 

2.2.1.2b Establish boardwalks where the needs have been identified. 

The success of maintaining connectivity of St. Andrew beach 

mice habitat on public lands and private lands in part depends 

on the construction of boardwalks in areas identified as causing 

fragmentation of beach mice habitat. 

2.2.2. Protect dunes from vehicular driving. 

2.2.2.1. Map dunes impacted by vehicular driving. Areas within the dunes, 

which are impacted by vehicular driving, need to be identified and 

mapped. Once identified and mapped these areas can be targeted for 

additional conservation measures to better protect the dunes. By 

mapping these areas the success of protection measures could be 

monitored over time (Action 2.2.3.). 

2.2.2.2. Increase enforcement and implement preventive measures. In areas 

that vehicular driving on or within the dunes has been identified, 

increased enforcement efforts need to be initiated. In all other areas, 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

49

current enforcement efforts need to be continued, with other 

appropriate measures implemented as needed. 

2.2.3. Establish or continue monitoring program to document impacts to 

dunes from vehicular driving and pedestrian crossing. To effectively 

protect the dune systems within St. Andrew beach mouse habitat from 

impacts due to pedestrian crossing or vehicular driving, monitoring 

programs must be established or continued. These programs would need to 

determine if implemented measures are effective in keeping pedestrians and 

vehicles from impacting the dunes.

2.2.4. Research the degree feral hogs pose a threat to beach mice habitat and 

implement removal program if deemed necessary. Feral hog activities 

could have a significant impact on beach mouse habitat. Feral hog signs are 

being seen in some of the coastal dune systems (J. Mobley, pers. comm., 

2005); however, the threat they pose to the St. Andrew beach mouse is not 

known. Research is needed to understand whether feral hogs pose a direct 

threat to the mice from habitat destruction. Ongoing monitoring should 

include attention to the presence of feral hogs and detection of any habitat 

damage from hogs.

2.3. Restore dune systems. The restoration of habitat is an important component of the 

recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse. Because of the subspecies’ limited range, 

impacts to existing habitat could greatly affect the overall health of the populations. 

Efforts to restore habitat that has been impacted by human activities or by natural 

events should be accomplished to provide the highest quality habitat over its range.

2.3.1. Map dune systems in need of restoration. The data developed in Action 2.1 

would provide the basis for identifying those dune systems that are in need 

of restoration. 

2.3.2. Develop restoration plan for dune systems on public lands. Each agency 

managing land with St. Andrew beach mice habitat should develop a 

restoration plan, if they have not done so, that defines standards and 

procedures for conducting dune restoration projects based on accepted dune 

restoration guidelines. 

2.3.3. Restore dune systems on public lands. Restoration projects need to be 

prioritized and initiated for dune systems identified in Action 2.3.1 using 

standards and procedure established in Action 2.3.2. 

2.3.4. Develop or update existing restoration guidance for dune systems on private

lands. Restoration guidance that helps private landowners restore their 

coastal dune habitat is important. The development or update of existing 

documents that describe standard, accepted methods to restore coastal 

dunes, cost associated with these restoration efforts, sources of funding for 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

50

restoration projects in the form of landowner incentive programs, grants, 

sources for technical assistance, etc. 

2.3.5. Restore dune systems on private lands. Provide assistance to private 

landowners seeking to restore their dune systems. 

2.3.6. Establish a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of restoration

efforts. Establishing a monitoring program is an important component of 

any restoration effort. Without developing a monitoring program for 

restoration efforts, the effectiveness of these efforts would not be known. 

Monitoring needs to consist of consistent, standardized protocol for 

measuring the quality of coastal dune habitat. Part of this monitoring effort 

should include regular surveys to document signs of beach mice activity 

within the area. 

2.4. Identify, map, and monitor areas where shoreline erosion is occurring adjacent 

to known, occupied beach mice habitat. The extent that shoreline erosion 

threatens St. Andrew beach mice populations is not well known. In order to get a 

better understanding of the potential threat, it is necessary to identify and map those 

areas where shoreline erosion is occurring within St. Andrew beach mice habitat. 

These sites then need to be monitored over time to determine the level of threat 

shoreline erosion poses to the St. Andrew beach mouse. If shoreline erosion poses a 

threat to a population(s) of St. Andrew beach mouse, then a management plan could 

be developed to address the threat if it is deemed necessary.

2.4.1. Investigate options for shoreline erosion protection if monitoring indicates a

threat. If monitoring efforts of shoreline erosion indicate that there is a 

significant threat to beach mice, various measures need to be investigated to 

determine which measures would have the least impact to the habitat. 

2.4.2. Implement option(s) for shoreline erosion protection, if deemed feasible. If 

shoreline erosion protection is determined to be necessary, the option(s) that 

are deemed feasible for protecting beach mice habitat from shoreline erosion 

shall be implemented. 

3. Remove or investigate non-native predator threat to St. Andrew beach mice 

populations. 

3.1. Remove free-roaming cats, feral cats, and cat colonies from areas with known 

or reestablished beach mice populations. Cats are known to prey on beach mice. 

It is believed that feral cats have caused, or in-part, have caused the 

extinction/extirpation of beach mice populations (Bowen 1968, Traylor-Holzer et al. 

2005). Traylor-Holzer et al. (2005) found, when modeling the effects of cats on 

Alabama beach mouse population, that just one cat taking one beach mouse per day 

within a model unit (defined as “discrete Alabama beach mouse habitats having 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

51

distinct geographic features and/or similar threats...”) would result in the extinction 

of that population.

3.1.1. Identify areas where cats are present. Surveys need to be conducted within 

St. Andrew beach mouse habitat to determine if and where cats/cat colonies 

are present so that removal programs could be initiated at these locations. 

3.1.2. Continue to implement cat removal program on public lands. Where cat 

removal programs are established, these programs need to continue in order 

to keep cats from establishing themselves on public lands. 

3.1.3. Identify areas with no cat removal program and establish a removal

program. The establishment of a cat removal program on both public and 

private lands within St. Andrew beach mouse habitat is necessary in order to 

minimize or remove this threat. Traylor-Holzer et al. (2005) noted that if a 

cat removal program is “not routinely and comprehensively utilized, the 

effects of cats may become catastrophic,” as indicated by their model runs. 

Therefore, those areas that do not have a cat removal program, but have a 

cat problem need to be identified and a removal program established. 

3.1.4. Monitor effectiveness of free ranging cat (domestic and feral removal)

efforts. A monitoring program needs to be established in order to monitor if 

cats are being effectively removed from areas known to have a cat problem. 

The results of this monitoring program would feed back into the removal 

program(s) to provide an adaptive mechanism.

3.2. Research the degree of threat other non-native predators (i.e., coyote and red 

fox) pose to known beach mice populations and implement removal program . 

Coyote and red fox are known or thought to predate beach mice (Van Zant and 

Wooten 2003); however, the degree to which they pose a threat to beach mice 

populations is unknown. Research is needed to determine if these non-native 

predators pose a serious threat to the existence of the St. Andrew beach mice 

populations. 

4. Increase protection of beach mice through the creation, strengthening, and 

enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal dunes and minimize or 

remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse on private lands 

4.1.1. Work with Bay County to provide protection of all beaches and dunes,

within the county, from vehicular driving. The beach driving ordinance for 

Bay County provides restrictions for driving motor vehicles on beaches 

between “Alternative Highway 98 (Front Beach Road) and the water’s edge 

of the Gulf of Mexico.” This does not include those beaches in the eastern 

portion of the county between Highway 98 and the water’s edge of the Gulf 

of Mexico. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

52

4.1.2. Work with Bay and Gulf counties to adopt a feral cat removal program and

mechanism(s) prohibiting feral cat colonies and free roaming cats. Feral cat 

removal programs could be an effective tool for minimizing the threat of 

feral cats to the St. Andrew beach mouse. For the long-term management of 

feral cats county level mechanisms need to be established prohibiting feral 

cat colonies and the support of such colonies. Without these mechanisms in 

place cats would continue to be a problem that necessitates management 

through removal programs. 

4.1.3. Work with Bay and Gulf counties, where applicable, to require boardwalk

access to all beaches from single-family, multi-family, and commercial

developments. Mechanisms requiring the construction of boardwalks to 

access the beaches from both commercial and residential developments are 

important in protecting the dunes and allowing them to develop naturally. 

Boardwalks minimize the impact of dune crossings by beach goers and help 

maintain connectivity of habitat throughout its extent. 

4.1.4. Work with Gulf and Bay counties, where applicable, to establish regulations

for residential construction within the primary, secondary, and scrub dunes

that minimize impacts to dunes and provide for connectivity of beach mice

habitat. Land development within dune systems fragments and destroys 

beach mice habitat. In order to minimize the impact of development within 

the primary and secondary dune habitats land development mechanisms are 

needed. These mechanisms would still allow landowners to develop within 

the coastal dune system, but in a manner that reduces impacts to the habitat, 

while providing regulations that would increase the protection of their 

building(s). These mechanisms would include, but are not limited to: Site 

structures as far landward as possible to preserve the primary dune habitat; 

Site structures to preserve connectivity between primary, secondary and 

scrub dunes within property and adjacent property (see Appendix C for 

single-family homes and Appendix D for multi-family or commercial 

developments). 

4.1.5. In partnership with Gulf and Bay counties, the Service consults on all

development within the coastal dune system to provide guidance to the

landowner on ways to minimize impacts to coastal dune system. Currently 

Bay and Gulf counties do not require landowners, who desire to build within 

the coastal dune system, to obtain review and guidance on minimization of 

impacts to the coastal dune habitat within their property. In partnership with 

these counties such consultation needs to be established as part of the formal 

land development process for private lands within the coastal dune system. 

This action will help to ensure that development within these areas 

minimizes impact to the St. Andrew beach mouse. 

4.1.6. Monitor and enforce compliance with regulatory mechanisms for land

development, cats, dune vehicular driving, and boardwalks. Since the goal 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

53

of these ordinances is to remove or minimize the current, identified threats 

to the St. Andrew beach mouse, it is important that a program is established 

to monitor compliance. This would allow for the effectiveness of these 

regulations to be tracked and the identification of the reappearance of the 

identified threats which could then be addressed. 

4.1.7. Determine, in the Service’s review, whether designation of CBRA units

P30/P30P met the definition of the Act and/or whether there was a technical

error in mapping at the time of designation as requested by Congress. The 

Service will continue to review the designation of CBRA units P30/P30P, as 

requested by Congress, to determine whether the unit(s), when designated, 

met the definition of the Act and whether there were any errors in mapping 

the unit(s). 

5. Remove, minimize, or investigate other natural or manmade threats. 

5.1. Minimize the potential catastrophic effect of tropical storm and hurricane 

events on the St. Andrew beach mouse. Hurricane season occurs between June 

and November of each year. There is the potential threat that a hurricane(s) may 

develop and strike near the known range of the St. Andrew beach mouse, with the 

greatest likelihood during August through October and September the peak (TraylorHolzer et al. 2005). This is also the period of greatest stress to the St. Andrew beach 

mouse – warm weather and low food availability. Due to the limited range of this 

subspecies, the potential for one hurricane to strike and cause catastrophic effects to 

the entire range of the St. Andrew beach mouse exists. Although this threat can not 

be completely removed some steps can be taken to minimize the threat. Establishing 

multiple populations (see Action 1.2) and developing a plan that would set forth an 

emergency response would help to minimize the likelihood this subspecies would be 

wiped out by a storm event(s). Numerous discussions have taken place to address the 

most efficient and effective means of reducing the threat of catastrophic storm 

events, including taking a portion of the population into captivity, captive breeding, 

etc. However, solutions are still being evaluated.

5.1.1. Develop and implement emergency response plan. An emergency response 

plan would consist of steps needed to protect and conserve the subspecies 

when the threat of a storm is eminent. This plan should include, but not be 

limited to: provisions for a captive population, restoration of impacted 

habitat, implementation of a supplemental feeding program, and initiation of 

survey and monitoring activities post-storm. 

5.1.2. Establish a monitoring program for the effectiveness of the emergency

response plan. In order to determine if the above plan is effective, a 

monitoring program would need to be developed and implemented. The 

results of this monitoring program could then be used to update and refine 

the emergency response plan if necessary. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

54

5.2. Minimize and investigate the threat of house mice populations within coastal 

dune systems. Briese and Smith (1973) suggested that house mice invade beach 

mice habitat that has become degraded or that provides structures suitable for their 

habitation. The presence of house mice in beach mice habitat has been suggested to 

pose a competitive threat to beach mice (63 FR 70053). However, the situation is 

not fully understood.

5.2.1. Minimize the occurrence of house mice within known beach mice 

habitat. Some simple and cost-effective measures could be taken to 

minimize those factors that benefit house mice, thereby discouraging them 

to inhabit beach mouse habitat.

5.2.1.1. Install animal proof garbage containers on public lands and public

beach access sites. House mice feed on a variety of foods, which 

includes many human food items and their refuse (Whitaker and 

Hamilton 1998). In order to minimize a potential food source for 

house mice, public land managers need to continue to install animal 

proof garbage containers and replace those non-animal proof 

garbage containers that still exist. This would also have the added 

benefit of minimizing a food source for other species that could 

become nuisances (e.g., raccoons). 

5.2.1.2. Work with private landowners to remove or minimize factors that

attract house mice. By eliminating or minimizing things that attract 

or benefit house mice within private lands (i.e., abandoned buildings, 

non-animal proof garbage container, etc.), house mice would be less 

likely to establish themselves in the coastal dune systems. 

5.2.1.3. Monitor the effectiveness of conservation efforts to reduce

occurrence of house mice within beach mice habitat. A monitoring 

program needs to be established to monitor the status of house mice 

in St. Andrew beach mice habitat. The results of this monitoring 

program would aid in determining the effectiveness of management 

practices.

5.2.2. Conduct further research on house mice inhabiting beach mice habitat. 

In order to better understand whether house mice pose a threat to beach mice 

further research is needed. 

5.2.2.1. Conduct research on the competitive effects of house mice on beach

mice within a natural setting. Research is needed to further 

investigate the competitive effect of house mice on beach mice. 

Research should address questions like: Do house mice directly 

cause the decline of beach mice? Is a decline in beach mice due to 

the habitat degradation regardless of the presence of house mice? 

Do house mice utilize the same food? etc. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

55

5.2.2.2. Conduct research on condition of the coastal dune habitat in which

house mice occur. Briese and Smith (1973) suggested that house 

mice invade areas that are disturbed; however, further research is 

needed to determine the type(s) and degree of disturbance that are 

present where house mice occur within beach mice habitat. This 

information would allow for the development of specific 

management practices, if necessary, to effectively minimize or keep 

house mice from invading beach mouse habitat. 

5.3. Minimize and investigate the effects of artificial lighting on beach mice. 

Artificial lighting is known to effect beach mice behavior (Bird et al. 2004); 

however, the effects and type of lighting are not fully understood. Currently not all 

communities within the St. Andrew beach mouse range have implemented 

ordinances requiring wildlife friendly lighting within the coastal dune systems (L. 

Patrick, pers. comm., 2005).

5.3.1. Conduct further research on the effects of various artificial light 

regimes on beach mice behavior. Research on the effects of artificial light 

on beach mice behavior is limited; however, it is believed to pose a potential 

threat. With a better understanding of the effects of various artificial light 

regimes on beach mice behavior, measures could be implemented to better 

manage the impact artificial light pollution may pose to beach mice.

5.3.1.1. Determine what artificial lighting regimes have the greatest and least

effect on beach mice behavior. A full understanding of the effects 

different artificial lighting regimes have on beach mice has not been 

conducted. Research has shown that long-wavelength light, used to 

minimize impacts to sea turtles, affects the behavior of beach mice 

(Bird et al. 2004). However, we do not know what artificial lighting 

regime minimizes the impact to beach mice behavior; therefore, 

studies are needed to address this. 

 

5.3.1.2. Determine the effects of artificial lighting on the long term survival

of beach mice. A long-term study is needed to determine if and how 

artificial lighting effects the survival of beach mice populations. 

This would help in determining the degree to which artificial lighting 

poses a threat to the beach mice. 

5.3.1.3. Investigate the effects of artificial lighting relative to fragmentation

of beach mouse habitat at the landscape level. It is unknown if the 

effect of artificial lighting poses a threat to beach mice at a landscape 

level by further fragmenting suitable habitat. If artificial lighting did 

have a fragmenting effect on suitable habitat, it could negate the 

benefits of protecting habitat to provide connectivity between 

populations. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

56

5.3.2. Minimize the effects of artificial light on public and private lands within 

the coastal dune systems inhabited by beach mice. By managing 

artificial lighting in beach mice habitat, based on information obtained from 

research, the effects of this factor could be minimized. This needs to be 

implemented on both private and public lands in order to provide the 

greatest conservation benefit to the subspecies. 

5.3.2.1. Install approved sea turtle lighting or dark sky lighting within the

dunes on public lands. Public land managers need to continue to 

install sea turtle lighting in areas visible from the beach and dark sky 

lighting in areas not visible from the beach on public lands within 

the coastal dune systems inhabited by beach mice. In addition, they 

should replace those light sources that do not meet the standards of 

full cutoff lighting, as defined by International Dark-Sky Association 

(International Dark-Sky Association 2002). 

5.3.2.2. Work with public land managers to develop plans for their areas that

address artificial light pollution in coastal dune systems on public

lands. In order to minimize the threat of artificial lighting on beach 

mice in the long term public land managers need to develop 

management plan/guidelines that address artificial light pollution 

within the coastal dune systems on their lands. 

5.3.2.3. Work with private landowners and local governments in coastal

areas to replace conventional, artificial lighting with sea turtle or

wildlife lighting. Private landowners and local governments are a 

key partner in minimizing the effects of artificial lighting in beach 

mice habitat. In order to more completely minimize this potential 

threat, agencies must work with private landowners and local 

governments to replace existing conventional, artificial lighting with 

sea turtle lighting in areas visible from the beach and wildlife 

lighting in areas not visible from the beach. 

5.4. Determine the potential threat of the closing of the channel separating 

Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island from St. Andrew beach 

mice on East Crooked Island. The threat of the closing of the channel that now 

separates Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island from St. Andrew 

beach mice on East Crooked Island needs to be determined.

5.4.1. Develop a management plan to prevent the hybridization of Choctawhatchee

beach mice and St. Andrew beach mice at West and East Crooked Island,

respectively, if deemed to pose a threat. The development of a management 

plan defining management actions to prevent the hybridization of 

Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island and St. Andrew beach 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

57

mice on East Crooked Island is necessary if monitoring efforts show that the 

channel separating the two subspecies is naturally closing. 

5.4.2. Implement management plan to prevent the hybridization of

Choctawhatchee beach mice and St. Andrew beach mice at West and East

Crooked Island, respectively, if deemed to pose a threat. The management 

plan for preventing the hybridization of Choctawhatchee beach mice and St. 

Andrew beach mice at West and East Crooked Island, respectively, would 

need to be implemented when and if the channel separating the two 

subspecies closes 

6. Facilitate stewardship of St. Andrew beach mice recovery through increased public 

awareness and education. 

6.1. Develop a public outreach plan for addressing threats to St. Andrew beach mice 

and to the coastal dune systems they inhabit. The key to the success of the 

conservation and recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse depends greatly on the 

development of an effective outreach program. Without the education of the general 

public, private landowners, commercial landowners, etc. recovery of this species is 

less likely. The following actions would help to develop an effective outreach plan.

6.1.1. Investigate what outreach materials/efforts are currently available and

determine their target audience. A thorough search of the current outreach 

material and efforts related to beach mice, coastal dune ecosystems, and 

other coastal dune system information is necessary. The target audience for 

each of these materials/efforts needs to be determined. 

 

6.1.2. Identify what areas and/or issues are not being addressed by current

outreach materials/efforts. This information would help to identify areas 

lacking in outreach materials/efforts and target audiences that are not 

receiving the information. 

6.1.3. Determine the effectiveness of existing outreach efforts. This action could 

be difficult to accomplish, but it is very important. A lot of outreach efforts 

have been conducted, but it is unknown if they have they been effective in 

getting the information out to the right audience and if the message was 

delivered effectively. This information could help in refine how an outreach 

plan is crafted to more effectively reach audiences that are most important. 

6.1.4. Develop a coordinated outreach program effort for various target audiences. 

Due to the limited personnel, funding, and workloads of most agencies, it is 

important that a coordinated outreach program be developed for the various 

target audiences. This would reduce duplication of efforts, minimize efforts 

result in little return, and identify and utilize the strengths of each 

organization/agency to develop outreach materials/efforts. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Recovery Action Narrative 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

58

6.2. Continue outreach efforts that increase the public’s awareness of factors 

relating to identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mice. Many current 

outreach efforts related to those factors that have been identified as threats to the St. 

Andrew beach mice are occurring. These efforts need to continue while an outreach 

plan is being developed.

6.3. Establish partnership with Bay and Gulf counties’ Environmental Services/ 

Permitting sections. Greater communication and close coordination between the 

Service and the county planning/environmental services sections are crucial in order 

to more efficiently and effectively address ESA related concerns and requirements 

associated with new developments and other construction in beach mice habitat. 

This increased cooperation will also help provide the public with a more consistent 

message about their responsibilities as set forth by the ESA when developing in 

beach mice habitat. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – Implementation Schedule 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

59

PART III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

The following implementation schedule outlines the recovery actions with associated time 

and cost estimates for the St. Andrew beach mouse recovery program. The schedule is a 

guide for meeting the recovery objectives and criteria within this plan. It provides the action 

number; a description of the action to be performed; and an assigned priority for the recovery 

action. It also identifies the agency(s) and/or other parties that are the best candidates for 

accomplishing the recovery action. 

The schedule is laid out by the overarching recovery actions and associated actions needed to 

help achieve the overarching recovery action. Recovery action priorities, time and cost 

estimates, and responsible parties are not assigned to the overarching recovery actions. The 

reader should refer to the recovery narrative outline for a full description of all identified 

recovery actions. Implementation of all actions listed in the implementation schedule will 

lead to recovery. Initiation of these actions is subject to availability of funds. 

Key to Action Priority Numbers (Column 3)

Priority # Priority Definition

1 Any action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the 

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

2 Any action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in the 

species population, habitat quality, or some other significant negative 

impact short of extinction. 

3 All other actions necessary to provide full recovery. 

 

Key to Acronyms for Agencies and Organizations 

ANNERR = Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve 

BC = Bay County 

COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

EAFB = Eglin Air Force Base 

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FPS = Florida Park Service 

FWCC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GC = Gulf County 

NGO = Universities and/or other non-government 

SJC = St. Joe Company 

TAFB = Tyndall Air Force Base 

USDA = USDA Wildlife Services 

Key to Definitions for Terms Used 

Continual Task will be implemented on an annual or periodic basis once it is begun. 

Ongoing Task is currently being implemented and will continue until actions are no 

longer necessary for recovery. 

TBD Cost cannot be determined at this time; cost is dependent upon outcome of 

other recovery action(s). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 60

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

1.0 Monitor status of existing populations and 

reestablish additional populations of St. Andrew beach mice 

1.1.1 Establish monitoring program at known 

populations 2 10 yrs FWCC FPS, FWS, SJC 40 40 40 

1.1.2 Establish monitoring programs for reestablished 

populations 2 10 yrs FWCC FWS, SJC - - 40 

1.2.1.1 Prepare reintroduction plan for reestablishment 

of mice at St. Joe Beach 2 1 yr FWS SJC, FPS - 5 - 

1.2.1.2 Prepare reintroduction plan for reestablishment 

of mice at Cape San Blas 2 1 yr FWS EAFB, FPS - - 5 

1.2.1.3 Determine which existing population(s) is best 

source for reestablishment projects 2 2 yr FWS FWCC, FPS 40 40 - 

1.2.1.4 Translocate St. Andrew beach mice to St. Joe 

Beach and Cape San Blas 2 2 yr FWS EAFB, SJC - - - 

1.2.2.1 Identify additional, potential reestablishment 

sites 3 1 yr FWS FWCC, NGO - - 10 

1.2.2.2 Prepare feasibility study for establishing 

populations at additional reestablishment sites, if additional potential sites are found 

3 1 yr FWS FWCC - - 5 

1.2.2.3 Implement a captive breeding feasibility study 3 1 yr FWS FWCC - - 5 1.3.1 Investigate genetic differences between 

Choctawhatchee beach mice on West Crooked Island and St. Andrew beach mice on East Crooked Island 

3 2 yrs FWS NGO - 50 50 

1.3.2 Conduct further genetic analyses of historic 

populations on Crooked Island 3 2 yrs FWS NGO - 50 50 

1.3.3 Further investigate the genetic variation within 

and among St. Andrew beach mice populations 3 2 yrs FWS NGO 50 50 

Total for Objective 1 80 235 255 

2.0 Identify, protect, evaluate and restore St. 

Andrew beach mouse habitat 

2.1.1 Map suitable habitat throughout range 2 1 yr FWCC FWS 15 - - 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 61

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

2.1.2 Determine condition of suitable habitat 

2 1 yr FWCC 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

FWS, 

SJC, 

TAFB 

- 20 - 

2.1.3 Determine occupied and unoccupied suitable 

habitat 2 1 yr FWCC FWS - - 20 

2.2.1.1a Map sites where dunes are impacted by 

pedestrians and determine appropriate sites for 

public access 2 Ongoing FWS 

BC, 

EAFB, 

FPS, GC, 

SJC, 

TAFB 

3 1 1 

2.2.1.1b Install boardwalks or appropriate dune 

crossovers at all public access sites without boardwalks 

2 Continual FPS BC, GC, TAFB 3 TBD TBD 

2.2.1.1c Investigate other methods of providing beach 

access that protects the dunes and survives storm 

events 

3 2 yrs FPS NGO 10 10 - 

2.2.1.2a Identify developments in need of boardwalks 2 Continual BC, GC 2 2 2 2.2.1.2b Establish boardwalks where the needs have been 

identified 2 Ongoing BC, GC 2 2 2 

2.2.2.1 Map dunes impacted by vehicular driving 

3 Continual FWS 

ANERR, 

BC, FPS, 

EAFB, 

GC, SJC, 

TAFB 

3 1 1 

2.2.2.2 Continue enforcement efforts, increase 

enforcement, and measures taken where 

necessary 3 Ongoing FWS 

ANERR, 

BC, GC, 

FPS, SJC, 

TAFB 

2 2 2 

2.2.3 Establish or continue monitoring program to 

document impacts to dunes from vehicular driving and pedestrian crossing 

3 5 yrs FWS 

ANERR, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

2 2 2 

2.2.4 Research threat feral hogs pose to beach mice 

habitat and implement removal program if deemed necessary 

3 2 yrs NGO USDA 10 10 - 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 62

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

2.3.1 Map dune systems in need of restoration 

3 Continual FWS 

ANERR, 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

- - 5 

2.3.2 Develop restoration plan for dune systems on 

public lands 2 1 yr FWS 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

5 - - 

2.3.3 Restoration of dune systems on public lands 

2 Continual FPS 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

- - - 

2.3.4 Develop or update existing restoration guidance 

for dune systems on private lands 3 1 yr NGO ANERR, FWS, SJC 10 - - 

2.3.5 Restoration of dune systems on private lands 

2 Continual FWS 

ANERR, 

BC, GC, 

SJC 

- 30 30 

2.3.6 Establish a monitoring program to assess the 

effectiveness of restoration efforts 

3 5 yrs FWS 

ANERR, 

BC, 

EAFB, 

FPS, GC, 

SJC, 

TAFB 

5 5 5 

2.4.1 Investigate options for shoreline erosion 

protection if monitoring indicates a threat. 3 2 yrs FDEP 20 20 

2.4.2 Implement option(s) for shoreline erosion 

protection, if deemed feasible 3 Continual FDEP TBD TBD TBD 

Total for Objective 2 92 105 70 

3.0 Remove or investigate non-native predator 

threat to St. Andrew beach mice populations 

3.1.1 Identify areas where cats are present 1 Continual FPS SJC, TAFB 20 2 2 3.1.2 Continue to implement cat removal program on 

public lands 1 Ongoing USDA 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

10 10 10 

3.1.3 Establish cat removal program on lands without 

an established program 1 Ongoing USDA 10 10 10 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 63

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

3.1.4 Monitor effectiveness of free ranging cat 

(domestic and feral) removal efforts 1 5 yrs USDA 2 2 2 

3.2 Research degree of threat non-native predators 

pose to beach mice and implement removal program if deemed necessary 

2 2 yrs NGO USDA 10 10 - 

Total for Objective 3 52 34 24 

4.0 Increase protection of beach mice through the 

creation, strengthening, and enforcement of regulatory mechanisms to protect coastal dunes and minimize or remove identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse on private lands. 

4.1.1 Work with Bay County to provide protection of 

all beaches and dunes, within the county, from vehicular driving 

3 1 yr FWS BC 5 - - 

4.1.2 Work with Bay and Gulf counties to adopt a 

feral cat removal program and mechanism(s) prohibiting feral cat colonies and at large cats 1 1 yr FWS 

ANERR, 

BC, 

FWCC, 

GC 

5 - - 

4.1.3 Work with Bay and Gulf counties, where 

applicable, to require boardwalk access to all beaches from single-family, multi-family, and commercial developments 

1 1 yr FWS ANERR, BC, GC 5 - - 

4.1.4 Work with Gulf and Bay counties, where 

applicable, to establish regulations for residential construction within the primary, secondary, and scrub dunes that minimize impacts to dunes and provide for connectivity of beach mice habitat 

2 2 yr FWS BC, GC 5 5 - 

4.1.5 In partnership with Gulf and Bay counties, the 

Service consults on all development within the coastal dune system to provide guidance to the 

landowner on ways to minimize impacts to coastal dune system 

2 Ongoing FWS BC, GC - - - 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 64

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

4.1.6 Monitor and enforce compliance with newly 

established ordinances for land development, cats, dune vehicular driving, and boardwalks 

1 5 yrs BC, GC 2 2 2 

4.1.7 Determine, in the Service’s review, whether the 

designation of CBRA units P30/P30P met the definition of the Act and/or whether there was a technical error in mapping at time of designation 

3 Ongoing FWS 5 TBD TBD 

Total for Objective 4 27 7 2 

5.0 Remove, minimize, or investigate other 

natural or manmade threats 

5.1.1 Develop and implement emergency response 

plan 1 1 yr FWS ANERR, FWCC 35 - - 

5.1.2 Establish monitoring plan for effectiveness of 

emergency response plan 1 10 yrs FWS FWCC 25 0 25 

5.2.1.1 Install animal proof garbage containers on 

public lands and public beach access sites 2 1 yr FPS 

BC, 

EAFB, 

GC, 

TAFB 

7.5 - - 

5.2.1.2 Work with private landowners to remove or 

minimize those factors that attract house mice 2 2 yrs FWCC FWS 5 5 - 

5.2.1.3 Monitor effectiveness of conservation efforts to 

reduce occurrence of house mice within beach mice habitat 

3 5 yrs FWCC 

FPS, 

FWS, 

NGO 

1 1 1 

5.2.2.1 Conduct research on competitive effects of 

house mice on beach mice 3 2 yrs NGO FWCC, FWS 30 30 - 

5.2.2.2 Research conditions of coastal dune habitat 

inhabited by house mice 3 2 yrs NGO FWCC, FWS 60 60 - 

5.3.1.1 Determine what artificial lighting regimes have 

the greatest and least effect on beach mice behavior 

2 2 yrs NGO FWCC, FWS 30 30 - 

5.3.1.2 Determine effects of artificial lighting on long 

term survival of beach mice 3 5 yrs NGO FWCC, FWS 30 30 30 

5.3.1.3 Investigate the effects of artificial lighting 

relative to fragmentation of beach mouse habitat at the landscape level 

2 2 yrs NGO FWCC, FWS 30 30 - 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 65

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

5.3.2.1 Install approved sea turtle lighting or dark sky 

lighting within the dunes on public lands 2 1 yr FWS 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

10 - - 

5.3.2.2 Work with public land managers to develop 

plans for their areas that addresses artificial light pollution in coastal dune systems on public lands 

2 1 yr FWS 

EAFB, 

FPS, 

TAFB 

5 - - 

5.3.2.3 Work with private land owners and local 

governments in coastal areas to replace conventional, artificial lighting with sea turtle or 

wildlife lighting 

2 2 yrs FWS BC, GC 20 20 - 

5.4.1 Develop a management plan to prevent the 

hybridization of Choctawhatchee beach mice and St. Andrew beach mice at West and East Crooked Island, respectively, if deemed to pose a threat 

2 1 yr FWS FWCC, TAFB 10 - - 

5.4.2 Implement management plan to prevent the 

hybridization of Choctawhatchee beach mice and St. Andrew beach mice at West and East Crooked Island, respectively, if deemed to pose a threat 

2 Continual FWS 

FWCC, 

TAFB, 

COE 

TBD TBD TBD 

Total for Objective 5 298.5 206 56 

6.0 Facilitate recovery of St. Andrew beach mice 

through increased public awareness, education, and stewardship. 

6.1.1 Investigate outreach materials/efforts currently 

available and determine their target audience 2 1 yr FWS ANERR, NGO 10 - - 

6.1.2 Identify areas/issues are not being addressed by 

current outreach materials/efforts 2 1 yr FWS ANERR, FWCC 5 - - 

6.1.3 Determine effectiveness of existing outreach 

efforts 2 1 yr FWS ANERR, NGO 2 - - 

6.1.4 Develop a coordinated outreach program effort 

for various target audiences 2 2 yrs FWS 

ANERR, 

FWCC, 

NGO 

20 10 - 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Recovery Program – 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 66

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE (PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTU

Responsible Parties1 Recovery Cost Estim

Action # 

Recovery Action Description Priority 

# 

Recovery 

Action 

Duration 

Lead Other FY1 FY2 FY3 

6.2 Continue outreach efforts that increase the 

public’s awareness of factors relating to identified threats to the St. Andrew beach mice 

2 Ongoing FWS 

ANERR, 

FDEP, 

FWCC 

10 10 10 

6.3 Establish partnership with Bay and Gulf 

counties’ Environmental Services/ Permitting 

sections. 

1 Ongoing FWS BC, GC - - - 

Total for Objective 6 47 20 10 

1Does not commit identified party to doing the work; it just identifies the best candidate for completing the action 

Total Estimated Cost: $2,093,500
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

67

PART IV. LITERATURE CITED 

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 1997. Memorandum on Unit 

activities with St. Andrew beach mice. 1 p. 

Bates, S.B. 1992. Distribution of beach mice in coastal parks in northwest Florida. Final 

Report to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 12 + 32 pp. 

Bay County Board of Commissioners. 1994. Ordinance No. 89-20. Bay County animal 

control ordinance. 

Bay County Board of Commissioners. 2004. Bay County land development regulations. 

Bird, B.L., L.C. Branch, and D.L. Miller. 2004. Effects of coastal lighting on foraging 

behavior of beach mice. Conservation Biology. 18(5):1435-1439. 

Blair, W.F. 1951. Population structure, social behavior, and environmental relations in a 

natural population of the beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus leucocephalus. 

Contributions to the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of Michigan 48:1-

47. 

Blake, E.S., J.D. Jarrell, E.N. Pappaport, and C.W. Landsea. 2005. The deadliest, costliest, 

and most intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2004 (and other 

frequently requested hurricane facts). NOAA Technical Memorandum, NWS TPC-4. 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml 

Bowen, W.W. 1968. Variation and evolution of Gulf coast populations of beach mice, 

Peromyscus polionotus. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 

12(1):1-91. 

Briese, L.A., and M.H. Smith. 1973. Competition between Mus musculus and Peromyscus 

polionotus. Journal of Mammalogy 54:968-969. 

Caldwell, L.D., and J.B. Gentry. 1965a. Natality in Peromyscus polionotus populations. 

American Midland Naturalist 74:168-175. 

Caldwell, L.D., and J.B. Gentry. 1965b. Interactions of Peromyscus and Mus in a one-acre 

field enclosure. Ecology 46:189-192. 

Clark, F.H. 1938. Age of sexual maturity in mice of the genus Peromyscus. Journal of 

Mammalogy 19:230-234. 

Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. University Press. 

Tallahassee, Florida. 605 pp. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

68

Coastal Barrier Resources Act [CBRA] of 1982; Public Law 97-348; 96 Stat. 1653; 16 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Coastal Tech and Preble-Rish, Inc. 1998. Hurricane evacuation route and beach 

management on St. Joseph Peninsula: Feasibility and design study. 68 + 65 pp. 

Daniel, M., B. Constantin, and L. Patrick. 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife 

Services aids coalition of agencies across the Florida panhandle with control of nonnative predators to protect sea turtle nests. Poster paper presented at the 22nd Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Miami, FL U.S.A. April 4-7, 

2002. 

Eglin Air Force Base. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Component Plan. Eglin 

Air Force Base, Florida. 

Eglin Air Force Base. 2007. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Eglin Air 

Force Base, Florida. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1978. Choctawhatchee beach mouse. Pp. 18-19 in J.N. Layne (ed.), Rare and 

endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. University Presses of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. T.H. Stone Memorial St. Joseph 

Peninsula State Park Unit Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 35 + 69 pp. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Hurricane Dennis, beach and dune 

erosion and structural damage assessment and post-storm recovery plan for the 

panhandle coast of Florida. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Services, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. 51 pp. 

Foltz, D.W. 1981. Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, 

Peromyscus polionotus. American Midland Naturalist 117:665-675. 

Foster, E.R. and J. Cheng. 2001. Shoreline change rate estimates, Gulf County. Office of 

Beaches and Coastal Systems, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Report #BCS-01-02. 

Gentry, J.B. 1966. Invasion of a one year abandoned field by Peromyscus polionotus and 

Mus musculus. Journal of Mammalogy 47:431-439. 

Gibson, D.J. and P.B. Looney. 1992. Vegetation monitoring before and after beach 

renourishment on Perdido Key. The Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Research, 

University of West Florida. Report #03:09-30-91. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

69

Gore, J. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1987. Memorandum on St. 

Andrew beach mouse status. 4 pp. 

Gore, J. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1990. Letter to Michael M. 

Bentzien. 4 pp. 

Gore, J. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1994. Letter to John Milio. 

5 pp. 

Gore, J. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1995. Memorandum on Beach 

mice status and recovery planning. 5 pp. 

Gulf County. 1996. Gulf County, Florida: Unified land development regulations. HAS, Inc. 

265 pp. 

Gulf County Board of Commissioners. 1997. Ordinance No 97-02. Regulation of vehicular 

traffic on certain coastal beaches within Gulf County, Florida. 

Gulf County Board of Commissioners. 1998. Ordinance No 98-11. Regulation, licensing, 

vaccination, confinement, classification as dangerous and disposal of animals in Gulf 

County. 

Gulf County Board of Commissioners. 2003. Ordinance No 2003-09. Amending Gulf 

County Ordinance 97-02, adopting and making applicable those rules and regulations 

of the St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan for Eglin lands within Gulf 

County, Florida. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1181 

+ 90 pp. 

Hipes, D., D.R. Jackson, K. NeSmith, D. Printiss, and K. Brandt. 2000. Field guide to the 

rare animals of Florida. Florida Natural areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Holliman, D.C. 1983. Status and habitat of Alabama Gulf coast beach mice Peromyscus 

polionotus ammobates and P. p. trissyllepsis. Northeast Gulf Science. 6:121-129. 

Holler, N.R. 1992. Choctawhatchee beach mouse. Pp. 76-86 in S.R. Humphrey (ed.), Rare 

and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. University Press of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Holler, N.R. Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 1996. Memorandum 

on annual report of activities, Permit Number PRT-800196. 6 pp. 

Howell, A.H. 1939. Descriptions of five new mammals from Florida. Journal of 

Mammalogy 20:363-365. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

70

H.R. 3333, 108th Cong. 2003. To exempt certain coastal barrier areas in Florida from 

limitations on Federal expenditures and financial assistance under the Coastal 

Barriers Resources Act, and limitations on flood insurance coverage under the 

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. (21 March 2007). 

H.R. 3280, 109th Cong. 2005. To exempt certain coastal barrier areas in Florida from 

limitations on Federal expenditures and financial assistance under the Coastal 

Barriers Resources Act, and limitations on flood insurance coverage under the 

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. (21 March 2007). 

Humphrey, S.R., and D.B. Barbour. 1981. Status and habitat of three subspecies of 

Peromyscus polionotus in Florida. Journal of Mammalogy. 62(4):840-844. 

International Dark-Sky Association. 2002. Glossary of basic terms and definitions. 

Information Sheet #9. 4 pp. Available from International Dark-Sky Association via 

the Internet (http://www.darksky.org). 

James, F.C. 1987. Endemism in a beach population of the oldfield mouse Peromyscus 

polionotus peninsularis. Final Project Report to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission. 23 pp. 

James, F.C. 1992. St. Andrew beach mouse. Pp. 87-93 in S.R. Humphrey (ed.), Rare and 

endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. University Press of Florida, 

Gainesville. 

Kimball, Suzette. U.S. National Park Service. 1996. Memorandum on Recommendations 

for Santa Rosa Island Beach Management. 5 pp. 

Lamont, M.M., H.F. Percival, L.G. Pearlstine, S.V. Colwell, W.M. Kitchens, and R.R. 

Carthy. 1997. The Cape San Blas ecological study. U.S.G.S. Biological Resources 

Division, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Tech. Rep. No. 57. 

210 pp. 

Leadon, M.E. 1996. Hurricane Opal: Damage to Florida’s beaches, dunes and coastal 

structures. Pp. 313-328 in Tait, L.S. (compiler), Proceedings of the 9th National 

Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Florida Shore and Beach 

Preservation Association Printing, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Leadon, M.E. 2004. Hurricane Ivan, beach and dune erosion and structural damage 

assessment and post-storm recovery plan for the panhandle coast of Florida. Bureau 

of Beaches and Coastal Services, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

61 pp. 

Leadon, M.E., R.R. Clark, and N. Nguyen. 1999. Hurricane Earl and Hurricane Georges, 

beach and dune erosion and structural damage assessment and post-storm recovery 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

71

plan for the panhandle coast of Florida. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Services, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Report #BCS-99-01. 

Leatherman, S.P. 1979. Barrier island handbook. National Park Service. University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 101 pp. 

Leland, B.R. 1997. Final report on the management of predation losses to sea turtle nests 

caused by coyotes at Saint Joseph Peninsula State Park. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, 

South Carolina prepared for USDA Florida State Office. 2 pp. 

The Library of Congress. 2007a. “Bill Summary and Status – All Information.” THOMAS. 

The Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03333:@@@L&summ2=m& (28 Feb). 

The Library of Congress. 2007b. “Bill Summary and Status – All Information.” THOMAS. 

The Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03280:@@@L&summ2=m& (28 Feb). 

Loggins, R., J. Gore, and L. Slaby. 2007. Report. Draft: St. Andrew beach mouse survey 

results, St. Joseph Peninsula – 2005 & 2006. 9 pp. 

Loggins, R., J. Gore, and L. Slaby. 2008. Long Term Monitoring of Beach Mouse 

Populations in Florida. Final Report to USFWS. 68 pp. 

Lynn, W.J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Unpublished data on East Crooked 

Island trapping May 2000. 4 pp. 

Lynn, W.J. 2000b. Social organization and burrow-site selection of the Alabama beach 

mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, 

Auburn, Alabama. 51 pp. 

Lynn, W.J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Memorandum dated May 29, 2002 on St. 

Andrew beach mouse survey. 4 pp. 

Lynn, W.J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Report. Monitoring and effects upon the 

Choctawhatchee beach mouse from the reopening of East Pass in Bay County, 

Florida. 8 pp. 

Meyers, J.M. 1983. Status, microhabitat, and management recommendations for 

Peromyscus polionotus on Gulf coast beaches. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 29 pp. 

Moyers, J.E. 1996. Food habits of Gulf coast subspecies of beach mice (Peromyscus 

polionotus spp.). M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 84 pp. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

72

Moyers, J.E., and S.M. Shea. 2002. Annual trapping report, Choctawhatchee and St. 

Andrew beach mice at St. Joe development sites, Walton, Bay, and Gulf counties, 

Florida. St. Joe Timberland Company. 6 pp. 

Moyers, J.E., N.R. Holler, and M.C. Wooten. 1999. Current distribution and status of the 

Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, and St. Andrew beach mouse. Species Status Report 

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Grant Agreement #1448-0004-94-9174. 

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn University, Alabama. 

Moyers, J.E., H.G. Mitchell, and N.R. Holler. 1996. Status and distribution of Gulf coast 

subspecies of beach mice. Annual report for Grant Agreement #1448-0004-94-9174. 

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn University, Alabama. 

19 pp. 

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968; 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. 

National Park Service. 2000. Environmental assessment for Perdido Key beach mouse 

habitat protection, Johnson Beach, Perdido Key area, Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

29 + 2 pp. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The five-s framework for site conservation: A 

practitioner’s handbook for conservation planning and measuring conservation 

success. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 

http://www.nature.org/summit/files/five_s_eng.pdf

Niemi, K. 2006. CBRA hearing on 5 technical correction bills. Katie Niemi, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. April 12, 2006 email forwarded by Cynthia Bohn to the Panama 

City Field Office. 

Northwest Florida Partnership. 2002. Partnership results in protection of sea turtle nests 

through control of non-native predators on public lands across northwest Florida. 

Poster paper presented at 20th annual Sea Turtle Symposium, Orlando, Florida. 

February 29 - March 4, 2000. 

Novak, J.A. 1997. Home range composition and habitat use of Choctawhatchee beach mice. 

M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 92 pp. 

 

Rave, E.H. and N.R. Holler. 1992. Population dynamics of beach mice (Peromyscus 

polionotus ammobates) in southern Alabama. Journal of Mammalogy. 73(2):327-

355. 

Shaffer, M. and B.A. Stein. 2000. Safeguarding our Precious Heritage. Chapter 11 in Stein, 

B.A., L.S. Kutner, J.S. Adams (eds). Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity 

in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York. 399 pp. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

73

Slaby, L. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 2005. Letter to Paul A. Lang. 

1 pp. 

Sneckenberger, S.I. 2001. Factors influencing habitat use by the Alabama beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, 

Alabama. 101 pp. 

Swilling, Jr., W.R. 2000. Ecological dynamics of the endangered Alabama beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, 

Alabama. 91 pp. 

Swilling, Jr., W.R., and M.C. Wooten. 2002. Subadult dispersal in a monogamous species: 

the Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). Journal of 

Mammalogy 83(1):252-259. 

Swilling, Jr., W.R., M.C. Wooten, N.R. Holler, and W.J. Lynn. 1998. Population dynamics 

of Alabama beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) following Hurricane 

Opal. American Midland Naturalist 140:287-298. 

Traylor-Holzer, K., R. Lacy, D. Reed, and O. Byers (eds). 2005. Alabama beach mouse 

population and habitat viability assessment: Final report. IUCN/SSC Conservation 

Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. 108 + 26 pp. 

Tyndall Air Force Base. 2006. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Tyndall Air 

Force Base, Florida. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Recovery plan for the Alabama beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), Perdido Key beach mouse (P. p. trissyllepsis), 

and Choctawhatchee beach mouse (P. p. allophrys). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Atlanta, Georgia. 45 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Written testimony of Dr. Mamie Parker, Assistant 

Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on 

Fisheries and Oceans regarding H.R. 138, H.R. 479, H.R. 1656, H.R. 3280, and H.R. 

4165. 

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Parker_CBRA_Testimony_4_06_06_OMB_

CLEARED.pdf. (20 March). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Perdido Key 

Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St. Andrew Beach Mouse. 71 FR 

60238. 

Van Zant, J.L., and M.C. Wooten. 2003. Translocation of Choctawhatchee beach mice 

(Peromyscus polionotus allophrys): hard lessons learned. Biological Conservation 

112:405-413. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Literature Cited 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

74

Walton, T.L., and T.C. Skinner. 1983. Beach dune walkover structures. Florida 

Cooperative Extension Marine Advisory Bulletin. 13 pp. 

Whitaker, Jr. J.O., and W.J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States. 

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 583 pp. 

Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 2003. Understanding, assessing, and resolving lightpollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. 3rd ed. Rev. Florida Marine 

Research Institute Technical Report TR-2. 73 pp. 

Wolfe, J.L., and R.J. Esher. 1978. The behavior of a burrowing mouse (Peromyscus 

polionotus) in a residential maze. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Science 

23:100-109. 

Wolfe, J.L., and C.T. Summerlin. 1989. The influence of lunar light on nocturnal activity of 

the old-field mouse. Animal Behavior 37:410-414. 

Wolff, J.O. 1985. The effects of food, density and interspecific interference on home range 

size in Peromyscus leucopus and P. maniculatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

63:2657-2662. 

Wooten, M.C., and N.R. Holler. 1999. Genetic analyses within and among natural 

populations of beach mice. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Grant 

#1448-0004-04-9174. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 74 pp. 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix A 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

75

PART V. APPENDICES 

Appendix A. List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms 

ACRONYMS

The following are a list of acronyms found throughout this document: 

AFB Air Force Base 

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

ESA The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FPS Florida Park Service (division of FDEP) 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FR Federal Register

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NRB Natural Resources Branch (Tyndall Air Force Base) 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

GLOSSARY

The following are definitions of terms used within this document: 

Cutoff Fixture – a fixture that provides a cutoff (shielding) of the emitted light (IDA 2002). 

Dark Sky Lighting – full cutoff fixtures as defined by the International Dark-Sky 

Association. 

Frontal Dunes – dune system comprised of the primary and secondary dunes 

Full-Cutoff Shielded Fixtures – a luminaire light distribution where zero candela intensity 

occurs at an angle of 90o above nadir, and at all greater angles from nadir. Additionally, the 

candela per 1000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 100 (10%) at a vertical angle of 

80 o above nadir. This applies to all lateral angles around the luminaire. This kind of 

luminaire emits no light above the horizontal (International Dark-Sky Association 2002). 

Primary Dunes – dune line that is furthest seaward 

Sea Turtle Lighting – full cutoff fixtures, low pressure sodium, 480 lumen bug bulbs, 

compact fluorescent, or light-emitting diode (LED). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix A 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

76

Secondary Dunes - Dune lines landward of the primary dune just prior to the scrub dunes 

REFERENCE

International Dark-Sky Association. 2002. Glossary of basic terms and definitions. 

Information sheet #9. 4pp. Available from International Dark-Sky Association via the 

Internet (http://www.darksky.org)
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix C 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

77

Appendix B. Threat Assessment Parameters and Ranking Values 

Threat assessment parameters and ranking values were defined as (the value within the 

parentheses ( ), below, denotes the corresponding numeric value assigned): 

Severity – measure of the degree or level that a stressor poses a threat to the species or its 

habitat over time under current conditions. 

Level of Impact – degree reference for severity. Level of Impact is defined as the 

degree at which the stressor poses a threat. Ranking values were: High (4); Medium 

(3); Low (2); Unknown (1). 

Immediacy - temporal reference for severity. Immediacy is defined as a stressor that 

is occurring now or is a potential stressor in the future. Ranking values were: 

Current stressor (2); Potential stressor (1). 

Likelihood – likelihood is defined as the likelihood the stressor in itself could cause 

extinction of the species. This was a way of measuring the degree by which the 

stressor is an independent stressor or a cumulative/additive stressor. In other words, 

does it pose an extinction threat by itself or does it pose an extinction threat not by 

itself, but in combination with other stressors? Ranking values were: High (4) - high 

likelihood that could cause extinction by itself; Moderate (3) - somewhat likely it 

could cause extinction by itself; Low (2) - not very likely it will cause extinction by 

itself; Unknown (1). 

Scope – the extent, both spatially and temporally, that a stressor poses a threat to the species. 

Spatial Extent – a spatial reference for scope. Spatial extent is defined as the 

geographic extent for which the stressor poses a threat to the species. For instance, 

does the stressor only pose a threat to part of the known range or to the entire range? 

Ranking values were: Entire (4) - entire range; Partial (3) - more than one part of the 

range; Local (2) - one part of the range; Unknown (1). 

Temporal Extent – a temporal reference for scope. Temporal extent is defined as the 

seasonal extent for which the stressor poses a threat to the species. For instance, does 

the stressor only pose a threat to part of the year (e.g., hurricanes) or the entire year 

(e.g., development)? Ranking values were: Continuous (3) - all the time; Seasonal 

(2) - part of the year; Unknown (1). 

Management – management is defined as a measure of conservation actions taken to 

preserve, protect, and/or conserve the species. 

Response – the likelihood that a management action(s) to remove the stressor will 

result in a positive response. Ranking values were: High (4) - high likelihood of 

responding to management; Medium (3) - medium likelihood of responding to 

management; Low (2) - low likelihood of responding to management; Unknown (1). 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix C 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

78

Feasibility – the measure of our ability to develop management for the stressor. This 

encompasses technical, fiscal, logistical, legal, and/or social roadblocks. Ranking 

values were: Feasible (3) - Feasible to manage; Possible (2) - Possible to manage; 

Unfeasible (1) - Not possible to manage. 

The threat assessment parameters for each stressor were then given an overall score based on 

the ranking values. 

Score - Score is a priority rank for each stressor. The priority rank score was calculated by 

summing the values assigned to each threat assessment parameter for each of the stressors. 

This score attempts to take into account the overall threat a stressor poses to the species and 

how well these stressors can be abated. This is an attempt to guide us in addressing which 

stressors in what order. 

Threat - Threat priority rank score looks at the overall threat the stressor poses to the 

species based on severity and scope. By ranking stressors just by severity and scope 

we are able to identify which stressors are perceived to pose the greatest threat to the 

species. Management parameters were not figured into this score because it was 

thought that it would obscure which stressors posed the greatest threat. The overall 

threat rank was calculated by: 

Overall Threat = SS1 + SS2

 where: 

 SS1 = Severity Score; 

 SS2 = Scope Score 

SS1 = Li + I + L

 where: 

 Li = Level of Impact; 

 I = Immediacy; 

 L = Likelihood 

SS2 = Se + Te

 where: 

 Se = Spatial Extent; 

 Te = Temporal Extent 

Management - Management priority rank score looks at the overall “value” of 

addressing the threat with some management action. Threat assessment based on 

severity and scope measures allows us to identify those stressors that are of greatest 

threat to the species. The management priority rank score allows subsequent 

prioritization of those stressors based on which ones would give us the best “bang for 

the buck.” This most notably comes into play when two or more stressors obtain the 

same priority rank score based on severity and scope measures. The management 

priority rank score allows those equally scored stressors to be prioritized by which 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix C 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

79

ones would be more effective and feasible to manage. This addresses cost/benefit. 

The overall management rank was calculated by: 

Overall Management = R + F

 where: 

 R = Response; 

 F = Feasibility 

Overall - Overall score is the summation of all severity, scope, and management 

parameter values. This provides the overarching priority of each stressor taking into 

account the degree of threat and the management of that threat (i.e., the higher the 

overall score, the higher the priority). The overall rank was calculated by: 

Overall = TS + MS

 where: 

 TS = Overall Threat Score; 

 MS = Overall Management Score 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix C 

DRAFT 4/21/2009

 

80

Appendix C. The Natural Cyclic Nature of Beach Mice Populations 

While beach mice are short-lived species, the cyclic nature of their populations require 

longer-term monitoring in order to detect trends. In order to accurately assess population 

dynamics, it is necessary to track the population through several cycles. Consequently, 

demographic recovery criteria for the St. Andrew beach mouse have been created to detect 

these trends. 

General graphic depicting cyclic nature of beach mice populations over time. 

Time 

Population Estimate . 

Approximately 10 

year cycle 
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix E 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 

 

81

Appendix D. Coastal Construction Conservation Measures to Protect Beach and Dune 

Habitat for Single-Family Homes 

Coastal Construction Conservation Measures to Protect Beach and Dune Habitats

Conservation measures can be implemented that would protect beach and dune habitats of coastal species 

including sea turtles, beach mice, shorebirds, and dune vegetation. A strong dune system is important for 

the first line of defense against storms to help protect human lives, property, and upland habitats. 

Sea turtles come ashore to nest on the beach from May through October. Optimal nesting habitat is a dark 

beach free of barriers that restrict their movement. Nesting shorebirds lay their nests, raise their young, 

and forage for food from April through August. Shorebirds depend upon beach and dune habitats with 

minimal human disturbance. Wintering shorebirds need the beach and dune habitats to feed and rest 

escaping the colder weather from the north. Beach mice are nocturnal and forage for food throughout the 

dune system. Beach mouse habitat can comprise separate or a mixture of habitats including primary, 

secondary, scrub dunes, and interdunal areas. Beach mice dig burrows mainly in the primary dunes and 

in other secondary and interior scrub dunes where the vegetation provides cover. 

Conservation Measures for Single-family Homes

1. Minimize structure footprint to reduce overall impacts to dune habitats. For beachfront projects, 

site the structure as far landward as possible to conserve primary dune habitats. 

2. Site the construction footprint to preserve connection between primary, secondary, and scrub 

dune habitats onsite and with adjacent properties 

3. Install a minimal size boardwalk over the dunes for beach access. The boardwalk should be 

designed to allow natural dunes to grow (a minimum of three feet above grade). Avoid creating a 

weak spot that could blow out in a storm. 

4. Landscape using only native plants and soils characteristic of local dune habitats. No lawn sod. 

5. Install sea turtle lighting including windows and glass doors around the entire homesite. This will 

reduce the direct and ambient lighting of the beach and dune habitats within and adjacent to the 

project site. The lighting plan should be reviewed and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

6. Prohibit free movement of pets in beach and dune habitats. Do not encourage (feed) feral cats in 

dune habitats. 

7. Provide sturdy animal-proof garbage containers to prevent the invasion of house mice and their 

predators. 

8. Post or fence property boundaries that allow movement of native wildlife to and from adjacent 

habitats and control access by people and pets. 

Implementation of these measures will help protect coastal habitat. For additional information please 

contact:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1601 Balboa Avenue 

Panama City, Florida 32405 

(850) 769-0552
ST. ANDREW BEACH MOUSE Appendix E 

DRAFT 4/21/2009 

 

82

Appendix E. Coastal Construction Conservation Measures to Protect Beach and Dune 

Habitat for Multi-Family or Commercial Developments 

Coastal Construction Conservation Measures to Protect Beach and Dune Habitats

Conservation measures can be implemented that would protect beach and dune habitats of coastal species 

including sea turtles, beach mice, and shorebirds. A strong dune system is important for the first line of 

defense against storms to help protect human lives, property, and upland habitats. 

Conservation Measures for Multi-family or Commercial Developments

1. Minimize development footprint to reduce overall impacts to dune habitats. 

2. Site the development as far landward as possible to conserve primary dune habitats. 

3. Maximize the quality of non-developed areas within the development by connecting dune habitats 

and landscaped areas using native vegetation. 

4. Limit pedestrian crossing of dune habitat by installing the minimal number and size boardwalks 

over the dunes for beach access. The boardwalk should be designed to allow natural dunes to 

grow. Avoid creating a weak spot that could blow out in a storm. . 

5. Landscape using only native plants and soils characteristic of local dune habitats. 

6. Install sea turtle lighting within the entire development. This will reduce the direct and ambient 

lighting of the beach and dune habitats within and adjacent to the project site. 

7. Prohibit free movement of pets in beach and dune habitats. Do not encourage (feed) feral cats in 

dune habitats. 

8. Provide sturdy animal-proof garbage containers to prevent the invasion of house mice and their 

predators. 

9. Remove all beach chairs, umbrellas, etc., from the beach each night from May 1 through October 

31. These should be moved either to landward of the CCCL or to a storage enclosure seaward of 

the CCCL . 

10. Incorporate the above Conservation Measures as Covenants and Restrictions for the development. 

Implementation of these measures will help protect coastal habitat. For additional information please 

contact: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1601 Balboa Avenue 

Panama City, Florida 32405 

(850) 769-0552