[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9309-9318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3546]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2010-0096; MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List the Sand Verbena Moth as Endangered or Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 
finding on a petition to list the sand verbena moth, Copablepharon 
fuscum, as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. Based on our review, we find the petition presents 
substantial information indicating that listing the sand verbena moth 
may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we 
are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if 
listing the sand verbena moth as endangered or threatened is warranted. 
To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting 
scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this 
species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding 
on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is 
warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before April 18, 2011. Please note 
that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES 
section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. After April 18, 2011, you must 
submit information directly to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that 
we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we 
receive after the above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In 
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for 
this finding, which is FWS-R1-ES-2010-0096. Check the box that reads 
``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the Search button. You 
should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure 
that you have found the correct document before submitting your 
comment.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2010-0096; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish 
and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503; by telephone 
(360) 753-9440; or by facsimile (360) 534-9331. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the 
sand verbena moth from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, 
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. 
We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which 
are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Information on yellow sand verbena (Abronia latifolia), the 
host plant for the sand verbena moth, such as patch size and 
distribution, including distribution of known or potential sand verbena 
moth habitats; information on ongoing or future activities in potential 
sand verbena moth habitat; information on yellow sand verbena 
population trends; and information on other native or nonnative plant 
distributions, particularly nonnative beachgrass (Ammophila spp.), in 
the range of the yellow sand verbena, especially where the sand verbena 
moth occurs.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing the sand 
verbena moth is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see 
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, 
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose 
to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical range currently 
occupied by the sand verbena moth, we request data and information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species'';
    (2) Where such physical or biological features are currently found; 
and
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    In addition, we request data and information on whether there are 
any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that may be considered essential to the conservation of the 
species. Please provide specific comments and information as to what, 
if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if 
the species is proposed for listing, and explain why such habitat meets 
the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under

[[Page 9310]]

consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, 
will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. If you submit information via 
http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any 
personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If 
you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, 
you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this 
personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy 
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, 
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information 
readily available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we 
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition 
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that amount of 
information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the 
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 
If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was 
presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, 
which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On February 17, 2010, we received a petition, dated February 4, 
2010, from WildEarth Guardians and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
Conservation requesting that the sand verbena moth be listed as 
endangered or threatened throughout its entire range and that critical 
habitat be designated under the Act (WildEarth Guardians and the Xerces 
Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2010, hereafter cited as 
``Petition''). The petition clearly identified itself as such and 
included the requisite identification information for the 
petitioner(s), as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 22, 2010, 
letter to the petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the 
information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an 
emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section 
4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated that due to court 
orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing 
and critical habitat determinations under the Act that required nearly 
all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2010, 
we would not be able to further address the petition at that time but 
would complete the action when workload and funding allowed. On May 26, 
2010, we received a notice of violation with intent to file suit, dated 
May 20, 2010, from WildEarth Guardians and the Xerces Society 
requesting that we make a 90-day finding on the listing petition within 
the next 60 days. On July 14, 2010, we notified the petitioners that 
funding became available and we were currently reviewing the petition. 
This finding addresses the petition.

Species Information

    The sand verbena moth was first described and collected in 1995 
(Troubridge and Crabo 1995, pp. 87-90), and is the only species of the 
genus Copablepharon known to occur west of the Cascade Mountains 
(Troubridge and Crabo 1995, p. 89; Committee on the Status of 
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2003, p. 4). The adults of the 
sand verbena moth can be easily identified by their distinctive 
physical characteristics. The sand verbena moth is dark in color with 
yellow and black forewing lines and is the only species within the 
genus with a predominantly gray underside to its forewing and hindwing 
(Troubridge and Crabo 1995, p. 89). Total wingspan varies from 35 to 40 
millimeters (mm) (1.38 to 1.47 inches (in)) in length (COSEWIC 2003, p. 
5).
    There is very little information on the biology and habitat 
requirements of the sand verbena moth (British Columbia Invertebrates 
Recovery Team (BCIRT) 2008, pp. 3, 5) and data on its distribution are 
known to be incomplete (NatureServe 2010 [online]). Virtually all of 
the available information is based on the original description of the 
species (Troubridge and Crabo 1995, pp. 87-90) and observations of the 
four metapopulations located in British Columbia (see ``Distribution 
and Status'' below). The adult sand verbena moth has a lifespan of 5 to 
14 days (Species At Risk Act (SARA) Registry 2009, p. 4) and one flight 
period that occurs from mid-May to late July (Troubridge and Crabo 
1995, p. 89; COSEWIC 2003, p. 16). Adults have been observed at dusk 
and early evening (COSEWIC 2003, p. 16) and lay eggs singly or in 
groups on leaves or flowers of its only host plant, the yellow sand 
verbena. Larvae feed exclusively at night on the leaves and flowers of 
the plant (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 5, 16) and burrow in the sand during the 
day (Troubridge and Crabo 1995, p. 89). Larvae are green in color in 
early instars (developmental stages) and turn brown with pale 
longitudinal stripes in late instars. Mature larvae are found in the 
sand below the host plant and are dormant during the winter (SARA 
Registry 2009, p. 4). Pupation occurs between late April and late May. 
Pupae measure approximately 20 mm (0.8 in) in length, are brown in 
color, and are protected by a thin layer of sand particles. Pupae have 
a distinct external compartment in which the proboscis develops 
(COSEWIC 2003, pp. 5, 16).
Distribution and Status
    The sand verbena moth was first described by Troubridge and Crabo 
(1995, pp. 87-90) after its discovery in Deception Pass State Park, 
Washington, and Saanichton, British Columbia. Troubridge and Crabo 
(1995, p. 89) state, ``where it occurs, C. fuscum can be relatively 
abundant,'' and ``it was the most common noctuid at Deception Pass 
State Park, Washington.'' Currently, the sand verbena moth has been 
collected only in the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Region in British 
Columbia and Washington, but this area has not been thoroughly surveyed 
for the species, and roughly 90 percent of the range of its host plant, 
yellow sand verbena, has not been surveyed for the sand verbena moth. 
Because the range of the sand verbena moth's host plant extends along 
the coast from British Columbia southward into California, additional

[[Page 9311]]

sampling in Washington, Oregon, and California is needed to evaluate 
the full extent of the range of the sand verbena moth.
    Exactly how many populations of the sand verbena moth are currently 
known is unclear. Although the petitioners at times state that 10 
populations are known, 4 in British Columbia and 6 in Washington (e.g., 
Petition, pp. 1, 6, 8), they also point out that not all of these sites 
may be separate occurrences, and at one point list a total of 9 
populations, 4 in British Columbia and 5 in Washington (Petition, p. 
9). We are aware of nine populations of the sand verbena moth, 
distributed over a total of approximately 4,850 square kilometers 
(km\2\) (1,873 square miles (mi\2\)). In Canada, surveys conducted 
between 2001 and 2007 confirmed the presence of the sand verbena moth 
on Goose Spit, Sandy Island, Cordova Spit/Island View Beach, and James 
Island. All but one of these locations occur on public, military, and 
indigenous lands. The James Island population, discovered in 2007, 
occurs entirely on private land. The BCIRT considers each location to 
be a metapopulation that is defined by a combination of many 
subpopulations (BCIRT 2008, p. 2). In Washington in the United States, 
five populations have been confirmed. Although according to the COSEWIC 
(2003, p. 15) all known U.S. locations occur primarily on public or 
military lands, we only know the specific locations for sites on 
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in Sequim, Deception Pass State Park 
on Whidbey Island, and San Juan Island National Historical Park (San 
Juan Island NHP) on San Juan Island. Two other populations are located 
in Port Townsend and Whidbey Island; however, we have no information 
regarding their exact locations (COSEWIC 2003).
    There is also conflicting information as to whether the known 
populations are isolated from one another. Although the petitioners 
state, ``all populations are isolated from each other,'' citing COSEWIC 
2003 and BCIRT 2008 (Petition, p. 7), the petitioners also cite 
NatureServe (2009) as indicating that not all of the known sites may be 
separate occurrences.
    The COSEWIC (2003, p. 8) describes the methodology for surveys 
conducted in British Columbia and Washington between 2001 and 2002. In 
most cases, a single light trap was set from dusk to dawn next to 
patches of yellow sand verbena during the sand verbena moth's flight 
season. Occasionally, two traps were set, and some hand-netting 
occurred. In British Columbia, 19 locations were surveyed for the sand 
verbena moth over a period of 19 days between May 20 and August 14, 
2001. A total of nine sand verbena moths were collected at two of these 
locations (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 32-36). In 2002, seven locations were 
surveyed in British Columbia between May 30 and June 15. During this 
period, one sand verbena moth was collected at a single location in the 
Comcox area over a period of 6 days (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 36-39). In the 
Puget Sound Region in Washington, surveys were conducted between June 6 
and June 12, 2002. A total of 36 sand verbena moths were collected at 5 
of the 9 locations surveyed over a period of 4 days (COSEWIC 2003, pp. 
36-38). According to the COSEWIC (2003, p. 9), one survey was conducted 
in Oregon in 2002. Light-trapping was not possible, and the sand 
verbena moth was not detected by hand-searching flowering patches of 
yellow sand verbena. The COSEWIC (2003, p. 9) did not present any 
additional information or citation regarding this survey, and concluded 
that additional sampling is needed to determine if the sand verbena 
moth is present in Oregon and California in areas where its host plant 
is found.
    According to the COSEWIC (2003, p. 18), the use of data collected 
from light traps is an inappropriate method for estimating population 
sizes or characterizing population densities of the sand verbena moth. 
Thus, there are no reliable population estimates for British Columbia 
populations (BCIRT 2008, p. 2) or populations in the United States 
(NatureServe 2009 [online]). Because of the recent discovery of the 
sand verbena moth, there is no historical information on population 
sizes, nor is there any evidence of any decline. The petitioners 
acknowledge, ``because this species was only recently described, 
information on historical population abundance that would inform 
whether or not this species has declined over time is unavailable'' 
(Petition, p. 7).
    The sand verbena moth is listed as endangered under the Species At 
Risk Act in British Columbia (SARA Registry 2009, p. 1) and is a 
candidate species in the State of Washington (Washington Department of 
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010 [online]). NatureServe (2009 [online]) 
ranks the species as critically imperiled to imperiled (G1G2). 
NatureServe notes this global rank, ``is explicitly based on the 
conclusion by COSEWIC and others that the purported range is 
essentially correct and that the moth is not nearly as widespread as 
its foodplant'' (NatureServe 2009 [online]).
    Although the petitioners contend the moth is facing an 
``accelerating decline,'' they offer no support for this statement 
(Petition, p. 2). Furthermore, the petitioners cite NatureServe (2009) 
as describing global long-term declines of 75 to 90 percent for the 
sand verbena moth. Although NatureServe does classify the global long-
term trend for the species as ``large decline (75-90%),'' it is unclear 
how NatureServe may have arrived at this conclusion, as the moth was 
only discovered in 1995, and there are no reliable quantitative data 
regarding sand verbena moth population sizes or trends. The projected 
decline is apparently an inferred consequence of presumed habitat loss 
due to dune stabilization and exotic plants, but no documentation is 
provided to support this inference (NatureServe 2010 [online]). The 
petitioners further suggest that possible declines in the host plant, 
yellow sand verbena, may have resulted in declines in the sand verbena 
moth (Petition, p. 7). They cite COSEWIC (2003) as stating that yellow 
sand verbena populations in many sites have likely declined 
substantially over the past 50 years because of vegetation changes. 
However, we note that NatureServe (2010 [online]) ranks the yellow sand 
verbena as ``globally secure.''
Habitat
    The yellow sand verbena occurs in spits, dunes, and sandy coastal 
habitat that lack dense plant cover (COSEWIC 2003, p. 11). This species 
is distributed from the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, to 
Santa Barbara County, California (Hickman 1993, p. 769). NatureServe 
(2010 [online]) ranks the yellow sand verbena as globally secure (G5). 
This plant is considered to be vulnerable in Oregon and British 
Columbia, but its conservation status has not been assessed in 
Washington or California (NatureServe 2010, [online]). Yellow sand 
verbena is not listed by the Washington Department of Natural 
Resources, Natural Heritage Program (COSEWIC 2003, pp. v-vi), nor is it 
considered a sensitive species by the National Park Service or Forest 
Service (Thomas 2010, pers. comm.).
    The patch size, structure, and configuration of yellow sand verbena 
necessary to sustain populations of sand verbena moth are poorly 
understood (BCIRT 2008, pp. 3, 5). To date, there is no quantitative or 
qualitative measure of habitat at known sand verbena moth locations in 
Washington. At known locations in British Columbia, the sand verbena 
moth occurs in small satellite patches within 200 m (656 ft), or so, of 
larger populations of yellow sand verbena. Isolated small, sparse, or 
non-

[[Page 9312]]

flowering populations of the plants do not appear to support the sand 
verbena moth (NatureServe 2009 [online]). In addition, the sand verbena 
moth has not been collected in yellow sand verbena patches less than 
500 square meters (m\2\) (5,382 square feet (ft\2\)) (BCIRT 2008, pp. 
3, 5); however, the BCIRT cautions, ``this statement is only 
quantitative and neither indicates this area as a minimum patch size 
nor suggests that patches should be managed to this size.''

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to that factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat may be 
significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of 
the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or 
threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. The identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that substantial information has been presented 
suggesting that listing may be warranted. The information should 
contain evidence or the reasonable extrapolation that any factor(s) may 
be an operative threat that acts on the species to the point that the 
species may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the 
Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the sand verbena moth, based on information 
presented in the petition and other information available in our files, 
is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

Dune Stabilization
Information Provided in the Petition
    According to the petitioners, yellow sand verbena requires chronic 
disturbance to maintain long-term populations of the sand verbena moth 
(Petition, p. 10, citing COSEWIC 2003, p. 19). The petitioners state 
stabilization of dunes by both native and introduced species, such as 
the nonnative European beachgrass, Ammophila arenaria, degrades habitat 
for yellow sand verbena and consequently the sand verbena moth as well 
(Petition, p. 10). The petitioners further state that nonnative 
beachgrass displaces yellow sand verbena, although no supporting 
documentation is provided for this claim (Petition, p. 10). The 
petitioners maintain (Petition, p. 10, citing BCIRT 2008, p. 19) this 
threat is severe at all locations in British Columbia and most 
locations in Washington. Troubridge and Crabo (cited as 1995, p. 99, in 
Petition, p. 10) note European beachgrass has stabilized most of the 
dune habitat on the Pacific Coast, replacing native vegetation. In 
addition, the petitioners cite nonnative beachgrass as dominating most 
Washington dunes (Petition, p. 10, citing Washington State Department 
of Ecology pp. 1-2, [online]).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We reviewed the information presented in the petition and 
information in our files and found no information indicating that dune 
stabilization (referred to as ``vegetation stabilization'' by the 
petitioners) is a significant threat at sand verbena moth locations in 
Washington. Only one reference, L. Crabo (2010, pers. comm.), was 
presented in the petition regarding the threat of beachgrass at known 
sand verbena moth locations in the Puget Sound Region of Washington 
(Petition, p. 10). According to the petitioners, L. Crabo noted that 
the dunes at Deception Pass State Park have been less affected by 
European beachgrass and Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) than some of 
the other sites (Petition, p. 10). The petitioners did not document 
this communication (S. Jepsen, Xerces Society, 2010, pers. comm.); thus 
we are unable to verify and assess this claim or any other information 
that was referenced as ``L. Crabo 2010, pers. comm.'' in the petition. 
According to the Washington State Department of Ecology (pp. 1-2, 
[online]), both American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata) and 
European beachgrass have changed sediment transport, plant communities, 
and habitat along the southwest coast of Washington. Currently, 
American beachgrass dominates most foredunes, from the mouth of the 
Columbia River to the mouth of the Copalis River (Washington State 
Department of Ecology p. 2, [online]). The current distribution of 
European beachgrass was not discussed, nor was information provided 
regarding beachgrass in the Puget Sound Region of Washington 
(Washington State Department of Ecology pp. 1-2, [online]).
    We acknowledge that beachgrass may outcompete native dune species, 
including yellow sand verbena. Wiedemann and Pickart (1996, p. 287) 
state that beachgrass has outcompeted native plant species and 
drastically reduced their habitat. However, displacement has so far 
been demonstrated indirectly by correlation studies between beachgrass 
and species diversity (cited as Barbour et al. 1976, in Wiedmann and 
Pickart 1996, p. 295), and responses to beachgrass differ among 
foredune species (cited as Boyd 1992, in Wiedmann and Pickart 1996, p. 
295).
    At occupied sand verbena moth locations in Washington, the total 
area of beachgrass and yellow sand verbena available to the sand 
verbena moth has not been quantified. Limited information is available 
for other nearby sites that support both yellow sand verbena and 
beachgrass. At Graveyard Spit in Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge 
(NWR), yellow sand verbena is distributed throughout the refuge, but 
does not appear to be outcompeted by either native or nonnative 
grasses. This spit is located in a designated research natural area and 
supports a relatively intact native beach strand community (Thomas 
2010, pers. comm.). On Protection Island NWR, approximately 42 acres on 
Violet Spit support beachgrass. Yellow sand verbena has also been noted 
on Protection Island, and beachgrass is reported to be dense at this 
location; however, comprehensive surveys of either yellow sand verbena 
or beachgrass have not been completed, as the area is avoided during 
flowering due to its overlap in timing with the Salish Sea's largest 
nesting colonies of glaucous-winged

[[Page 9313]]

gulls (Larus glaucescens). The refuge is planning native strand 
restoration at this site. On San Juan Island NWR, beachgrass has been 
noted on Smith Island, and no vegetation occurs on Minor Spit. The 
density of beachgrass and yellow sand verbena available to the sand 
verbena moth has not been quantified at these locations (Thomas 2010, 
pers. comm.).
    Although not currently a known location for sand verbena moth, we 
received a yellow sand verbena inventory report from Willapa NWR, 
located in southwest Washington. In 2006, all sandy beaches from the 
Columbia River North Jetty to Leadbetter Point were surveyed. A total 
of 1,003 mature plants and 2,447 immature plants were documented over 
the course of the survey (Lewis 2006, unnumbered p. 2). Lewis noted the 
shape of a few large plants was altered by encroaching beachgrass. The 
beachgrass appeared to shade out yellow sand verbena and reduce its 
vigor, and thus may outcompete it. Yellow sand verbena plants were not 
documented in areas or zones established by beachgrass (Lewis 2006, 
unnumbered p. 3).
    In British Columbia, dune stabilization has been identified as the 
primary threat to yellow sand verbena and, therefore, to the sand 
verbena moth (COSEWIC 2003, p. 19; NatureServe 2009, [online]). 
According to COSEWIC (2003, p. 14), the introduction of invasive 
nonnative plants, such as Scotch broom and exotic grasses, has 
accelerated dune stabilization at sand verbena moth locations in 
British Columbia.
    In summary, we have little information to suggest that dune 
stabilization may pose a significant threat to the sand verbena moth 
within its known range in the State of Washington, and whether the sand 
verbena moth may occur elsewhere on the Pacific Coast of the United 
States where its host plant is found is uncertain. However, we 
acknowledge that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 
Canada, which we consider to be a reliable source of scientific 
information, considers dune stabilization to be a significant threat to 
the species within its range in British Columbia. Therefore, based on 
this information, we find that the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that dune stabilization 
may pose a threat to the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.
Habitat Conversion
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state that at least four sand verbena moth 
locations, three in British Columbia and one in Washington, have 
experienced habitat reduction due to park infrastructure, and 
additionally they claim that military buildings and marine development 
may result in reduced moth habitat as well (Petition, p. 10). According 
to the petition (2010, p. 10), L. Crabo (2010, pers. comm.) stated, ``a 
parking lot has already converted sand dune habitat in the Deception 
Pass State Park location, and a housing development occurs nearby; only 
about 300 yards of beach dune habitat remain at the type locality for 
the sand verbena moth, making this species vulnerable to extirpation at 
this location.'' We were unable to verify and assess the petitioners' 
reference, as no documentation of this personal communication exists 
(Jepsen 2010, pers. comm.).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Sand verbena moth and yellow sand verbena populations that occur in 
U.S. National Park lands and National Wildlife Refuges are generally 
protected from development; thus habitat conversion due to park 
infrastructure would not affect habitat at two known sand verbena moth 
locations in Washington. The petitioners did not provide information, 
nor do we have any in our files, that supports the claim that military 
buildings and other infrastructure or marine development have reduced 
sand verbena moth habitat in Washington. As the total habitat occupied 
by sand verbena moth populations in Washington has never been 
documented, any putative reduction in sand verbena moth habitat cannot 
be determined.
    In British Columbia, the COSEWIC (2003, p. 19) considers habitat 
conversion to be a secondary threat to the sand verbena moth and notes 
it may have substantial local impacts. According to the BCIRT (2008, p. 
16), all of the sites located in Canada have been impacted by habitat 
conversion, including destruction of sand dunes for park use, 
development of military training facilities, expansion of beach areas, 
and marine development.
    In summary, we have little information to suggest that habitat 
conversion may pose a significant threat to the sand verbena moth 
within its known range in the State of Washington, and whether the sand 
verbena moth may occur elsewhere on the Pacific Coast of the United 
States where its host plant is found is uncertain. However, we 
acknowledge that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 
Canada, which we consider to be a reliable source of scientific 
information, considers habitat conversion to be an important threat to 
the species within its range in British Columbia. Therefore, based on 
this information, we find that the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that dune stabilization 
may pose a threat to the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.
Recreation
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state that recreational foot traffic on beach dunes 
presents a threat to the sand verbena moth and its habitat, and claim 
the threat is likely to increase due to population growth (Petition, p. 
10). According to the petitioners (Petition, p. 10), L. Crabo (2010, 
pers. comm.) noted the sand verbena moth population at Deception Pass 
State Park is threatened by high levels of human recreation.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We were unable to verify or assess the petitioners' reference cited 
as a personal communication in regard to recreation at Deception Pass 
State Park, Washington, as no documentation of this communication 
exists (Jepsen 2010, pers. comm.). At Dungeness NWR, yellow sand 
verbena is distributed within a research natural area that is closed to 
the public (Thomas 2010, pers. comm.); thus recreation is not likely to 
pose a threat to the sand verbena moth or its habitat now or in the 
foreseeable future at this location. We have no additional information 
regarding recreational use at other sand verbena moth locations in 
Washington.
    In British Columbia, the COSEWIC (2003, p. 19) considers recreation 
a secondary threat to the sand verbena moth; however, actions have been 
taken to reduce this threat at several locations (BCIRT 2008, pp. 8-9). 
At Goose Spit, preliminary guidelines for activities near sand verbena 
moth populations have been developed and signs posted near the site at 
the dune entrance (BCIRT 2008, p. 8). This population was temporarily 
fenced to prevent disturbance from military training activities (BCIRT 
2008, p. 9). At Island View Regional Park, a split rail fence was 
constructed to reduce access to the

[[Page 9314]]

sand verbena moth population. In addition, an educational program was 
implemented to encourage visitors to stay on established walkways 
(BCIRT 2008, p. 9).
    Based on the above evaluation, we find that the information 
provided in the petition, as well as other information readily 
available in our files, fails to meet our standard for substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that recreation may 
pose a threat to the yellow sand verbena moth such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.
Coastal Erosion
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state that all sand verbena moth habitat occurs 
within 25 to 100 m (82 to 328 ft) of the shoreline, and therefore it is 
vulnerable to coastal erosion caused by severe winter storms, wildfire, 
and heavy winds during the moth's flight season (Petition, p. 10). 
Furthermore, they point out that in British Columbia, storms over the 
winter of 2005-2006 eroded 2 to 10 m (6.6 to 32.8 ft) of dunes along 
Goose Spit (Petition, p. 11). According to the petitioners, the 
population on San Juan Island is threatened by erosion because it is 
located on an eroded dune and the roots of yellow sand verbena are 
visible (Petition, p. 10).
    Although they have identified coastal erosion as a threat to the 
sand verbena moth, the petitioners also make the converse argument that 
yellow sand verbena and, therefore, the sand verbena moth are adversely 
affected by the construction of artificial barriers, such as 
bulkheading and hard protection techniques, constructed to reduce 
coastal erosion (Petition, p. 15).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    According to the COSEWIC (2003, p. 19) the primary threat to the 
sand verbena moth is habitat loss and degradation as a result of dune 
stabilization. Natural disturbance of yellow sand verbena populations 
in open sand areas or new sand deposition, in which colonization may 
occur, is required to maintain populations of the sand verbena moth 
(COSEWIC 2003, p. 19). Erosion, winter storms, wildfire, and heavy 
winds are all natural processes that occur in coastal habitat that 
likely have maintained suitable dune habitat for yellow sand verbena 
over time. The BCIRT (2008, p. 5) states, ``yellow sand-verbena 
locations typically lack dense herbaceous or bryophyte plant cover, 
likely a result of periodic disturbance by natural environmental 
processes (e.g., storms, wave-washed logs, and wind). Such weather 
processes prevent dune stabilization which would otherwise occur 
through natural succession and plant encroachment.'' COSEWIC (2003, p. 
20) states, ``accelerated coastal disturbance and sediment transport 
associated with increased storm frequency may result in increased 
development of open sand habitats, which would have a positive effect'' 
on the sand verbena moth.
    In 2005-2006, 2 to 10 m (6.6 to 32.8 ft) of coastal erosion of dune 
front occurred at Goose Spit, British Columbia, for a length of 200 m 
(656 ft) along the beach (cited as Allan, pers. comm., 2007 in BCIRT 
2008, p. 7). This resulted in a loss of yellow sand verbena plants that 
are used by the sand verbena moth. In 2007, the dunes were stabilized 
with abutments to minimize further erosion in this area (BCIRT 2008, p. 
9). Erosion barriers have likely impacted sediment transport within the 
dune ecosystem and may lead to dune and vegetation stabilization (BCIRT 
2008, p. 7).
    According to a document cited by the petitioners, the shoreline of 
the Puget Sound region ``consists of a diverse suite of coastal 
landforms ranging from rocky cliffs to beaches and broad river deltas'' 
(cited as Shipman 2008 in Shipman 2009, unnumbered p. 2). This 
diversity results in complex relationships among and between landforms 
(Shipman 2009, unnumbered p. 3); each landform responds differently to 
coastal erosion (Shipman 2009, unnumbered p. 3). For example, erosion 
from coastal bluffs may provide sediment to beaches and spits, thus 
providing new area for yellow sand verbena to colonize.
    According to the BCIRT (2007, p. 6), in British Columbia sand 
verbena moth habitat occurs within 100 m (328 ft) of shoreline (BCIRT 
2008, p. 6). The petitioners did not present any information, nor could 
we find any readily available in our files, regarding habitat at known 
sand verbena moth locations in Washington. Information lacking thus 
includes the distance from shoreline in which suitable habitat occurs, 
habitat structure and configuration, and total area of yellow sand 
verbena needed to support the sand verbena moth. Thomas (2010, pers. 
comm.) noted that erosion is occurring in dune habitat at San Juan 
Island NHP; however, new sand deposition occurs simultaneously with the 
erosion process, which may provide new areas for yellow sand verbena to 
colonize. Lewis (2006, p. 3) found that taproots of the plant grow deep 
in the sand. A seedling with four leaves was found to have taproots 
growing to a depth of more than 25 cm (10 in). Taproots can easily 
reach 1 m (3.28 ft) or greater in depth (Thomas 2010, pers. comm.). In 
addition, roots of yellow sand verbena are tough, leathery, and well-
designed to resist desiccation from exposure.
    The petitioners did not provide any information, nor do we have 
information in our files, directly relating to the claim that wildfire, 
heavy winds, or severe winter storms may be factors threatening the 
continued existence of sand verbena moth or its habitat. The frequency 
or existence of coastal zone wildfires is poorly understood. However, 
very little fuel is available in coastal habitats; therefore any fires 
would be short in duration and likely infrequent.
    The petitioners did not present any information, nor do we have any 
in our files, that indicate bulkheads and other `hard protection' 
techniques may be a factor threatening the continued existence of sand 
verbena moth throughout its range. At San Juan Island NHP and Dungeness 
NWR, no bulkheads or other types of hard structures exist, and natural 
processes dominate. In British Columbia, erosion barriers have 
decreased sand transport to Goose Spit; however, dunes were stabilized 
at this location and yellow sand verbena populations have been 
augmented by transplants (BCIRT 2008, p. 9).
    Based on the above evaluation, we find that the information 
provided in the petition, as well as other information readily 
available in our files, fails to meet our standard for substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that coastal erosion 
may be a threat to the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.
Climate Change
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state that rising sea levels and increasingly 
severe coastal storms and summer droughts as a result of climate change 
threaten the sand verbena moth (Petition, p. 13, citing BCIRT 2008, p. 
8). Sand verbena moth populations in Canada are located less than 5 m 
(16.4 ft) above sea level, and most habitat occurs within 25 m (82 ft) 
of the shoreline (BCIRT 2008, pp. 6, 8). According to the petitioners 
(Petition, p. 13), the Puget Sound region is projected to experience 
sea level rises estimated at 22 in (55 cm) by 2050 and 50 in (128 cm) 
by 2100 (Mote et al. 2008, p. 10).

[[Page 9315]]

Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The BCIRT (2008, p. 8) considers climate change to be a potential, 
but poorly understood, threat to sand verbena moth habitat. Although we 
acknowledge that climate change may lead to sea level rise (IPCC 2007, 
p. 30; Mote et al. 2008, p. 3; Karl et al. 2009, p. 84), it is 
important to note that ``the present shoreline of the Salish Sea has 
formed and is maintained under a regime of gradually rising sea 
levels'' (Shipman 2009, unnumbered p. 2). Projections of future sea 
levels are highly uncertain, vary across regions, and are unpredictable 
(Mote et al. 2008, pp. 3, 9; Shipman 2009, unnumbered p. 1). Mote et 
al. (2008, p. 9) stress that these ``estimates have not formally 
quantified the probabilities, sea level rise cannot be estimated 
accurately at specific locations, and the estimates are for advisory 
purposes only.'' Mote et al. (2008, p. 10) present sea level rise 
estimates in three categories: very low, medium, and very high. The sea 
level rise estimates presented in the petition are those categorized as 
very high for the Puget Sound region. Mote et al. (2008, p. 10) 
consider the very low and very high sea level rise estimates to be low 
probability scenarios; a formal framework to quantify the probabilities 
of the very high or very low sea level rise estimates has not been 
developed.
    According to Mote et al. (2008, p. 10), the medium sea level rise 
estimate for Puget Sound is 6 in (15 cm) by 2050. Assuming that sand 
verbena moth populations and yellow sand verbena habitat in Washington 
are located similarly to those in Canada with respect to distance from 
shoreline and location above sea level, this level of projected sea 
level rise would not inundate yellow sand verbena and thus sand verbena 
moth populations in Washington. Mote et al. (2008, p. 10) also provide 
medium sea level rise estimates along the entire coast of Washington. 
Because uplifting occurs in the Northwest Olympic Peninsula, they 
estimated no sea level rise by 2050. Along the central and southern 
coast of Washington, sea level rise was estimated to be 5 in (12.5 cm) 
by 2050. The petition did not present, nor do we have in our files, sea 
level rise estimates along the coasts of British Columbia, Oregon, or 
California.
    According to the COSEWIC (2003, p. 20), the potential effects of 
climate change on the sand verbena moth are complex, and they state, 
``climate change may be associated with sea level rise which could 
threaten coastal dune habitats directly. However, accelerated coastal 
disturbance and sediment transport associated with increased storm 
frequency may result in increased development of open sand habitats, 
which would have a positive effect.''
    The petitioners also state that climate change may cause an 
increase in summer drought, which may result in early senescence 
(aging) of yellow sand verbena. The petitioners assert that this will 
detrimentally affect the sand verbena moth, larvae of which feed on 
leaves and shoots throughout the summer in preparation for winter 
diapause (a state of dormancy) (Petition, p. 14).
    The petitioners did not provide any evidence, nor could we find any 
in our files, documenting any increase in summer drought conditions 
resulting from climate change as causing a loss of leaves, early 
dormancy, or early senescence of yellow sand verbena. According to 
BCIRT (2008, p. 8), climate change is a potential, but poorly 
understood, threat to the sand verbena moth, but they do acknowledge 
that during drought conditions the plant may lose leaves and enter 
dormancy early, thus reducing forage for the larvae of the sand verbena 
moth.
    Yellow sand verbena has unique adaptations including deep taproots 
with high water storage capacity, prostrate growth, and succulent 
leaves with a thick epidermis (COSEWIC 2003, p. 12) that would enable 
it to withstand drought conditions. Because changes in precipitation in 
Puget Sound have been highly variable over recent decades, no 
particular trend has been observed. Mote et al. (2005, p. 7) state that 
in Puget Sound, ``there is little indication that annual and 
interannual variation in precipitation in the 21st century will be 
vastly different from those in the 20th century. Secondly, properties 
or characteristics of the living and non-living environment that 
respond to precipitation have probably already experienced the range 
that they will experience in the next century.'' We could not locate 
any information in our files, nor was any provided in the petition, 
concerning evidence of increases in drought over the range of yellow 
sand verbena.
    Based on the above evaluation, we find that the information 
provided in the petition, as well as other information readily 
available in our files, fails to meet our standard for substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that climate change may 
be a threat to the yellow sand verbena moth such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.
Summary of Factor A
    Given the uncertainties regarding the potential significance of the 
threat of dune stabilization and habitat conversion on the sand verbena 
moth throughout all or a significant portion of its range, as well as 
the determination by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 
in Canada that these factors pose a significant threat to the sand 
verbena moth within its range in that country, we find that the 
questions raised by information presented in the petition are 
sufficient to meet the ``substantial information'' standard for a 
positive 90-day finding, according to our regulations (50 CFR 
424.14(b)). In cases where we have no information in our files that 
would contradict the opinion of a credible expert on the species, we 
defer to that expert's opinion for purposes of a 90-day finding. 
Therefore, we find that the information presented in the petition, as 
well as other information in our files, presents substantial scientific 
or commercial information to indicate that dune stabilization and 
habitat conversion may be threats potentially resulting in the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat 
or range of the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned action may 
be warranted.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state that collection is not known to threaten the 
sand verbena moth, but the rarity of the species may make it attractive 
to collectors (Petition, p. 11). According to the petitioners, small 
populations are especially vulnerable to overcollection (2010, p. 11). 
The petitioners did not offer any supporting documentation for their 
statements.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    According to COSEWIC (2003, p. 20), collection of the sand verbena 
moth is considered to have a very minor effect on population size. 
Direct human-caused mortality is low (NatureServe 2009, [online]). 
Under Federal regulations, the collection of living or dead wildlife, 
fish, or plants, or the parts or products thereof, is prohibited on 
lands under National Park Service and NWR jurisdiction without a permit 
(36 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii)). Similar regulations exist on 
Washington State lands (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) section 
232-12-064). The

[[Page 9316]]

sand verbena moth is thus protected from collection within its known 
range in the United States and apparently is only minimally impacted by 
collection within its range in Canada.
Summary of Factor B
    The petitioners did not provide any information, nor did we have 
any available in our files, to indicate that overutilization may have a 
significant negative impact on sand verbena moth populations. 
Therefore, we find the petition does not present substantial scientific 
or commercial information to indicate that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may 
present a threat to the yellow sand verbena moth such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state the sand verbena moth is likely subject to 
predation by bats, birds, and small mammals (Petition, p. 11, citing 
BCIRT 2008, p. 7). The petitioners also assert that alien parasitic 
tachinid flies, if introduced to control gypsy moths, may harm the sand 
verbena moth (Petition, p. 11). According to the petitioners (Petition, 
p. 11), herbivory of yellow sand verbena is considered a minor threat 
at all sand verbena moth locations (BCIRT 2008, p. 7).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    All species are subjected to endemic levels of disease and 
predation under natural conditions. Gypsy moths attack conifers and 
broadleaf trees (Boersma et al. 2006, p. 126), habitat the sand verbena 
moth is not known to occupy. Between 1974 and 2007, only 14 gypsy moths 
have been collected in the three Washington counties where sand verbena 
moth is known to occur (Washington State Department of Agriculture 
(WSDA), 2008, [online]). Between 2007 and 2009, only one moth was 
collected in these counties (WSDA, 2009, [online]). Alien tachinid 
flies have not been introduced to the western United States and Canada 
(BCIRT 2008, p. 7), nor do we have any evidence that such an 
introduction is planned or likely to occur. While we agree that 
introducing the fly, should it ever occur, may have a negative effect 
on the moth, at this time we have no evidence, and the petitioners have 
offered none, that supports the claim that these threats may rise to 
the level of acting as a significant limiting factor to the sand 
verbena moth throughout its range.
Summary of Factor C
    We reviewed our files and the information provided by the 
petitioners, and did not find substantial information to indicate that 
disease or predation may be outside the natural range of variation such 
that it could be considered a threat to the sand verbena moth. 
Therefore, we find the petition does not present substantial scientific 
or commercial information to indicate that disease or predation may 
present a threat to the yellow sand verbena moth such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state that Federal or State laws or policies do not 
adequately protect the sand verbena moth from endangerment or 
extinction (Petition, p. 12). In Canada, the sand verbena moth is 
listed as Endangered under the Species At Risk Act. According to the 
petitioners (Petition, p. 12), actions that provide protection and 
recovery of the species are well underway for populations in Canada 
(BCIRT 2008, pp. 8-9, 12). The petitioners (Petition p. 12) claim the 
designation of the sand verbena moth as a candidate species by the 
State of Washington does not provide protection for the sand verbena 
moth. The petitioners further state (Petition, p. 12) that the sand 
verbena moth is included in the State of Washington's Priority Habitat 
and Species (PHS) List (WDFW 2008, p. 30). According to the petitioners 
(Petition, p. 12), the habitats and species included on the PHS List 
are considered to be priorities for conservation and management, and 
the PHS List is used to aid in developing management strategies and 
mapping purposes (WDFW 2008, pp. 1-2).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petitioners further provide a discussion of the Global, 
National, and State or Provincial rankings of the sand verbena moth on 
NatureServe (Petition, p. 12). However, we note the NatureServe 
rankings are not regulatory in nature and thus are not relevant to 
Factor D under the Act.
    Information provided by the petitioners suggests existing 
regulatory mechanisms in Canada are adequate for the conservation of 
the species (Petition, p. 12). Within its range in the United States, 
the sand verbena moth populations in Washington occur primarily on 
public lands. Under Federal regulations, the collection of living or 
dead wildlife, fish, or plants, or the parts or products thereof, is 
prohibited on lands under National Park Service and National Wildlife 
Refuge jurisdiction without a permit (36 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(i) and 
(a)(1)(ii)). Similar regulations exist on Washington State lands (WAC 
section 232-12-064). Additional protection is provided to sand verbena 
moth habitat and therefore the sand verbena moth at Dungeness NWR. 
Yellow sand verbena is distributed in a research natural area there 
that is closed to the public (Thomas 2010, pers. comm.).
    The petitioners do not identify any threats presumably impacting 
the sand verbena moth that are inadequately controlled by existing 
regulatory mechanisms within its range in the United States. The 
petitioners have not provided any information, nor do we find any 
available in our files, to suggest that existing regulatory mechanisms 
in Washington are inadequate to protect the sand verbena moth from any 
specific factors that may threaten its continued existence.
Summary of Factor D
    Within the framework of a 90-day finding we are not required to 
conduct a far-reaching assessment of the adequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms for the sand verbena moth, and neither the 
information presented in the petition nor in our files supports this 
factor as a threat to the sand verbena moth. We find the petition did 
not present, nor could we locate in our files, substantial scientific 
or commercial information to indicate that the lack of regulatory 
mechanisms may be a factor threatening the continued existence of the 
sand verbena moth throughout its range such that the petitioned action 
may be warranted.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

Insecticides
Information Provided in the Petition
    According to the petitioners, the use of insecticides such as 
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) near sand verbena moth 
locations can harm the sand verbena moth (Petition, p. 14, citing BCIRT 
2008, p. 7). Btk is typically applied from early April to early May to 
control gypsy moths, Lymantria dispar. The petitioners state that 
spraying would overlap with the larval feeding period of sand verbena 
moth and would

[[Page 9317]]

result in high mortalities (Petition, p. 14).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Gypsy moths attack conifers and broadleaf trees (Boersma et al. 
2006, p. 126), habitat the sand verbena moth is not known to occupy. In 
fact, between 1974 and 2009, only 15 gypsy moths have been collected in 
the three Washington counties where the sand verbena moth is currently 
known to occur (Washington Department of Agriculture 2009, [online]). 
To date, Btk has never been sprayed near sand verbena moth populations, 
but is named as a potential threat by BCIRT (2008, p. 7).
    While we agree that use of insecticides such as Btk near sand 
verbena moth populations would potentially have a negative effect on 
the species, at this time we have no evidence that such usage is likely 
to occur, since Btk is utilized in forested environments and the sand 
verbena moth inhabits coastal dunes. We have no information available 
in our files, and the petitioners have offered none, that supports the 
claim that the threat of insecticides may rise to the level of acting 
as a significant limiting factor to the sand verbena moth throughout 
its range.
    Based on the above evaluation, we find the petition did not 
present, nor could we locate in our files, substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that insecticides may be a threat to 
the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Herbicides
Information Provided in the Petition
    According to the petitioners (Petition, p. 14), chemical control of 
European beachgrass is the most cost-effective method for, and may be 
the most common approach to, its eradication (Pickart 1997, p. 6). The 
petitioners (Petition, p. 14) suggest the Service consider whether 
mechanical, chemical, or manual means used to control European 
beachgrass may have an adverse effect on yellow sand verbena and 
therefore the sand verbena moth. However, they offer no supporting 
evidence in support of the argument that these control methods may 
impact yellow sand verbena.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Neither COSEWIC (2003), nor BCIRT (2008), nor NatureServe (2009, 
[online]; 2010, [online]) identify herbicides as being a threat to 
yellow sand verbena and therefore the sand verbena moth. The 
petitioners did not provide any information, nor could we locate any in 
our files, that documents specific methods in which beachgrass is 
controlled at any of the known sand verbena moth locations. Yellow sand 
verbena, distributed throughout Graveyard Spit in Dungeness National 
Wildlife Refuge, is located in a research natural area and supports a 
relatively intact native strand community (Thomas 2010, pers. comm.); 
efforts to control beachgrass at this sand verbena moth location using 
herbicides are not planned. Although not a current sand verbena moth 
location, efforts to restore dune habitat at Willapa NWR involve a 
variety of mechanical, manual, and chemical means (Ritchie 2009, p. 2). 
As a result of these actions, a self-sustaining pink sand verbena 
(Abronia umbellata) population now exists on the refuge (Ritchie 2009, 
p. 4). Since yellow sand verbena may be outcompeted by beachgrass and 
may not occur in established beachgrass zones (Lewis 2006, unnumbered 
p. 3), the long-term positive effects of habitat restoration through 
control of beachgrass, regardless of means, is likely to significantly 
outweigh any short-term impacts that may occur to yellow sand verbena, 
and therefore the sand verbena moth.
    Based on the above evaluation, we find the petition did not 
present, nor could we locate in our files, substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that herbicides may be a threat to 
the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Biological Vulnerability
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners state the sand verbena moth's dependence on yellow 
sand verbena is a biologically limiting factor (BCIRT 2008, pp. 5-6) 
that may compound any threats to the species (Petition, p. 14). 
According to the petitioners, the sand verbena moth's small population 
size, restricted range, and vulnerability to weather events may 
increase the likelihood of its extinction. The petitioners go on to say 
that the sand verbena moth's narrow range should be considered a threat 
to the species (Petition, p. 15).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We acknowledge that small population size and restricted range 
increases the vulnerability of a species to extinction and that 
complete dependence on one host plant is a potentially limiting factor 
for the sand verbena moth. However, not all species with limited ranges 
and small population sizes warrant listing under the Act (see our 12-
month finding on a petition to list the island marble butterfly 
(Euchloe ausonides insulanus) as threatened or endangered at 71 FR 
66292; November 14, 2006), and to date, the global population size, 
distribution, and status of the sand verbena moth is uncertain. 
According to NatureServe (2009, [online]), ``distribution data for U.S. 
states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete or has not been 
reviewed for this taxon.'' In addition, Troubridge and Crabo note the 
sand verbena moth may have a limited distribution, ``* * * although it 
could also be an artifact of lack of collecting in suitable habitats'' 
(Troubridge and Crabo 1995, p. 89). We have evidence of only two 
surveys that were completed outside of the Puget Sound region. One 
survey, which was unsuccessful in capturing the sand verbena moth, was 
conducted by hand-searching patches of yellow sand verbena in Oregon 
(COSEWIC 2003, p. 9). According to COSEWIC (2003, p. 9), additional 
sampling in Oregon and California is needed to determine the presence 
or absence of the sand verbena moth. The petitioners state that surveys 
conducted on the Long Beach peninsula in Washington were not successful 
in locating the species (cited as L. Crabo, 2010, pers. comm. in the 
Petition, p. 7). However, we could not verify or access this 
information because the petitioners do not have a record of this 
conversation (Jepsen 2010, pers. comm.).
    Based on the available information, the surveys conducted to date 
are not sufficient to constitute substantial information indicating 
that the sand verbena moth is distributed over a narrow range. Yellow 
sand verbena is distributed over approximately 1,500 miles (mi) (2,414 
kilometers (km)) of shoreline. To date, 90 percent of the range of the 
yellow sand verbena has not been surveyed for the sand verbena moth. In 
2006, all sandy beaches from the North Jetty of the Columbia River to 
the tip of Leadbetter Point, approximately 28 mi (45 km), were surveyed 
for yellow sand verbena (Lewis 2006, unnumbered p. 2). This survey 
documented the existence of a metapopulation and recruitment of yellow 
sand verbena (Lewis 2006, unnumbered p. 3). Yellow sand verbena also 
occurs along the Oregon and California coast, indicating both suitable

[[Page 9318]]

habitat and that the sand verbena moth may be present in additional 
locations as yet unsearched in Washington, Oregon, and California. 
However, for the purposes of this finding based on the assessments of 
NatureServe (2009, [online]) and COSEWIC (2003), we defer to their 
expert opinion that the sand verbena moth currently has a narrow known 
range.
    BCIRT (2008, p. 8) identifies small and isolated populations as 
biological limiting factors for the sand verbena moth. In addition, 
BCIRT states that the sand verbena moth's dependence on a single host 
plant may increase its risk of extinction. However, both of these 
factors are not specifically identified as threats to the species. Many 
species have limited distributions or small population sizes, but these 
two factors alone (i.e., rarity), without additional information 
regarding threats, do not meet the substantial information threshold 
indicating that the species may warrant listing. Information indicating 
whether the range or abundance of a species has been significantly 
curtailed helps us assess whether the species has always been rare, or 
if it was once more widespread and has been reduced in response to 
threats.
    Based on the above evaluation, we find the petition did not 
present, nor could we locate in our files, substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that inherent biological 
vulnerability may be a threat to the sand verbena moth such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.
Human Population Growth
Information Provided in the Petition
    The petitioners (Petition, p. 14) state that human population 
growth in the Puget Sound region has been more than twice that of the 
U.S. national average for the past 50 years (Mote et al. 2005, p. 3). 
According to the petitioners, the population growth has caused 
degradation to the Puget Sound Region that includes conversion of 
natural habitat, armoring of the shoreline with riprap and concrete, 
spread of nonnative plants, and an increase in recreational use of 
coastal dune habitats (Petition, p. 14).
    These factors relating to habitat and recreational use have been 
addressed under Factor A, The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, as they relate to 
the sand verbena moth and its host plant, yellow sand verbena.
Summary for Factor E
    Based on our evaluation of the information submitted by the 
petitioners and available in our files, we did not find evidence 
suggesting that insecticides, herbicides, or inherent biological 
vulnerability may pose a significant threat to the sand verbena moth. 
With regard to inherent biological vulnerability, in particular, we 
note that many species have limited distributions or small population 
sizes, but we do not consider these two factors alone (i.e., rarity) to 
meet the substantial information threshold indicating that the species 
may warrant listing without additional information regarding threats. 
In the absence of information identifying threats to the species, and 
linking those threats to the rarity of the species, we do not consider 
rarity itself to be a threat. Therefore, we find the petition does not 
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that other natural or manmade factors may affect the continued 
existence of the sand verbena moth such that the petitioned action may 
by warranted.
Cumulative Threats Under All Factors
Information Provided in the Petition
    According to the petitioners (Petition, p. 15), the Service should 
consider whether the aforementioned threats intersect and act 
synergistically to increase the likelihood of extinction or 
endangerment of the sand verbena moth.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files, nor was any presented in the 
petition, that suggests these threats, acting synergistically or 
collectively, are likely to threaten the continued existence of the 
sand verbena moth. However, as noted under our Summary of Factor A, we 
find the questions raised by the petitioners regarding the possible 
impacts of dune stabilization and habitat conversion are sufficient to 
meet our ``substantial information'' standard for a positive 90-day 
finding under our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)).

Finding

    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under 
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the sand verbena moth may be warranted based on potential 
threats posed under Factor A, The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. Specifically, we 
find that dune stabilization and habitat conversion may pose a threat 
to the sand verbena moth throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range such that the petitioned action may be warranted. Because we find 
the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing 
the sand verbena moth throughout its range may be warranted, we are 
initiating a status review to determine whether listing the sand 
verbena moth under the Act is warranted.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether 
the petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough 
status review of the species, which is conducted following a 
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a 
warranted finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Washington Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3546 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P