S 
RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE

ANASTASIA ISLAND BEACH MOUSE

(Peromyscus polionotus p/zasma)

and

SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MOUSE

(Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris)

prepared by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Southeast Region

Atlanta, Georgia

/~ AiAa A

Approved: W.~lliam,Jr~~~

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date: September 23, 1993
Disclaimer Page

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

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

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

others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to

budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address

other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official

positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other

than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or

Director as anproved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by

new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

Acknowledgment:

The cover sketch was done by Karolee Owens of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

Jacksonville, Florida Field Office.

Literature Citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for the Anastasia Island and

Southeastern Beach Mouse. Atlanta, Georgia. 30 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

(301)429-6403 or 1-800-582-3421

Fees for recovery plans vary, depending upon the number of pages.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status: The Anastasia Island beach mouse is listed as an endangered species, and is

restricted to Anastasia Island, St. Johns County, Florida and a recently introduced population

at Guana River State Park, Flagler County. The only two healthy populations are confined

to the two ends of the island. This subspecies historically occupied about

50 linear miles of beach habitat. Current viable populations are restricted to only about

3 linear miles of beach habitat. The southeastern beach mouse, listed as a threatened

species, formerly occurred in beach dunes along about 175 miles of Florida’s east coast,

from Volusia to Broward Counties. It is now restricted to about 40 miles of coastline,

having been extirpated in the southern portion of its historic range.

Habitat requirements and Limiting Factors: Both subspecies occur only in beach dune

systems and adjacent interior scrub areas. The greatest threat to these beach mice is the

continuing loss or alteration of dunes due to human development and use. The Anastasia

Island beach mouse has such a small range that hurricanes and storms are a serious threat to

the remaining populations.

Recovery Objectives: Reclassification of the Anastasia Island Beach mouse to threatened~

and delisting of the southeastern beach mouse.

Recovery Criteria: The Anastasia Island beach mouse can be considered for reclassification

from endangered to threatened status if five viable, self-sustaining populations can be

established. Because the majority of this subspecies’ historical range has been permanently

destroyed, it is not likely that it can be fully recovered and delisted.

The southeastern beach mouse can be considered for delisting if 10 viable, self-sustaining

populations can be established throughout a significant portion of its historic range.

Actions Needed

:

1. Maintain and restore suitable habitat for each species.

2. Monitor beach mice.

3. Develop reestablishment programs.

4. Initiate captive propagation, if necessary.

5. Educate the public about beach mice.

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery: $133,000.

FY 94 - $12,000

FY 95 - $30,500

FY 96 - $30,500

FY 97 through FY 2002 - $10,000 per year

Date of Recovery: 2002.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

Taxonomy 1

Description 1

Distribution 2

Life History S

Food Habits 6

Predators and Other Mortality Factors 6

Status of Species 6

Conservation Measures Already Taken 6

II. RECOVERY

A. Recovery Objective 8

B. Outline Narrative Recovery Actions Addressing Threats 10

C. Literature Cited 13

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 15

IV. LIST OF REVIEWERS 18
I. INTRODUCTION

Taxonomy

The oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) is distributed throughout northeastern

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. Certain subspecies of the

oldfield mouse occur on beaches and dunes of the Atlantic coast of Florida and the Gulf

coast of Alabama and Florida and are collectively known as “beach mice”. These dunedwelling mice are distinctly paler than inland populations, and have been classified into eight

subspecies, based on minor morphological differences. Three Gulf coast subspecies were

determined to be endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended, on June 6, 1985 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 1985): the Alabama

beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), the Perdido Key beach mouse (P. p.

trissyllepsis), and the Choctawhatchee beach mouse (P. p. allophiys). A recovery plan for

those three subspecies was approved by the Service on August 12, 1987. Two other

subspecies, the Santa Rosa beach mouse (P. p. leucocephalus) and the St. Andrews beach

mouse (P. p. peninsularis), occur on the Gulf coast of Florida and are candidates for Federal

listing. The St. Andrews beach mouse is currently listed as endangered by the Florida Game

and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The Santa Rosa beach mouse is thought to be more

secure but is currently the subject of a Service-funded status survey by the Florida Game and

Fresh Water Fish Commission.

The Atlantic coast of Florida originally supported three subspecies of beach mice: the

Anastasia Island beach mouse (P. p. phasma), the pallid beach mouse (P. p. discolor), and

the southeastern beach mouse (P. p. niveiventris). The Anastasia Island beach mouse was

described in 1898 by Bangs as a full species, Peromyscus phasma. Osgood (1909) relegated

it to subspecific standing under P. polionotus. The type locality is Point Romo, Anastasia

Island, St. Johns County, Florida. The southeastern beach mouse was described by

Chapman (1889) as Hesperomys niveiventris. The type locality is Oak Lodge, opposite

Micco, Brevard County, Florida. Bangs (1898) subsequently placed it in the genus

Peromyscus, and Osgood (1909) relegated it to subspecific rank under P. polionotus. The

pallid beach mouse is believed to be extinct (Ehrhardt 1978; Humphrey and Barbour 1979;

Humphrey 1992). The Anastasia Island beach mouse was determined to be an endangered

species, and the southeastern beach mouse a threatened species, on May 12, 1989 (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1989). The two subspecies are treated in a single recovery plan because

they are closely related, have similar habitat needs, and require similar recovery measures.

Description

The Anastasia Island beach mouse and southeastern beach mouse are large subspecies relative

to other forms of the polionotus complex. Ten adult Anastasia island beach mice from the

type locality averaged 138.5 millimeters (mm) (5.40 inches (in)) in total length and 53 mm

(2.07 in) in tail length (Osgood 1909). Howell (unpublished ins, ca. 1940) described the

coloration as light ochraceous buff dorsally, white underparts, a unicolor tail, and indistinct

white markings on the nose and face. Ten adult southeastern beach mice averaged 139 mm

(5.42 in) in total length and 52 mm (2.03 in) in tail length (Osgood 1909). The southeastern

beach mouse is slightly darker than the Anastasia Island beach mouse, but paler than inland

populations of P. polionotus.
Distribution

The Anastasia Island beach mouse was known historically from the vicinity of the Duval-St.

Johns County line southward to Matanzas Inlet, St. Johns County, Florida (Humphrey and

Frank 1992b). It currently occurs only on Anastasia Island, primarily at the north (Anastasia

State Recreation Area) and south (Fort Matanzas National Monument) ends of the island,

although beach mice still occur at low densities in remnant dunes along the entire length of

the island. The original distribution consisted of about 50 linear miles of beach; current

populations occupy about 14 linear miles of beach with possibly only 3 miles supporting

viable populations (Figure 1). The width of the occupied habitat varies; Frank and

Humphrey (1992) described an idealized cross section of dune topography for Anastasia

Island which was approximately iSOm (495 ft) wide, but most of the dunes on the island are

much narrower due to residential construction.

The original distribution of the southeastern beach mouse was from Ponce (Mosquito) Inlet,

Volusia County, southward to Hollywood, Broward County, and possibly as far south as

Miami Beach in Dade County, Florida (Stout 1992). It is currently restricted to Volusia

County (Canaveral National Seashore to 7 miles north of Volusia-Brevard County line),

Brevard County (Canaveral National Seashore, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, and

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station), and scattered localities in Indian River County (Sebastian

Inlet State Recreation Area, Seaview Subdivision, Treasure Shores Park, and Turtle Trail

Public Beach Access area) and St. Lucie County (Pepper Park and Fort Pierce Inlet State

Recreation Area) (Humphrey ~j ~j. 1987; Robson 1989; Land Planning Group, Inc. 1991;

Humphrey and Frank 1992a). Formerly, this subspecies occurred along about 175 miles of

Florida’s southeast coast; it now occupies about 50 miles of beach (Figure 2). Although at

some sites southeastern beach mice can be found as far as 1 km (0.6 mi) inland (Extine

1980), most available habitat is extremely narrow. The subspecies survives in good numbers

in dunes only 1-3 m wide in Indian River County, where it probably also uses adjacent

interior coastal strand habitat (Humphrey and Frank 1992a).

Both the Anastasia Island and southeastern beach mice are found in coastal dunes. The most

seaward vegetation typically consists of sea oats (Uniola paniculata), dune panic grass

(Panicum arnarum), railroad vine (Ipomaea pes-caprae), beach morning glory (Ipomaea

stolonifera), and camphor weed (Heterotheca subaxillaris). Further landward, vegetation is

more diverse, including beach tea (Croton punctata), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia humifusa),

saw palmetto (Serenca repens), wax myrtle (Myrica cenfera), and sea grape (Coccoloba

uvifera).

2
DISTRIBUTION

Figure 1. OF

ANASTASIA ISLAND BEACH MOUSE

(St. Johns County, Florida)

River State Park

Anastasia State

Area

Ft. Matanzas National

Monument
L. --

DISTRIBUTION

OF

SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MOUSE

Cape Canaveral

National Seashore

Merritt Island NWR

Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station

Sebastian Inlet State

Recreation Area

Pepper Beach State Park

Ft. Pierce Inlet State

Recreation Area

2.

VOLUSIA

——I

I

BREVARD

Li

INDIAN RIVER

Vicinity

Map

I ST. LUCIE

4
Life History

Ivy (1949) trapped Anastasia Island beach mice from sea oats and bare sandy areas on

Anastasia Island. He subsequently (1959) reported Anastasia Island beach mice to occur in

woody vegetation as far as 152 m (500 ft) inland. Pournelle and Barrington (1953) found

this subspecies in woody vegetation as far as 545 m (1800 ft) inland. Extine and Stout

(1987) studied movements and dispersion in the southeastern beach mouse on Merritt Island,

Brevard County, and found that both beach dunes and adjacent inland areas of scrub

vegetation were used by the mice.

Frank and Humphrey (1992) found that the best habitat for the Anastasia island beach mouse

is characterized by patches of bare, loose, sandy soil. The presence of sea oats is not a

requirement for the mouse; they also occur in sandy areas with broomsedge (Andropogon

sp.). Adult Anastasia Island beach mice typically weigh from 12 to 18 grams (0.4 to

0.63 ounces), but pregnant females may weigh 20 to 30 grams (0.70 to 1.05 ounces). The

young reach maturity at 6 to 8 weeks. Reproduction may occur throughout the year, but

peak population levels usually occur in the winter.

Since all subspecies of beach mice are similar in their habitat needs, Blair’s (1951) findings

on the Santa Rosa beach mouse may generally apply to the Anastasia Island and southeastern

beach mice. He found individuals using up to 20 burrows, usually located on the sloping

side of a dune, with each consisting of entrance tunnel, nest chamber, and escape tunnel.

The nest chamber is at a depth of 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft) while the escape tunnel rises to

within 2.5 cm (1 in) of the surface. Beach mice may also use ghost crab (Ocypode

quadrata) burrows. Beach mice are nocturnal, with most activity occurring on moonlit

nights and less activity under stormy conditions or moonless nights. Breeding activity was

most evident from November through early January, with large numbers of immature animals

present. Young mice moved an average of 432 m (1,415 ft) before establishing a home

range. Movement of beach mice is primarily for foraging, breeding, and burrow

maintenance.

Rave and Holler (1992) carried out a 3-year study of population dynamics of the Alabama

beach mouse (P. p. ammobates) at Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge in Baldwin County,

Alabama. Population numbers fluctuated seasonally, with highest numbers in winter and

spring. The percentage of subadults was highest in winter and lowest in summer while the

percentage of reproductively active females was highest in autumn and lowest in summer.

Overall, 63 percent of the mice survived 4 months or less following their first capture,

indicating a fast turnover rate in the population, similar to other wild populations of

Peromyscus which have been studied.

The reproductive potential of beach mice is generally high (Ehrhardt 1978). Captive beach

mice are capable of producing 80 or more young in their lifetime, with litters produced as

often as 26-day intervals (Bowen 1968).

5
Food Habits

Beach mice typically feed on seeds of sea oats and dune panic grass (Blair 1951) and also eat

small invertebrates (Ehrhardt 1978). Phillip Frank (pers. comm.) found that Anastasia Island

beach mice eat seeds of sea oats, railroad vine, and prickly pear cactus. The southeastern

beach mouse can be expected to have the same food habits.

Predators and Other Mortality Factors

Predators of the Anastasia Island and southeastern beach mice include snakes, bobcats, foxes,

raccoons, skunks, owls, and feral cats and dogs. Feral house cats can reduce beach mouse

populations and can be problem at Anastasia State Recreation Area (Phillip Frank, pers.

comm.). Predation from house cats and competition from house mice may be restricting the

distribution of southeastern beach mice at the north end of Canaveral National Seashore

(Seashore). Leased homes are located in this portion of the Seashore, and the area receives

nearly 500,000 visitors a year. This places a heavy demand for trash and litter control, and

the Seashore has taken measures to reduce the impacts of these human activities on beach

mice (Wendell Simpson, Cape Canaveral National Seashore Superintendent, in litt., 1991).

Status of Species

Viable populations of the Anastasia Island beach mouse currently occur at Anastasia State

Recreation Area and Fort Matanzas National Monument. The subspecies persists on

Anastasia Island at points between these two sites, but due to beachfront development these

areas are not likely to support beach mice far into the future. Frank and Humphrey (1992)

found Anastasia Island beach mouse numbers to fluctuate seasonally between two to 90 mice

per acre, and believed that populations should be characterized by a range rather than a static

value.

Large, healthy populations of the southeastern beach mouse are found on the beaches of

Canaveral National Seashore, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, and Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station (U.S. Air Force 1989). The distribution of this subspecies over the rest of

the historical range, however, is more limited in numbers and fragmented.

Conservation Measures Already Taken

The Anastasia Island Beach mouse is protected as an endangered species, and the

southeastern beach mouse as a threatened species, under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ~ seq.)(Act). The Act places an affirmative mandate on

Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of federally listed endangered or

threatened species. Further, the Act requires all Federal agencies to ensure that their actions

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered or

threatened species. Federal agency actions which can directly or indirectly affect endangered

and threatened species include any activity that is authorized, funded, or carried out by such

agency.

6
The managers of public beaches within the range of the Anastasia Island and southeastern

beach mice currently restrict beach access to designated crossovers (boardwalks) to minimize

the impacts of humans on the dune systems. Since public beaches on Florida’s east coast

receive heavy public use, it is essential that access continue to be so restricted. Vehicular

access is allowed on beaches on Anastasia Island, and at high tide vehicles sometimes enter

the dunes. Efforts to prevent this type of habitat damage should continue.

Anastasia Island beach mouse

:

The National Park Service is working to maintain good beach mouse habitat on Fort

Matanzas National Monument and has worked closely with the Service in reviewing

management and projects affecting beach mice.

Anastasia State Recreation Area is a heavily used public beach. Management efforts are

made there to keep people and vehicles off the dunes, but continual vigilance is necessary.

The Division of Recreation and Parks (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) has

successfully reduced feral cat populations in the recreation area, and this has benefitted beach

mice. Cats may need to be removed periodically.

In 1992 to 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded the reintroduction of Anastasia

Island beach mice to Guana River State Park in St. Johns County, historical habitat for the

subspecies (Frank and Humphrey 1993). Guana River State Park is 9 miles north of the

existing population of beach mice at Anastasia State Recreation Area.

Fifty-five mice (27 females and 28 males) were trapped at Fort Matanzas National Monument

and Anastasia State Recreation Area from September 24, to November 12, 1992, and placed

in soft-release enclosures at the state park on September 27, and November 12, 1992.

Follow-up trapping was conducted February 8 to 16, 1993. The entire 6.75 km (4.2 mi.)

length of the park was occupied by beach mice; 34 were captured and it was estimated that

the population totalled 220. The reintroduction has been successful thus far, despite severe

northeasterly storms which caused considerable beach erosion following the releases. The

population is still small, however, and it is not yet certain that limited dune habitat at the

park will maintain a viable population of beach mice. This effort will continue to be

monitored.

Southeastern beach mouse

:

The southeastern beach mouse occurs on lands managed by the National Park Service

(Canaveral National Seashore), the Fish and Wildlife Service (Merritt Island National

Wildlife Refuge), and the U.S. Air Force (Cape Canaveral Air Force Station). Since the

listing of this subspecies, several consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act have taken place between the Service and other Federal agencies regarding the

southeastern beach mouse. Canaveral National Seashore has taken steps to reduce the impact

of human use and garbage disposal.

7
The Anastasia and southeastern beach mice are listed as endangered and threatened species,

respectively, by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Section 39-27, Florida

Administrative Code). This listing, in addition to prohibiting take, encourages consideration

of these species in management of State lands and State review of development planning.

II. RECOVERY

A. Recovery Objective

The Anastasia Island and southeastern beach mice live in dynamic habitats exposed to

recurring tropical storms. Historically, beach mice populations have probably always

fluctuated in response to such changes. Due to the current disjunct populations, beach mouse

populations are now probably ephemeral over periods of many years. This makes it difficult

to define a viable population; the long-term persistence of a given population may depend on

the ability of mice from adjacent parts of the range to recolonize beaches. To avoid

excessive risks of extinction from demographic, catastrophic, or genetic events, an attempt

should be made to establish viable populations containing thousands of mice each.

Fluctuations below a few hundred individuals per population is probably an indication that

the population is not likely to persist far into the future. Techniques exist for “population

viability analysis”, which can be used to estimate the probability of survival, for various time

periods, of animal populations of differing effective breeding size. While no such analyses

have been done for beach mice, available habitat is so limited that it will be difficult to

establish many new populations with good prospects for long-term survival.

Anastasia Island beach mouse

:

The Anastasia Island beach mouse has lost most of its historical habitat. The northern

two-thirds of the historic distribution is now mostly unsuitable for beach mice due to

development. Anastasia Island comprises the southern one-third of the historic range of this

subspecies, and while beach mice are still found along most of the island’s beaches, the only

remaining viable populations are believed to be those at the northern (Anastasia State

Recreation Area) and southern (Fort Matanzas National Monument) end of the island. Due

to the high density of beach homes along most of this coast, it is unlikely that habitat

restoration sufficient to support beach mice can be done, and it is unlikely that the species

can be fully recovered. The remaining viable populations could be exterminated by a single

tropical storm, with much of the habitat destroyed at the same time. Contingency plans

should be prepared to take Anastasia Island beach mice into captivity if populations drop to a

level at which chances of survival in the wild decrease significantly. If either the Fort

Matanzas National Monument or the Anastasia Island State Recreation Area population

becomes extirpated, consideration should be given to taking mice from the remaining

population into captivity for breeding. The Service’s Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at

Auburn University already has experience maintaining breeding colonies of Choctawhatchee,

Perdido Key, and Alabama beach mice, and would be an appropriate facility to establish a

breeding colony of the Anastasia Island beach mouse.

8
The recovery goal for this subspecies is to reclassify it as a threatened species. Before this

action is considered, the following conditions should be met:

1. The continued viability of the beach mouse populations at the northern and southern

ends of Anastasia Island must be assured. Natural population fluctuations must be

shown to remain within limits adequate to avoid extinction from chance events or

genetic deterioration (e.g., inbreeding depression or excessive loss of heterozygosity).

Accordingly, each population of the mouse should support a breeding population

of 500 if the subspecies is to be considered for reclassification.

2. At least two more viable populations should be established. These populations should

be within the mainland portion of the historic range of the subspecies. However, the

only site with any potential for this appears to be the coastal portion of Guana River

State Park, managed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. As discussed,

efforts are currently underway to reestablish beach mice at this site. It is uncertain if

sufficient dune habitat exists at the site, but the area is basically managed in a manner

compatible with the existence of beach mice. Guana River State Park includes a

longer beach than those at Anastasia State Recreation Area and Fort Matanzas

National Monument, possibly providing greater protection from storm damage.

3. All populations should be monitored for at least 5 consecutive years to assure that

condition 1 is met before considering reclassification.

Southeastern beach mouse

:

The recovery goal for the southeastern beach mouse is to delist it. Delisting can be

considered if the following conditions are met:

1. Viable populations are maintained on the five public land areas where the subspecies

currently occurs. Each population should not fluctuate below an effective breeding

size of 500 individuals.

2. Five additional viable populations are established throughout the historic range of the

subspecies. If acquisition of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge is completed,

this area may provide reintroduction sites for one or more populations. The primary

purpose of the Refuge is to protect nesting beaches for the loggerhead sea turtle; this

goal is compatible with the maintenance of suitable habitat for beach mice.

3. These populations should be monitored for at least 5 years before considering

delisting. If delisted, these populations will continued to be periodically monitored as

required by the Act.

9
B. Outline Narrative for Recovery Actions Addressing Threats

1.Protect beach mouse habitat. The ranges of the Anastasia Island and southeastern

beach mice are in coastal areas managed and used by humans. Most beaches in the

range of the mice have public access, and human use is heavy. Human use of

beaches can be compatible with the continued existence of beach mice if such use is

managed to avoid damage to the dunes and adjacent habitats used by the mice.

Maintaining and improving remaining habitat is essential to the survival of beach

mice. Extine and Stout (1987) studied the use of habitat by the southeastern beach

mouse, and Frank and Humphrey (1992) have studied habitat use by the Anastasia

Island beach mouse. These studies indicate the importance of protecting both beach

dune habitat and scrub habitats interior to the dunes.

11. Use vrovisions of ESA to Protect beach mice. Consultations pursuant to

Section 7 of the Act are most likely to be required for activities of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Air

Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. The Service should evaluate private development

activities to determine if they will violate the take provisions of Section 9

of the Act. Take incidental to such activities can be permitted only under

Section 10(a) of the Act, and requires the development of a habitat

conservation plan. Projects related to the missile launch mission of Cape

Canaveral Air Force Station will continue to involve land clearing and other

impacts that need to be evaluated in terms of impacts on the southeastern

beach mouse. Projects which may affect the conservation of beaches occupied

by beach mice, such asjetty construction and beach renourishment, require

Federal permits and are therefore subject to Section 7 consultation under the

Act. Jetty construction could result in the redistribution of sand.

Renourishment can result in unnatural compaction of beach sands. Human use

of Fort Matanzas National Monument and Canaveral National Seashore needs

to be managed in such a way as to minimize human impacts on dunes and

adjacent interior habitats.

12. Protect beach mouse habitat on private lands. Landowners should be

encouraged to manage their properties in ways compatible with the continued

existence of healthy dune habitat and beach mice. The Service should interact

with these owners by providing technical advice or entering into cooperative

agreements to effect beach mouse conservation.

13. Implement or encourage specific mana2ement actions. The habitat needs of

beach mice are well enough understood that several management needs can be

specified.

131. Prevent destruction of beach mouse habitat. Roads, parking lots,

buildings, and other construction should be set back behind primary

dunes and if possible outside beach mouse habitat. Vehicles and foot

traffic should be prohibited from dunes. Dune crossovers (boardwalks)

should be provided at essential beach access points to avoid dune

erosion and blowouts. Beach renourishment projects should avoid

10
damaging beach mouse habitat. Potential oil spill cleanups, or

restoration of beaches following other natural or manmade catastrophes,

must also be carried out in a way to minimize adverse effects on the

dunes.

132. Prevent establishment of exotic animals and plants. Human visitation

and residence in and near beach mouse habitat make it likely that exotic

animals associated with man (primarily cats, dogs, black rats and house

mice) will become established. These animals are a potential threat to

the survival of beach mice through predation or competition. To

minimize these risks, the following tasks should be addressed:

1321. Discoura2e free-ranain~ cats and does. Ordinances, regulations,

covenants, deed restrictions and other mechanisms should be

used to discourage the introduction and establishment of dogs

and cats in beach mouse habitat.

1322. Remove cats and does from beach mouse habitat. Land

managers should establish a threshold for sightings, sign, or

reports of feral animals (especially cats) in beach mouse habitat.

When the threshold is exceeded, feral animals should be trapped

and removed.

1323. Discourage establishment of exotic rodents. Old world rats and

mice are ubiquitous around human development. The

establishment and spread of these animals can be discouraged by

efficient containment and prompt removal of garbage from

residences and recreational areas, and by minimizing the deposit

of materials (e.g., construction materials, riprap, or other

debris) in beach mouse habitat that might provide shelter for

exotic rodents. Rodent traps or poisons that might affect beach

mice should not be used in beach mouse habitat.

1324. Discourage establishment of exotic plants. Exotic plants are not

currently a threat to the Anastasia Island or southeastern beach

mouse, but coastal plant communities occupied by beach mice

should be monitored

2. Monitor beach mice. Both subspecies should be monitored to assure that further

declines in range and numbers do not occur without recovery actions being taken.

Monitoring will also provide information on sites from which to select animals for

reintroduction. Both trapping and sign should be used in monitoring these subspecies.

3. Reestablish populations. Recovery of the southeastern beach mouse, and

reclassification of the Anastasia Island beach mouse, will require the reestablishment

of populations within the historic range of each subspecies.

31. Identify recipient sites. Suitable sites within historic ranges for reintroductions

must be secured through agreements with agency or private owners.

Restoration or habitat improvement may be necessary to make the sites suitable

for reintroducing beach mice.

11
32. Identify donor populations.

321. Determine population size and health of potential donor populations

.

Mice should be removed from populations that can withstand such

removal without damage; ideally, donor sites should support several

hundred mice. Healthy-appearing stock should be selected.

322. Obtain stock for translocation. Ages and sex ratios of mice to be

translocated, and timing of the translocation, must be selected.

Previous translocations of Anastasia Island beach mice have involved

trapping mice from donor sites at high population levels during fall and

winter and releasing mice at a 1:1 sex ratio.

33. Release mice into new sites. “Soft release” techniques, such as previously

used in reintroducing beach mice in the Florida panhandle, should be used.

Once mice are reproducing at a release site additional releases may be “hard”;

that is, without enclosures.

34. Monitor introduced populations. Periodic monitoring is necessary to determine

the success of the introductions. The process may need to be repeated or

modified before reintroduction succeeds.

4. Initiate captive propa2ation. Further declines in the Anastasia Island beach mouse

may require that a breeding colony be established to prevent extinction of this

subspecies.

41. Identify donor site for breeding stock. Removal of breeding stock should be

done in such a way as to minimize adverse impacts on donor populations and

maximize genetic diversity in the breeding stock.

42. Establish breeding colony. Procedures already developed for maintaining

breeding colonies of Gulf Coast beach mice should be followed.

43. Identify and prepare recipient sites. See task 31 above.

44. Reintroduce mice. See task 322 above.

45. Monitor success of new populations. See task 34 above.

5. Educate public. The general public regularly uses beach areas in and adjacent to

beach mouse habitat for recreational purposes. Public support for beach mouse

recovery should therefore be encouraged. The public should understand that

continued existence of beach mice is an indication that healthy beach and dune

systems are being maintained. Responsible agencies should produce brochures, signs,

and other materials to educate the public about the ecological role of beach mice in

beach and dune communities. The public should be informed of recreational practices

that are compatible with the continued existence of beach mice.

12
C. Literature Cltel

Bangs, 0. 1898. The land mammals of peninsular Florida and the coastal region of

Georgia. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc. 28:157-235.

Blair, W.F. 1951. Population structure, social behavior and environmental relations in a

natural population of the beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus leucocephalus). Contr.

Lab. Vert. Zool. U. Michigan 48: 147.

Bowen, W.W. 1968. Variation and evolution of gulf coast populations of beach mice

(Peromyscus polionotus). Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci. 12:1-91.

Chapman, F.M. 1889. Description of two new species ofthe genus Hesperom’vs from

Florida. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 2:117.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1978. Pallid beach mouse. Pp. 8-9 in J.N. Layne, ed., Rare and

Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. 1: Mammals. Univ. Presses of Florida. 52 pp.

Extine, D.D. 1980. Population ecology of the beach mouse, Peromyscus polionotus

niveiventris. MS thesis, Dept. Natural Sciences, U. Central Florida, Orlando.

82 pp.

____________ and I.J. Stout. 1987. Dispersion and habitat occupancy of the beach mouse

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris. J. Mammalogy 68:297-304.

Frank, P.A. and S.R. Humphrey. 1992. Populations, habitat requirements, and

management ofthe endemic Anastasia island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus

phasma), emphasizing the potential threat of exotic house mice (Mus musculus).

Final Rep. No. NG88-006 to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 70

pp.

Howell, A.H. Undated. Florida mammals. Unpublished manuscript in files of U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.

Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Pallid beach mouse. Pp. 19-23 in S.R. Humphrey, ed., Rare and

endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I.: Mammals. 392 pp.

______________ and D.B. Barbour. 1979. Status and habitat of three subspecies of beach

mice in Florida. J. Mammalogy 68:297-304.

______________ and P.A. Frank. 1992a. Survey for the southeastern beach mouse at

Treasure Shores park. Final Rep. to Indian River County Board of Commissioners.

January 22, 1992. 8 pp.

_____________________________ 1992b. Anastasia Island beach mouse. Pp. 94-101 in

S.R. Humphrey, ed., Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I: Mammals. 392

pp.

13
______________________________ 1993. Quarterly report on Research Work Order No.

100 to Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Gainesville, Florida.

February 20, 1993. 6 pp.

______________,W.H. Kern, Jr., and M.S. Ludlow. 1987. Status survey of seven Florida

mammals. Florida Coop. Fish and Wildlife Res. Unit Tech. Rep. No. 25.

Gainesville, Florida. 39 pp.

Ivey, R. D. 1949. Life history notes on three mice from the Florida east coast.

J. Mammalogy 30: 157-162.

1959. The mammals of Palm Valley, Florida. J. Mammalogy 40:585-591.

Land Planning Group, Inc. 1991. Southeastern beach mouse survey of Seaview

Subdivision, Indian River Count, Florida. Final Rep. to Financial Services Group,

Inc., Stuart, Florida. 18 pp.

Osgood, W.H. 1909. Revision of the American genus Peromyscus. North American Fauna

28. 85 pp.

Pournelle, G.H. and B.A. Barrington. 1953. Notes on the mammals of Anastasia Island,

St. Johns County, Florida. J. Mammalogy 34:133-135.

Rave, E.H. and N.R. Holler. 1992. Population dynamics of Alabama beach mice

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) in south Alabama. J. Mamm. 73(2):347-355.

Robson. M.S. 1989. Southeastern beach mouse survey. Nongame Wildlife Sect. Rep.,

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 11 pp.

Stout, I.J. 1992. Southeastern beach mouse. Pp. 242-249 in S.R. Humphrey, ed., Rare

and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I: Mammals. 392 pp.

U.S. Air Force. 1989. Biological assessment of potential impacts to federally listed

threatened species: Florida scrub jay and southeastern beach mouse (A~helocoma

coerulescens coerulescens and Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris). Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station, Florida. 27 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

determination of endangered status and critical habitat for three beach mice. Federal

Register 50(109): 23872-23889.

_______________________________ 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

endangered status for the Anastasia Island beach mouse and threatened status for the

southeastern beach mouse. Federal Register 54(91):20598-20602.

14
Ill. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priorities in column one ofthe following implementation schedule are assigned as follows:

1. Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

2. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in

species population/habitat quality or some other significant negative impact

short of extinction.

3. Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to meet the recovery objective.

Key to Acronyms Used in Implementation Schedule

AF Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DEP Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of Environmental

Protection

FMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

TE Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

MI Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NPS Canaveral National Seashore and Fort Matanzas National Monument, National

Park Service

REF Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

RES Region 8, Division of Research, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

15
RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priority Task # Task Description Task Duration Responsible Party

Reg. Div. Other

Cost Estimates ($OOOs)

FY94 FY95 FY96

Comments

11 Protect beach mice

through ESA

provisions.

Ongoing 4

4

TE

REF MI

NPS

AF

COE

FMA

1 1

112 Protect beach mice

on private lands.

Ongoing 4 TE GFC 1 1 1

131 Prevent destruction

of beach mouse

habitat.

Ongoing 4

4

TE

REF MI

DEP

NPS

AF

GFC

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.33

Should be

little increased

cost over

existing dune

protection

programs.

41 Identify donor site

for breeding stock

(AIBM).

1 year 8

8

TE

RES

DEP

NPS

Involves tasks

41 and 42.

See also 43,

44, 45, and 5.

Contingency

tasks if AIBM

population

significantly

declines.

142 Set up breeding

colony (AIBM).

Ongoing 8

8

TE

RES 2 2 2

2 132 Prevent establishment of

exotic plants, animals.

Ongoing 4

4

TE

REF

MI

DEP

NPS

AF

GFC

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

Should be

little increased

cost over existing

dune protection

programs.

6
RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Priority

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Task #

2

31

32

33

Task Description Task Duration Responsible Party

Reg. Div. Other

4 TE

DEP

NPS

AF

4 TE

DEP

4 TE

4 TE

8 RES

8 RES

4 TE

8 RES

DEP

NPS

4 TE

8 RES

DEP

NPS

4 TE

8 RES

DEP

NPS

4 TE

DEP

NPS

GFC

Cost Estimates ($OOOs)

FY94 FY95 FY96

3 3 3

1 1 1

1 1 1

0.5

2 2

8 8

2 2

Comments

Monitor populations and

range.

Ongoing

Identify recipient areas. 1 year

Identify donor populations. 1 year

Release mice into new

sites.

1 year

34

43

44

45

5

Monitor introduced

populations.

Identify and prepare

recipient sites.

1 year

2.5

2.5

1

1

1

2.5

2.5

1

1

1

For tasks 43 to 45,

see comments at

task 41.

Reintroduce mice. 1 year

Monitor introduced

populations.

1 year

Educate public. Ongoing 1 See comments at

task 41.

17
IV. LIST OF REVIEWERS

Review copies of the Technical/Agency draft of this recovery plan were sent to the following

organizations, state agencies, and individuals. Written comments were received from those

marked by an asterisk (*).

Dr. Phillip A. Frank*

Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission

Route 3, 193-D Cypress Drive

Big Pine Key, Florida 33043

Mr. Ron Hight, Refuge Manager

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

Post Office Box 6504

Titusville, Florida 32780

Dr. Nicholas R. Holler*

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Department of Zoology and Wildlife Science

Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5414

Dr. Robin B. Huck*

Division of Recreation and Parks

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1340-A AlA South

St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Mr. Olin Miller

6550 TH, ABG-dee

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 32925

Mr. Wendell Simpson, Superintendent*

Canaveral National Seashore

Post Office Box 6447

Titusville, Florida 32782-6447

Dr. I. Jack Stout

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Central Florida

Orlando, Florida 32816

18
Superintendent

Castillo de San Marco National Monument

1 Castillo Drive, East

St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Mr. Don Wood*

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

19