Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9309 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3673 Filed 2–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

(km2) (1,873 square miles (mi2)). 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 nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:53 Feb 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 (m2) 

(5,382 square feet (ft2)) (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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 nonliving 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 humancaused 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 selfsustaining 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
9318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS