Edwards’ Beach Moth (Anarta edwardsii): COSEWIC status appraisal summary 2021

Official title: COSEWIC Status Appraisal Summary on the Edwards’ Beach Moth Anarta edwardsii in Canada

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
Endangered
2021

COSEWIC assessment summary

Assessment summary – April 2021

Common name: Edwards’ Beach Moth

Scientific name: Anarta edwardsii

Status: Endangered

Reason for designation: This handsome, grey moth lives in sparsely-vegetated coastal dunes and upper beaches at only six sites on Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands; two of these subpopulations may be extirpated. The moth’s habitats are at risk from increasing vegetation encroachment (by both native and non-native plant species), recreational activities, and loss of sand as a result of increasing frequency, severity and intensity of winter storms, compounded by sea level rise.

Occurrence: British Columbia

Status history: Designated Endangered in April 2009. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2021.

COSEWIC status appraisal summary

Edwards’ Beach Moth
Noctuelle d’Edwards
Anarta edwardsii
Range of occurrence in Canada: British Columbia

Status history

Designated Endangered in April 2009. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2021.

Wildlife species

SAS 6 Change in eligibility, taxonomy or designatable units: no

Explanation

The taxonomy has not changed since the first COSEWIC (2009) status assessment.

Range

SAS 7 Change in Extent of Occurrence (EOO): yes

SAS 8 Change in Index of Area of Occupancy (IAO): no

SAS 9 Change in number of known or inferred current locations: no

SAS 10 Significant new survey information : yes

Explanation

Six subpopulations^{Footnote 1}  of Edwards’ Beach Moth are known in Canada (Figure 1): four extant^{Footnote 2}  and two historical^{Footnote 3}   (Table 1) (COSEWIC 2009).

The extent of occurrence (EOO) has changed from 2050 km2 in the initial COSEWIC (2009) assessment to 659 km2 (Figure 2). This change is because the COSEWIC (2009) report considered Thetis Island (#1) and Mill Bay (#2) as extant subpopulations in the EOO; these subpopulations are now considered historical and not included in the EOO. The records at both localities are > 50 years old. The index of area of occupancy (IAO) remains unchanged at 20 km2 (four extant subpopulations: Figure 2).

Subpopulations are grouped into two locations^{Footnote 6} . Subpopulations #1-5 form a location on the east coast of southern Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands, while #6 forms the second location on the west coast of southern Vancouver Island. These two locations are geographically distinct, and each is defined by the unifying threat of increased flooding, droughts, and storm surges (from climate change), resulting in habitat loss (see Threats). This approach is the same as was done in the first COSEWIC (2009) status assessment.

There is new survey information on Edwards’ Beach Moth since the first COSEWIC (2009) status assessment. There are records and null survey data for 209 collection events from 2014-2019 (Collyer pers. comm. 2019; Davies pers. comm. 2019; Gatten pers. comm. 2019; Gelling pers. comm. 2019; B.C. CDC 2019) (Appendix 1).

A subpopulation of Edwards’ Beach Moth was confirmed at Sidney and Hook Spits on Sidney Island (#5) in 2014 and 2019 (Davies pers. comm. 2019). The species was also identified in multiple years of surveys at Cordova Spit and Island View Beach (#4), where it had previously been undetected since 1994. Edwards’ Beach Moth was not detected at Wickaninnish Beach (#6) despite 172 trap days of collection effort (Collyer pers. comm. 2019; Davies pers. comm. 2019). This site is represented by an unknown number of specimens, collected in 2001 (COSEWIC 2009).

Population information

SAS 11: Change in number of mature individuals: unknown

SAS 12 Change in population trend: unknown

SAS 13 Change in severity of population fragmentation: unknown

SAS 14 Change in trend in area and/or quality of habitat: unknown

SAS 15 Significant new survey information yes

Explanation

A Canadian population estimate for Edward’s Beach Moth was not calculated for the 2009 COSEWIC assessment or since due to insufficient data and the uncertainties in measuring capture success and suitable habitat.

The continuing loss and degradation of the moth’s sand ecosystem habitat due to erosion from an increase in intensity and severity of storm surges, invasive non-native/native plant encroachment into the open sand ecosystem habitats, thereby stabilizing these habitats, and other factors (see Threats) would indicate the Canadian population is declining.

A change in severity of population fragmentation is unknown, but the six subpopulations are widely separated by unsuitable habitat and open ocean. It is unknown if the trend in area and/or quality of habitat has changed since the last COSEWIC (2009) assessment; however, a declining trend is still projected in area and/or quality of habitat (see Threats).

The significant new survey information for Edwards’ Beach Moth from 2014-2019 (see Range and Appendix 1) does improve our understanding of its subpopulations. As in COSEWIC (2009), the recent survey data reinforces that the species can be locally abundant within its habitat.

Recent search effort confirmed one subpopulation (#4; not been observed since 1994) (Gatten pers. comm. 2019; see Range). Conversely, Wickaninnish (#6) has not been recorded for 18 years, putting its status in question.

Threats

SAS 16 Change in nature and/or severity of threats: no

Explanation: Threats to Edwards’ Beach Moth were classified based on the IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threats classification system (CMP 2019; Salafsky et al. 2008; Master et al. 2009). Threats to Edwards’ Beach Moth remain consistent with the first COSEWIC (2009) status assessment, provincial recovery strategy (B.C. MOE 2013) and federal recovery strategy (ECCC 2017). The identification of threats (and habitat requirements) is limited by lack of knowledge about its larval host plant; it is unknown but suspected to be one or more species of Saltbush (Atriplex spp.), Sand-verbena (Abronia spp.), or native Chenopodeaceae (COSEWIC 2009).

Threats are summarized below in order of highest to lowest threat impact and combined for an overall threat impact of medium. The primary threats are the loss and degradation of sandy habitats and the habitat changes from the encroachment of invasive non-native/native species. The endangered Sand-verbena Moth (Copablepharon fuscum) is similarly restricted to sand beach and dune habitats and is threatened by these same factors (COSEWIC 2003).

IUCN-CMP Threat 11. Climate change and severe weather. Low impact

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration (Unknown impact); 11.2 Droughts (Unknown impact); 11.4 Storms and flooding (Low impact)

The effects of climate change on Edwards’ Beach Moth are complex and difficult to predict, but three threat categories (11.1, 11.2 and 11.4) are likely to have an impact in their low-lying coastal habitat: sea-level rise will inundate shoreline, shifting and transforming critical habitat; an increase in summer drought will affect the moth species, its larval host(s) and the sandy substrate they both require; and the increased incidence of severe storms will increase habitat loss and expose individuals to increased predation.

IUCN-CMP Threat 7. Natural system modifications. Low impact

7.1 Fire and fire suppression (Unknown impact)

Fire is a threat to Edwards’ Beach Moth through direct mortality or through death or damage to its host plant(s). Fires are generally infrequent in sandy coastal ecosystems, but several invasive species (e.g., Scotch Broom [Cytisus scoparius], Gorse [Ulex europaeus]) may increase the fuel load and likelihood. Coastal sand movement is an integral process in creating and sustaining this species’ habitat, but it can be disturbed by activities such as construction of breakwaters or groynes (i.e., structures built perpendicular to the shoreline, to prevent erosion).

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications (Low impact)

The gradual encroachment of non-native plants, such as Scotch Broom, Gorse, and European Beach Grass (Ammophila arenaria) are causing significant habitat loss and alteration in all the sandy coastal sites of Edwards’ Beach Moth. These ecosystem modifications eventually change the habitat within which the moth can survive.

IUCN-CMP Threat 1. Residential and commercial development. Low impact

1.3 Tourism and recreation areas (Low impact)

Coastal development has historically reduced the quantity and quality of habitat for Edwards’ Beach Moth, but it is now rare in the known sites. James Island (# 3) is the sole area that may see future residential development, although the timeline for development is unknown. The three coastal sand ecosystems on the island are protected through conservation covenants, and no recreation, trespassing or other activities are authorized within these areas. However, with increased housing and human population on the island, these and other threats to are likely to increase. Cordova Spit and Island View Beach (# 4) could see development for recreational purposes within its park boundaries (e.g., recreational vehicles, camping and parking facilities). There is increased pressure for development of these facilities, particularly along beachside and oceanfront areas.

IUCN-CMP Threat 6. Human intrusions and disturbance. Low impact

6.1 Recreational activities (Low impact)

Activities such as walking, pet-walking, camping or all-terrain vehicle use can impact Edwards’ Beach Moth by damaging or killing the host plant(s) or altering the sandy substrate they inhabit. The activities permitted at each site vary, but Cordova Shore (# 4), Sidney Island (# 5), and Wickaninnish Beach (# 6) are particularly susceptible.

Protection

SAS 17 Change in effective protection: yes

Explanation

Edwards’ Beach Moth is listed as Endangered under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA; date of listing: February 4, 2011) and critical habitat has been identified and legally protected (ECCC 2017). The species is not protected under any provincial (B.C.) acts.

Edwards’ Beach Moth is assessed provincially as S1 (critically imperiled) (B.C. CDC 2019), N1 (critically imperiled) in Canada (CESCC 2015, B.C. CDC 2019), and is not ranked globally GNR (NatureServe 2019).

The four extant subpopulations of Edwards’ Beach Moth are within protected areas (see Range) although there are ongoing threats to the habitat within these areas (see Threats). Protection and mitigation measures are in place at these subpopulations and include:

Subpopulation #3 James Island

This subpopulation is on private land. The habitat is protected by a conservation covenant held by and managed by the Nature Conservancy of Canada, at three sand ecosystem areas on this private island. James Island is also managed under the Regional Conservation Plan of the Islands Trust Conservancy (ITC) (2018).

Subpopulation #4 Cordova Spit and Island View Beach

This site spans three landowners (Tsawout First Nation, Municipality of Central Saanich, Capital Regional District). Cordova Shore is protected by joint ecosystem management planning by all three landowners (Cordova Shore Conservation Partnership Working Group 2010).

Subpopulation #5 Sidney and Hook Spits, Sidney Island

This site is within Gulf Islands National Park Reserve (federal); the species is protected by the Canada National Parks Act and SARA.

Subpopulation #6 Wickaninnish Beach

This site is within Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (federal) and protected by the Canada National Parks Act and SARA.

Rescue effect

SAS 18 Change in evidence of rescue effect: no

Explanation

Unknown. The closest United States population of Edwards’ Beach Moth to those in Canada would be Henry Island, Washington State. The distance is approximately 12 km over open water from the southern Georgia Strait sites (# 3 James Island, # 4 Cordova Shore; and # 5 Sidney Island). Rescue through dispersal of moths from Henry Island is possible in the long term (COSEWIC 2009). There is, however, no evidence that this has occurred over the last decade.

The dispersal ability of Edwards’ Beach Moth has not been studied, but information to allow estimation was provided by COSEWIC (2009) and ECCC (2017). Based on characteristics (e.g., average body size, strong fliers, good dispersers; Figure 3) and studies (e.g., Nieminen 1996) of other noctuid moths, a 750 m dispersal estimate was presented (ECCC 2017). Following this estimate, regional dispersal between the small, isolated sites (>10 km), particularly over open ocean, is considered unlikely.

Quantitative analysis

SAS 19 Change in estimated probability of extirpation: no

Details: Not applicable. None undertaken due to lack of data.

Summary and additional considerations

Recovery planning

A provincial (B.C.) recovery strategy for Edwards’ Beach Moth (B.C. MOE 2013) outlined the following recovery objectives: 1) To secure protection for the known sites (and new sites) and habitats of Edwards’ Beach Moth; 2) To assess and mitigate the extent of current threats to Edwards’ Beach Moth at all sites in B.C.; and 3) To address knowledge gaps (e.g., habitat requirements, host plant use, range in B.C., dispersal abilities) for Edwards’ Beach Moth. A federal recovery strategy for Edwards’ Beach Moth in Canada, including critical habitat designation, was also completed (ECCC 2017). For B.C. coastal sand ecosystems, a status report was assembled by Page et al. (2011).

Restoration and conservation of habitat

On James Island (# 3), three coastal sand ecosystem habitats on the west, north and northeast parts of the island are protected by conservation covenants established by the Nature Conservancy of Canada (COSEWIC 2009; Page et al. 2011) and is managed under the Regional Conservation Plan of the ITC (2018). Work to remove Scotch Broom and Gorse within sand ecosystem habitats on James Island occurred until 2016 and further work to manage invasive species will be initiated in 2020 (Hudson pers. comm. 2019).

For the Cordova Shore (# 4), the Cordova Shore Conservation Strategy has been completed by the Cordova Shore Conservation Partnership Working Group (CSCPWG) (2010) for joint ecosystem management by the three landowners.

Multi-species action plans have been completed for Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada (#5) (Parks Canada Agency 2018) and for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (#6) (Parks Canada Agency 2017). Their implementation includes ongoing efforts to restore sand ecosystem habitats, including invasive plant removal, in both parks (Collyer pers. comm. 2019; Davies pers. comm. 2019; Lawn pers. comm. 2019).

Acknowledgements

The following individuals provided information: Claudia Copley (Royal British Columbia Museum), Mike Collyer (Parks Canada Agency), Lars Crabo (PNW Moths), Morgan Davies (Parks Canada Agency), Jeremy Gatten (LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates), Lea Gelling (B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), David Holden (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), Virginia Hudson (Nature Conservancy of Canada), Don Lafontaine (Canadian National Collection of Insects), Pippi Lawn (Parks Canada Agency), Karen Needham (University of British Columbia), Jeremy Tatum (University of Victoria), Chris Schmidt (Canadian National Collection of Insects), Pippa Shepherd (Parks Canada Agency), Jim Troubridge (Canadian National Collection of Insects), Jennifer Heron (B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy) and Ross Vennesland (Parks Canada Agency). Nick Page and Gary Anweiler wrote the COSEWIC (2009) status report.

Rosana Soares and Sonia Schnobb (COSEWIC Secretariat) provided advice and contracting support. Sydney Allen (Environment and Climate Change Canada) provided GIS and mapping support. Jennifer Heron (Arthropods SSC) provided editorial support. Members of the Arthropods SSC provided review: Syd Cannings (Canadian Wildlife Service), Allan Harris (Northern Bioscience), John Klymko (Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre), Jeffrey Ogden (Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestry), John Richardson (University of British Columbia), David McCorquodale, Leah Ramsay, Sarah Semmler, Cory Sheffield, Colin Jones, James Miskelly, Jessica Linton and Brian Starzomski. Additional review was provided by Greg Rickbeil and Eric Gross (Canadian Wildlife Service). Cover photo by Nicole Kroeker (Parks Canada Agency) and Figure 3 by Gary Anweiler (COSEWIC 2009).

Authorities contacted

Benoit, D. 2019. Member. Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittee. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Collyer, M. 2019. Geomatics Coordinator/Lead: Coastal Sand Ecosystem Restoration. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Parks Canada. Ucluelet, British Columbia.

Crabo, L. 2019. Entomologist. Pacific Northwest Moths. Bellingham, Washington, United States.

Davies, M. 2019. Biologist. Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada, Parks Canada Agency. Sidney, British Columbia.

Gatten, J. 2019. Biologist. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates. Sidney, British Columbia.

Gelling, L. 2019. Zoologist. B.C. Conservation Data Centre, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Victoria, British Columbia.

Gross, E. 2019. Species at Risk Biologist. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada. Delta, British Columbia.

Heron, J. 2019. Invertebrate Conservation Specialist. Species Conservation Science Unit, B.C. Ministry of Environment. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Hudson, V. 2019. Director of Science and Stewardship. B.C. Region, Nature Conservancy of Canada. Victoria, British Columbia.

Lafontaine, D. 2019. Lepidopterist. Canadian National Collection of Insects (retired). Ottawa, Ontario.

Lawn, P. 2019. Biologist/Lead: Coastal Sand Ecosystem Restoration. Coastal B.C. Field unit, Parks Canada Agency. Sidney, British Columbia.

Page, N. 2019. Biologist. Raincoast Applied Ecology. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Schmidt, C. 2019. Lepidopterist. Canadian National Collection of Insects. Ottawa, Ontario.

Shepherd, P. 2019. Species Conservation and Management Ecosystem Scientist. Conservation Programs Branch, Parks Canada Agency. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Tatum, J. 2019. Lepidopterist. University of Victoria (retired). Victoria, British Columbia.

Troubridge, J. 2019. Lepidopterist. Canadian National Collection of Insects (retired). Ottawa, Ontario.

Vennesland, R. 2019. Biologist. Conservation Programs Branch, Parks Canada Agency. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Information sources

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (B.C. MOE). 2013. Recovery Plan for Edwards’ Beach Moth (Anarta edwardsii) in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. 23 pp.

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (B.C. CDC). 2019. Species and Ecosystems Explorer. [Accessed September 21, 2019].

Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2016. Wild Species 2015: The General Status of Species in Canada, National General Status Working Group, [Accessed September 21, 2019].

Collyer, M. pers. comm. 2019. Geomatician. Email correspondence to J. deWaard. September 2019. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Parks Canada. Ucluelet, British Columbia.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on Edwards’ Beach Moth Anarta edwardsii in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vi + 26 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Sand-verbena Moth Copablepharon fuscum in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 39 pp.

Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2019. Direct Threats Classification (V1.0). http://cmp-openstandards.org/library-item/direct-threats-classification-v1-0/ [Accessed September 25, 2019]. (presently not an active link)

Cordova Shore Conservation Partnership Working Group (CSCPWG). 2010. Cordova Shore Conservation Strategy. https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/parks-pdf/cordovashoreconsstrat.pdf?sfvrsn=0 [Accessed September 25, 2019]. (presently not an active link)

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2017. Recovery Strategy for the Edwards’ Beach Moth (Anarta edwardsii) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 2 parts, 16 pp. + 23 pp.

Gatten, J., pers. comm. 2019. Biologist. Email correspondence to J. deWaard. September 2019. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates. Sidney, British Columbia.

Gelling, L. pers. comm. 2019. Zoologist. Email correspondence to J. deWaard. September 2019. B.C. Conservation Data Centre, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Victoria, British Columbia.

Hudson, V. pers. comm. 2019. Director of Science and Stewardship. Email correspondence to J. deWaard. September 2019. B.C. Region, Nature Conservancy of Canada. Victoria, British Columbia.

Islands Trust Conservancy (ITC). 2018. 2018-2027 Regional Conservation Plan. [Accessed September 25, 2019].

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. (and subsequent updates). Available at IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [Accessed September 25, 2019].

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2010. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 8.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee in March 2010 [Accessed September 25, 2019].

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2011. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 9.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee in September 2011. Downloadable from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf. [Accessed September 25, 2019]. (presently not an active link)

Lafontaine, D. pers. comm. 2019. Lepidopterist. Email correspondence to J. deWaard. October 2019. Canadian National Collection of Insects (retired). Ottawa, Ontario.

Master, L.L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G.A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A. Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. [Accessed September 23, 2019].

NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available [Accessed September 21, 2019].

Nieminen, M. 1996. Risk of population extinction in moths: effect of host plant characteristics. Oikos 76: 475–484.

Page, N., P. Lilley, I.J. Walker and R.G. Vennesland. 2011. Status report on coastal sand ecosystems in British Columbia. Report prepared for the Coastal Sand Ecosystems Recovery Team. vii + 83 pp.

Parks Canada Agency. 2017. Multi-species Action Plan for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada - Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. v + 29 pp.

Parks Canada Agency. 2018. Multi-species Action Plan for Gulf Islands National Park Reserve of Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa. v + 27 pp.

Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L. Master, S. O’Connor, and D. Wilkie. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897–911.

Troubridge, J. T. and L. G. Crabo. 1996 [1995]. A new species of Copablepharon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from British Columbia and Washington. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 92: 87–90.

Collections examined

Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Ontario (contact: Chris Schmidt).

Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. (contact: Claudia Copley).

George J. Spencer Entomological Museum at the University of British Columbia Beaty Biodiversity Museum, Vancouver, B.C. (contact: Karen Needham).

Jim Troubridge, Hagersville, Ontario - private collection.

Lars Crabo, Bellingham, Washington - private collection.

Writer of status appraisal summary

 Jeremy deWaard is the Associate Director of Collections at the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics at the University of Guelph. He leads a team of over twenty staff and students, manages a natural history collection of over four million invertebrate specimens, and oversees the acquisition and processing of specimens for DNA barcode analysis. His research focuses on biological inventories, ecosystem monitoring, and the integrative systematics of terrestrial arthropods, particularly macromoths. Jeremy is also a member of the COSEWIC Arthropods Specialist Sub-Committee, an Adjunct Professor and Instructor at the University of Guelph, an Editor for the journals Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources, and a Director of the Entomological Society of Ontario.

Technical summary

Anarta edwardsii
Edwards’ Beach Moth
Noctuelle d’Edwards
Range of occurrence in Canada: British Columbia

^* See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and IUCN (Aug 2019) for more information on this term

Quantitative analysis

Is the probability of extinction in the wild at least [20% within 20 years or 5 generations whichever is longer up to a maximum of 100 years, or 10% within 100 years]? Not applicable, no data available.

Threats (direct, from highest impact to least, as per IUCN Threats Calculator)

Was a threats calculator completed for this species? Yes, low impact (ECCC 2016)

11.4 Storms and flooding – Low impact
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications – Low impact
1.3 Tourism and recreation areas – Low impact
6.1 Recreational activities – Low impact

What additional limiting factors are relevant? Habitat specificity

⁺ See Table 3 (Guidelines for modifying status assessment based on rescue effect)

Data sensitive species

Is this a data sensitive species? No.

Status history

COSEWIC: Designated Endangered in April 2009. Status re-examined and confirmed in May 2021.

Status and reasons for designation

Status: Endangered

Alpha-numeric codes: B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(ii,iii,iv,v)

Reasons for designation: This handsome, grey moth lives in sparsely vegetated coastal dunes and upper beaches at only six sites on Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands; two of these subpopulations may be extirpated. The moth’s habitats are at risk from increasing vegetation encroachment (by both native and non-native plant species), recreational activities, and loss of sand as a result of increasing frequency, severity and intensity of winter storms, compounded by sea level rise.

Applicability of criteria

Criterion A (Decline in Total Number of Mature Individuals): Not applicable.

Criterion B (Small Distribution Range and Decline or Fluctuation): Meets Endangered, B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(ii,iii,iv,v), as both the EOO (659 km²) and IAO (20 km²) values are lower than the thresholds for Endangered. The species may be severely fragmented (a) although there is little evidence to support this criterion. The species is known to exist at two locations based on an increased severity, frequency, and timing of storm surges/flooding to the coastal lowland habitats. There is an observed and/or inferred continuing decline in (ii) index of area of occupancy, (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat, (iv) number of locations and subpopulations, and (v) number of mature individuals inferred from decline in habitat quality/quantity. There is no evidence the species experiences extreme fluctuations in population/subpopulation size.

Criterion C (Small and Declining Number of Mature Individuals): Not applicable.

Criterion D (Very Small or Restricted Population): Meets Threatened, D2. IAO =20 km² and number of locations is 2 (< or =5) and population is prone to effects of stochastic events (severe storms that can impact a large proportion of habitat) in an uncertain future and is capable of becoming critically endangered or Extirpated within 10 years. D1 is not applicable because the number of mature individuals is unknown.

Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis): Not applicable, insufficient data.

COSEWIC history

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC mandate

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC membership

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.

Definitions (2021)

Wildlife Species

A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

Extinct (X)

A wildlife species that no longer exists.

Extirpated (XT)

A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.

Endangered (E)

A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Threatened (T)

A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.

Special Concern (SC)^*

A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Not at Risk (NAR)^**

A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

Data Deficient (DD)^***

A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species’ risk of extinction.

^* Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990.
^** Formerly described as “Not In Any Category”, or “No Designation Required.”
^*** Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” (insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation) prior to 1994. Definition of the (DD) category revised in 2006.

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.