RECOVERY PLAN 

FOR THE PRAIRIE SPECIES 

OF WESTERN OREGON 

AND SOUTHWESTERN WASHINGTON 

Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) 

Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw’s lomatium) 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine) 

Sidalcea nelsoniana (Nelson’s checker-mallow) 

REGION 1 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

PORTLAND, OREGON 
ii 

DISCLAIMER 

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

and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery 

plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State 

agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available 

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

need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views 

nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan 

formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have 

been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans 

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

completion of recovery tasks. 

Literature citation should read as follows: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western 

Oregon and Southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. xi + 241 pp. 

An electronic version of this recovery plan will also be made available at 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html and 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/index.html.
iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This recovery plan was prepared by staff biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, with input and guidance from the Recovery 

Team and consultants to the team. We thank the Recovery Team and consultants for 

generously sharing their time and expertise over the years to develop a sound recovery 

plan for the region’s rare prairie species. 

Recovery Team: 

Tom Kaye, Institute for Applied Ecology (team co-leader) 

Cheryl Schultz, Washington State University, Vancouver (team co-leader) 

Joseph Arnett, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program 

Jock Beall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Florence Caplow, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program 

Kelly R. Dirksen, The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon 

Steve Gisler, Oregon Department of Transportation 

Judy Lantor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office 

Andrew F. Robinson, Jr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Office (retired) 

Dave Vesely, Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. 

Nancy Wogen, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District 

Consultants to the Recovery Team: 

Ed Alverson, The Nature Conservancy 

Kat Beal, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Lynda Boyer, Heritage Seedlings 

Dick Brainerd, Salix Associates 

Deborah Clark, Oregon State University 

Elizabeth Crone, University of Montana 

Rebecca Currin, Oregon State University 

Peter Dunwiddie, The Nature Conservancy 

Greg Fitzpatrick, The Nature Conservancy 

Ed Guerrant, The Berry Botanic Garden 

Paul Hammond, Oregon State University 

Bob Hansen, Marion County Public Works Department (retired) 

James Kagan, Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

Keith Karoly, Reed College 

Wes Messinger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Bruce Newhouse, Salix Associates 

Nathan Rudd, The Nature Conservancy 

Paul Severns, Oregon State University 

Sally Villegas, Bureau of Land Management 

Mark Wilson, Oregon State University

Eric Wold, City of Eugene 
iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

CURRENT SPECIES STATUS 

This recovery plan addresses one listed butterfly and four listed plants: 

Fender’s blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi Endangered 

Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Endangered 

Bradshaw’s lomatium Lomatium bradshawii Endangered 

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Threatened 

Nelson’s checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened 

This recovery plan also provides conservation measures specific to the Willamette Valley 

for Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush), a threatened species for which a recovery 

plan was published in 2000. In addition, the recovery plan addresses one candidate 

species and six nonlisted species of conservation concern: Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly 

(Euphydryas editha taylori), Delphinium leucophaeum (pale larkspur), Delphinium 

oreganum (Willamette Valley larkspur), Delphinium pavonaceum (peacock larkspur), 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta (shaggy horkelia), Sericocarpus rigidus (white-topped 

aster), and Sisyrinchium hitchcockii (Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass).

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING FACTORS 

The prairie species addressed in this recovery plan occur on upland prairies and 

grasslands, and in wet prairies that range from southwestern Washington south through 

the Willamette Valley and into the Umpqua Valley in Oregon. They are all threatened by 

the continued degradation, loss, and fragmentation of their native prairie ecosystems. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

The strategy to achieve the recovery of Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana is to restore and maintain multiple viable populations of the species by 

protecting, restoring, maintaining, and connecting the remaining fragments of prairie 

habitats or areas with potential for restoration to prairie habitats within their historical 

range. These areas should be restored to functional prairie ecosystems with management 

that restores and maintains a diversity of native species typical of these prairie 

communities. The primary threats to be addressed through this recovery strategy are 

habitat destruction, isolation and fragmentation, invasion by non-native plant species, and 
v 

succession. The recovery plan also recommends actions to help better understand and 

respond to potential threats posed by changing climate conditions in the region. 

RECOVERY GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA 

Specific recovery goals for the five listed species are as follows: 

Fender’s blue butterfly – reclassify from endangered to threatened, and then delist. 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens – reclassify from endangered to threatened, 

and then delist. 

Lomatium bradshawii – reclassify from endangered to threatened, and delist. 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii – delist. 

Sidalcea nelsoniana – delist. 

Other goals of this recovery plan are to ensure the long-term conservation of Castilleja 

levisecta in the Willamette Valley and to conserve the candidate species and other 

nonlisted species of conservation concern in prairie habitats within the range of this plan 

such that listing is not necessary. 

The objective of the recovery program is to achieve viable populations of the listed 

species distributed across their historical ranges in a series of interconnected populations; 

this will be accomplished by establishing networks of restored prairie reserves across the 

geographic range of this recovery plan. 

For Fender’s blue butterfly, three recovery zones have been delineated that encompass 

the historical range of the species. To delist Fender’s blue butterfly, we set an extinction 

risk threshold of 95 percent probability of persistence for 100 years. This standard may 

be achieved with a variety of combinations of networks and independent populations in 

each of the three recovery zones. Populations that do not drop below a minimum 

threshold must be maintained for at least 10 years at all functioning networks and 

independent populations to meet the delisting criteria. The habitat that supports the 

populations must be managed for high quality prairie habitat, and must be in secure, 

conservation-oriented ownership, with management and monitoring to control threats. 

For the listed plants, we have delineated 10 recovery zones that cover the geographic 

range of the species. Recovery criteria for each of the listed plants specify the number 

and size of populations in each recovery zone, the distribution of subpopulations that 

make up the populations, evidence of a stable or increasing population trend for at least 

15 years, and evidence of reproduction. The habitat that supports the populations must be 

managed for high quality prairie habitat, and must be in secure, conservation-oriented 
vi 

ownership, with management and monitoring to control threats. In addition, genetic 

material must be banked in a facility approved by the Center for Plant Conservation. 

ACTIONS NEEDED 

Actions needed to recover Fender’s blue butterfly: 

1. Preserve, restore, and manage existing populations and habitat for Fender’s blue 

butterfly. 

2. Coordinate management with recovery efforts for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, the larval host plant for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

3. Implement a standardized population monitoring protocol. 

4. Monitor prairie quality and diversity at all population sites. 

5. Reintroduce populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to meet recovery goals. 

6. Implement further research needed for the conservation of the species. 

7. Develop a post-delisting monitoring plan prior to delisting. 

Actions needed to recover Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii,

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana: 

1. Preserve, restore, and manage existing populations and habitat. 

2. Develop and implement a standardized population monitoring protocol. 

3. Monitor prairie quality and diversity at all population sites. 

4. Collect and bank seeds. 

5. Identify reintroduction sites, develop and implement outplanting protocol, 

reintroduce populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to meet recovery goals, 

and manage and monitor reintroduced populations. 

6. Identify and implement further research needed for the conservation of the 

species. 

7. Monitor effectiveness of management actions and apply adaptive management 

measures, as needed. 

8. Develop post-delisting monitoring plans prior to delisting. 

Actions to contribute to the recovery of Castilleja levisecta: 

1. Evaluate protected sites established for other listed prairie species in this plan as 

potential reintroduction sites for Castilleja levisecta. 

2. Reintroduce Castilleja levisecta to restored prairie reserve sites. 

3. Manage and monitor reintroduced populations. 

4. Monitor effectiveness of management actions and apply adaptive management 

measures, as needed. 
vii 

Actions to benefit all listed and nonlisted species addressed in this recovery plan: 

1. Coordinate recovery actions to benefit other listed species and nonlisted prairie 

species of conservation concern. 

2. Promote protection of listed species and prairie restoration on private lands. 

3. Cultivate partnerships with both public and private agencies and organizations to 

promote the conservation of prairie ecosystems and listed prairie species. 

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF RECOVERY 

The Implementation Schedule provides the estimated costs of implementing recovery 

actions for the first 5 years after the release of the recovery plan. Continual and ongoing 

costs, as well as the estimated total cost, are based on the projected timeframes to 

recovery and delisting of each species. 

Annual cost estimates are as follows: 

 Year 1 = $2,285,000 

 Year 2 = $1,602,000 

 Year 3 = $1,252,000 

 Year 4 = $1,029,000 

 Year 5 = $660,000 

The estimated cost to implement this plan for the first 5 years is $6,828,000. The total 

cost to implement this plan through the year 2035, the estimated recovery date of 

Fender’s blue butterfly, is $16,590,000. It should be noted that because many of the 

recovery actions identified for particular species will also benefit other listed species, the 

total cost of recovery may be overestimated. 

DATE OF RECOVERY 

The estimated recovery dates for the species addressed in this recovery plan account for 

10 to 15 years of monitoring to establish population stability as well as the time it may 

take to supplement or establish new populations. If recovery actions are prompt and 

effective, delisting for the Fender’s blue butterfly could occur by 2035. Delisting for the 

plants (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus

ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana) could occur between 2020 and 2030. 
viii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................I-1 

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW.............................................................................................I-1 

B. PRAIRIES OF WESTERN OREGON AND SOUTHWESTERN 

WASHINGTON .........................................................................................................I-4 

1. Southwestern Washington ..............................................................................I-4 

2. Willamette Valley ...........................................................................................I-4 

3. Umpqua Valley ...............................................................................................I-5 

C. PRAIRIE ECOLOGY...........................................................................................I-6 

1. Upland Prairies................................................................................................I-7 

2. Wet Prairies.....................................................................................................I-8 

D. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH PRAIRIES..............I-9 

II. SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE RECOVERY PLAN .......................................... II-1 

A. LISTED SPECIES .............................................................................................. II-1 

1. Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi Macy) .......................... II-1 

2. Erigeron decumbens Nutt. var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) ................... II-9 

3. Lomatium bradshawii [Rose ex Mathias] Mathias & Constance (Bradshaw’s 

lomatium).......................................................................................................... II-14 

4. Lupinus sulphureus Dougl. ex Hook. ssp. kincaidii [C.P. Sm] L. Phillips 

(Kincaid’s lupine) ............................................................................................. II-20 

5. Sidalcea nelsoniana Piper (Nelson’s checker-mallow) .............................. II-26 

6. Castilleja levisecta Greenm. (Golden paintbrush)...................................... II-32 

B. NONLISTED SPECIES.................................................................................... II-36 

1. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori)....................... II-36 

2. Delphinium leucophaeum Greene (Pale larkspur) ...................................... II-39 

3. Delphinium oreganum Howell (Willamette Valley larkspur) .................... II-41 

4. Delphinium pavonaceum Ewan (Peacock larkspur) ................................... II-42 

5. Horkelia congesta Dougl. ex Hook. ssp. congesta (Shaggy horkelia) ....... II-47 

6. Sericocarpus rigidus Lindl. (White-topped aster) ...................................... II-49 

7. Sisyrinchium hitchcockii Henderson (Hitchcock's blue-eyed-grass) .......... II-51 

III. THREATS ASSESSMENT..................................................................................... III-1 

IV. RECOVERY............................................................................................................IV-1 

A. RECOVERY STRATEGY AND RATIONALE...............................................IV-1 

1. Overview......................................................................................................IV-1 

2. Fender’s Blue Butterfly................................................................................IV-6 

3. Prairie Plants ..............................................................................................IV-18 

B. RECOVERY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA...............................IV-26 

1. Downlisting Criteria...................................................................................IV-29 

2. Delisting Criteria........................................................................................IV-34 

C. RECOVERY ACTIONS..................................................................................IV-42 

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE......................................................................... V-1 

VI. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................VI-1 

A. LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................VI-1 

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ...............................................................VI-22 

C. IN LITT. CITATIONS......................................................................................VI-23 
ix 

Appendix A. Glossary of Scientific and Botanical Terms............................................. A-1 

Appendix B. Plant Population Sites and Area Summaries ............................................ B-1 

Appendix C. Species Occurrence on Protected Sites..................................................... C-1 

Appendix D. Guidelines for Assessment of Prairie Quality and Diversity ................... D-1 

Appendix E. Prairie Restoration Resources....................................................................E-1 

Appendix F. Taxonomy and Description of Species Addressed in This Recovery Plan.F-1 

Appendix G. Summary of Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species 

of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington........................................................ G-1 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure I-1. Geographic scope of the plan......................................................................I-2 

Figure II-1. Fender’s blue butterfly distribution..........................................................II-3 

Figure II-2. Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens distribution..................................II-10 

Figure II-3. Lomatium bradshawii distribution .........................................................II-15 

Figure II-4. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii distribution .......................................II-21 

Figure II-5. Sidalcea nelsoniana distribution ............................................................II-27 

Figure II-6. Castilleja levisecta distribution ..............................................................II-33 

Figure II-7. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly distribution ............................................II-38 

Figure II-8. Delphinium leucophaeum distribution ...................................................II-40 

Figure II-9. Delphinium oreganum distribution.........................................................II-43 

Figure II-10. Delphinium pavonaceum distribution...................................................II-46 

Figure II-11. Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta distribution.......................................II-48 

Figure II-12. Sericocarpus rigidus distribution .........................................................II-50 

Figure II-13. Sisyrinchium hitchcockii distribution ...................................................II-53 

Figure IV-1. Recovery Zones ....................................................................................IV-4 

Figure IV-2. Fender’s blue butterfly recovery zones...............................................IV-11 

Figure IV-3. Illustration of downlisting goals for Fender’s blue butterfly ..............IV-13 

Figure IV-4. Potential functioning networks for Fender’s blue butterfly................IV-14 

Figure IV-5. Effect of population number on species extinction risk ....................IV-19 

Figure IV-6. Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens recovery zones ........................IV-21 

Figure IV-7. Lomatium bradshawii recovery zones ................................................IV-22 

Figure IV-8. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii recovery zones..............................IV-23 

Figure IV-9. Sidalcea nelsoniana recovery zones ...................................................IV-24 

Figure IV-10. Illustration of delisting goals for listed plants ..................................IV-25 

Figure IV-11. Castilleja levisecta recovery zones ..................................................IV-27 
x 

Figure C-1. Protected sites, Coast Range Recovery Zone...........................................C-5 

Figure C-2. Protected sites, Corvallis East Recovery Zone.........................................C-6 

Figure C-3. Protected sites, Corvallis West Recovery Zone .......................................C-7 

Figure C-4. Protected sites, Douglas County Recovery Zone .....................................C-8 

Figure C-5. Protected sites, Eugene East Recovery Zone ...........................................C-9 

Figure C-6. Protected sites, Eugene West Recovery Zone ........................................C-10 

Figure C-7. Protected sites, Portland Recovery Zone................................................C-11 

Figure C-8. Protected sites, Salem East Recovery Zone ...........................................C-12 

Figure C-9. Protected sites, Salem West Recovery Zone ..........................................C-13 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table I-1. Species addressed in this plan......................................................................I-3 

Table II-2. Fender’s blue butterfly: estimated population sizes, 2000-2008 ...............II-4 

Table III-1. Threat matrix ........................................................................................ III-10 

Table IV-1. Potential functioning networks and independent populations for 

Fender’s blue butterfly recovery. .............................................................................IV-16 

Table IV-2. Distribution and abundance goals for Fender’s blue butterfly.............IV-30 

Table IV-3. Distribution and abundance goals for Erigeron decumbens var. 

 decumbens................................................................................................................IV-32

Table IV-4. Distribution and abundance goals for Lomatium bradshawi ...............IV-32

Table IV-5. Distribution and abundance goals for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

 kincaidii ..............................................................................................................IV-36

Table IV-6. Distribution and abundance goals for Sidalcea nelsoniana .................IV-36

Table IV-7. Distribution and abundance goals for Castilleja levisecta...................IV-38

Table IV-8. Crosswalk between downlisting / delisting criteria and threat factors 

 for Fender’s blue butterfly .......................................................................................IV-40 

Table IV-9. Crosswalk between downlisting / delisting criteria and threat factors 

 for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Sidalcea nelsoniana, and Castilleja levisecta .................IV-41 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area.........................................................B-1 

Table B-2. Summary of total known acreage for listed plant species .......................B-12 

Table C-1. Known locations of listed and nonlisted prairie species at sites with 

protective management .................................................................................................C-2 

Table D-1. Woody species of management concern .................................................. D-2 
xi 

Table D-2. Partial list of invasive non-native plant species........................................ D-2 

Table D-3. Partial list of plant species used as nectar sources by Fender’s blue 

butterfly ....................................................................................................................... D-4 
I-1

I. BACKGROUND 

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW 

The native prairies of western Oregon and southwestern Washington are among the most 

endangered ecosystems in the United States (Noss et al. 1995). Six native prairie species 

in the region – one butterfly and five plants – have been added to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants since 1988 (Table I-1) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). In this recovery 

plan, we develop recovery strategies and objectives for Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi), Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy), Lomatium 

bradshawii (Bradshaw’s lomatium), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), 

and Sidalcea nelsoniana (Nelson’s checker-mallow). We also provide conservation 

measures to restore Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) in the Willamette Valley. This 

plan replaces and supersedes previously approved recovery plans for Lomatium bradshawii

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a) and Sidalcea nelsoniana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998); it augments, but does not replace, the existing recovery plan for Castilleja 

levisecta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). In addition to recovery goals for these 

six listed species, the plan recommends conservation measures for Taylor’s checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori), which is a candidate for Federal listing, and six 

nonlisted plant species of conservation concern (Table I-1). All of the species addressed in 

this recovery plan are threatened by the continued degradation, loss, and fragmentation of 

their native prairie ecosystems. 

The listed prairie species addressed in this recovery plan range from southwestern 

Washington south through the Willamette Valley and into the Umpqua Valley in Oregon 

(Figure I-1). The exception is Castilleja levisecta, which historically reached the southern 

extent of its range in the Willamette Valley, but is now extirpated there and only occurs to 

the north of the geographic boundaries of this plan (it is sparsely distributed in the Puget 

lowlands and on two islands of British Columbia, Canada). A recovery plan was recently 

published for Castilleja levisecta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b); this new Prairie 

Species Recovery Plan will provide recommendations for the reintroduction of the species 

into its historical range in the Willamette Valley, consistent with the species’ published 

recovery plan. The ranges of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly and three of the nonlisted 

plant species addressed in this recovery plan (Delphinium oreganum, Horkelia congesta

ssp. congesta, and Sericocarpus rigidus) are larger than the geographical scope of the 
I-2

 
I-3

Table I-1. Species addressed in this plan.

Listed Species 

State Status 

Species 

Federal 

Status 

Federal Listing Date 

and Reference 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number1 OR WA 

Fender’s blue butterfly, 

Icaricia icarioides fenderi Endangered January 25, 2000; 

65 FR 3875 3C Endangered -- 

Willamette daisy, 

Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens 

Endangered January 25, 2000; 

65 FR 3875 3C Endangered -- 

Bradshaw’s lomatium, 

Lomatium bradshawii Endangered September 30, 1988; 

53 FR 38448 5 Endangered Endangered 

Kincaid’s lupine, 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii

Threatened January 25, 2000; 

65 FR 3875 6C Threatened Endangered 

Nelson’s checker-mallow, 

Sidalcea nelsoniana

Threatened February 12, 1993; 

58 FR 8235 8243 2 Threatened Endangered 

Golden paintbrush, 

Castilleja levisecta

Threatened June 11, 1997; 

62 FR 31740 2 Endangered Endangered 

Nonlisted Species 

Taylor’s (whulge) checkerspot 

butterfly, 

Euphydryas editha taylori 

Candidate October 30, 2001; 

66 FR 54808 -- -- Endangered 

Pale larkspur, 

Delphinium leucophaeum None -- -- Endangered Endangered 

Willamette Valley larkspur,

Delphinium oreganum

None -- -- Candidate -- 

Peacock larkspur, 

Delphinium pavonaceum None -- -- Endangered -- 

Shaggy horkelia,

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta

None -- -- Candidate -- 

White-topped aster,

Sericocarpus rigidus

None -- -- Threatened Sensitive 

Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass, 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii

None -- -- -- -- 

 

1

 Listed species are given a recovery priority number, which may range from a high of 1C to a low of 18, 

whereby priorities to recovery tasks are assigned. The criteria on which the recovery priority number is based 

are degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic distinctiveness, and presence of an actual or imminent 

conflict between the species and development activities. 
I-4

recovery plan; we will provide management recommendations for these species only within 

the area covered by this recovery plan. 

B. PRAIRIES OF WESTERN OREGON AND SOUTHWESTERN WASHINGTON 

Prairies2

, as the term is used in this recovery plan, are open native grasslands with little 

tree cover or the grassland understories of savanna habitats. This recovery plan covers 

three disjunct prairie regions distributed across roughly 480 kilometers (300 miles) in a 

longitudinal band bounded to the east by the Cascades Range and to the west by the Coast 

Range in western Oregon and southwestern Washington. In this plan, we will refer to these 

prairie regions as Southwestern Washington (encompassing Cowlitz and Lewis Counties in 

Washington), the Willamette Valley (in Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, 

Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington and Yamhill Counties in Oregon and extending 

north across the Columbia River into Clark County, Washington), and the Umpqua Valley 

(in Douglas County, Oregon). 

 

1. Southwestern Washington 

The prairies of southwestern Washington fall into the Puget Lowlands or Puget Trough 

physiographic province, with moderate topographic relief and elevations below 160 meters 

(525 feet)(Franklin and Dyrness 1988, Altman et al. 2001). Prairies in this region are 

found on very well drained, gravelly soils (Altman et al. 2001). Prairie habitats were 

among the first to be converted to agricultural uses with the immigration of Euro-American 

settlers; it has been estimated that greater than 90 percent of the prairies in the southern 

Puget Trough have been converted to other (i.e., non-prairie) uses (Chappell et al. 2001, 

Caplow and Miller 2004). This recovery plan addresses two listed species, Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana, that occur in this region, as well as the 

nonlisted Delphinium leucophaeum. 

2. Willamette Valley 

The Willamette Valley physiographic province of western Oregon, which also reaches 

north across the Columbia River to include a portion of Clark County in Washington 

(Franklin and Dyrness 1988), is the largest prairie region addressed in this plan. The 

prairies of the Willamette Valley occur at low elevation (between 50 and 130 meters [165 

and 425 feet]), generally on deep alluvial soils in the valley bottoms and low foothills 

 

2

 Terms defined in the Glossary (Appendix A) are shown in bold when first used in the text. 
I-5

(Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Before Euro-Americans settled the Willamette Valley, 

prairies were one of the dominant habitat types, accounting for perhaps 30 percent of the 

valley floor (Altman et al. 2001). Prairies were created and maintained by natural and 

human-caused disturbances; the native Kalapuya peoples burned the prairies frequently to 

maintain high quality hunting and gathering grounds (Boyd 1986). As settlers arrived, 

native habitats were converted to agricultural landscapes, annual burning ceased, and 

native upland prairies and wet prairies now cover much less than one percent of their 

former area (Habeck 1961, Johannessen et al. 1971, Towle 1982), making them among the 

rarest of North American ecosystems (Oregon Natural Heritage Program 1983, Noss et al.

1995). Five of the listed species (Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana) and all of the nonlisted species addressed by this plan (Taylor’s checkerspot 

butterfly, Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus, and Sisyrinchium hitchcockii) occur 

in the Willamette Valley; the lone exception is Castilleja levisecta, which historically 

occurred in the valley, but has been extirpated there since the 1930s (Sheehan and Sprague 

1984). 

3. Umpqua Valley 

South of the Willamette Valley, the prairies of the Umpqua River Valley in Douglas 

County differ somewhat from those described above. In Douglas County, prairies are the 

patchy grasslands which may be found in areas of dry oak savanna, shrublands, oak 

woodlands, or forest openings within the mixed conifer zone (Peck 1961; Franklin and 

Dyrness 1988; Menke and Kaye 2003; Sam Friedman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Roseburg, Oregon, pers. comm., 2004). These habitats have been described as belonging 

to the Klamath Mountains physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1988) or the 

Westside Oak and Dry Douglas-fir Forest and Woodlands zone (Chappell and Kagan 

2001). Elevations are generally below 460 meters (1,500 feet) and soils are typically 

shallow and rocky over bedrock, or sometimes deep and very well drained (Chappell and 

Kagan 2001). As with the other prairie regions addressed in this recovery plan, fire was the 

primary mode of disturbance which kept grassland habitats open and free from encroaching 

trees and shrubs; the settlement of the Umpqua Valley by Euro-Americans resulted in the 

conversion of grasslands to urban and agriculture uses, and severely restricted the 

frequency of fires (Chappell and Kagan 2001). 
I-6

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is the only listed species covered by this plan that occurs 

in the grasslands of the Umpqua Valley. The nonlisted prairie species Horkelia congesta

ssp. congesta and Sisyrinchium hitchcockii also occur in the region. 

C. PRAIRIE ECOLOGY 

Although once widespread in the region, today prairies “... are invariably small, 

moderately to heavily disturbed, and geographically disjunct” (Altman et al. 2001). Moist 

winters, dry summers and gentle topography are necessary to produce a prairie, but prairies 

will generally only persist when regular fire, flooding or other disturbance prevents 

succession to woody vegetation. Disturbances can be natural, such as wildfire, although 

most present day disturbances are anthropogenic (e.g., prescribed fire or mowing). In the 

absence of regular disturbance, the prairies may be overtaken by shrubs and trees, which 

shade and crowd out the open grasslands and the species that depend on them, ultimately 

allowing succession to forest habitat. 

Historically, the prairies of southwestern Washington and western Oregon are thought to 

have been actively maintained by the native peoples of the region, who lived here for at 

least 10,000 years before the arrival of Euro-American settlers (Boag 1992). Prairies were 

burned to increase growth of favored food plants and to improve conditions for hunting 

game (Boyd 1986). Frequent burning reduced the abundance of shrubs and trees, favoring 

open prairies or savannas with a rich variety of native plants and animals. 

After Euro-American settlement of the region began in the 1830s, regular burning of 

prairies ceased, and most of the grasslands were gradually developed for agricultural or 

urban uses (Altman et al. 2001). Woody species and non-native weeds encroached on the 

remaining prairie habitats. The decline in prairies and their increased fragmentation has led 

to the decline of many native prairie plants and animals (Altman et al. 2001). Even so, 

remnants of these highly diverse, complex, and poorly understood ecosystems provide 

necessary habitat for many rare species. 

The prairies of western Oregon and southwestern Washington are divided botanically into 

upland and wet types. We present here a brief description of the two types. 
I-7

1. Upland Prairies 

Upland prairies occur on well drained soils, especially in bottomlands, along valley 

margins, and in the lower foothills (Altman et al. 2001). Native upland prairies are lowgrowing plant communities dominated by perennial grasses and forbs. Most of the foliage 

of native prairie plants is within 40 centimeters (16 inches) of the soil, with flowering 

stalks of some grasses sometimes reaching 1.5 meters (5 feet). 

Historically, fire was the major disturbance factor in this habitat type. Some fires may 

have occurred naturally following lightning strikes, but the fires set by the native peoples 

of the valleys were likely much more regular, and were largely responsible for maintaining 

the vast areas of prairie habitats that existed before Euro-American settlement, especially in 

the Willamette Valley. 

The plant composition of upland prairies is dominated by bunchgrasses, including Festuca 

idahoensis ssp. roemeri (Roemer’s bunchgrass), Danthonia californica (California 

oatgrass), Elymus glaucus (blue wildrye), Achnatherum lemmonii (Lemmon’s needlegrass), 

and Koeleria macrantha (junegrass) (Chappell and Kagan 2001). The spaces between the 

bunchgrasses are typically covered by mosses, fruticose lichens, or native forbs (Altman et 

al. 2001). Showy, slow-growing perennial forbs include Eriophyllum lanatum (common 

woolly sunflower), Potentilla gracilis (slender cinquefoil), Fragaria virginiana (wild 

strawberry), Sidalcea malviflora ssp. virgata (rose checker-mallow), and Symphotrichum

(=Aster) hallii (Hall’s aster), and the bulbs Calochortus tolmiei (Tolmie’s mariposa lily) 

and Dichelostemma congestum (ookow). Some fast-growing annual forbs, including 

various species of tarweed (Madia spp.) and Clarkia, are also prominent members of the 

native community. 

Of the species addressed in this plan, the endangered Fender’s blue butterfly, three listed 

plant species (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and 

Castilleja levisecta), one candidate (Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly) and five nonlisted 

species of conservation concern (Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium pavonaceum, 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus, and Sisyrinchium hitchcockii) all 

depend on upland prairies as habitat. 

All extant upland prairies have been invaded by non-native plants. Native species seem to 

coexist with some non-native invaders, such as Dactylis glomerata (orchard-grass) and 

Daucus carota (wild carrot), which do not spread vegetatively. Of greater concern are the 
I-8

more aggressive non-native pest plants, such as Agrostis spp. (including A. capillaris 

[colonial bentgrass] and A. stolonifera [creeping bentgrass]), Arrhenatherum elatius (tall 

oatgrass), Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue), Brachypodium sylvaticum (slender false 

brome), and Rubus armeniacus (Armenian blackberry), which form dense patches 

excluding native plant species. Non-native annual grasses, including Bromus mollis (soft 

cheat), Cynosurus echinatus (bristly dogstail grass), and Taeniantherum caput-medusae

(medusa-head grass), are also common. The most common non-native shrub is Cytisus 

scoparius (Scotch broom), which is highly invasive. Some native species, including 

Toxicodendron diversilobum (poison oak) and Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern), also 

invade prairies in the absence of regular disturbance. 

2. Wet Prairies 

In pre-settlement times, perhaps one-third of the prairies of the Southwestern Washington 

and Willamette Valley regions were wet prairies (Altman et al. 2001). Wet prairies are 

seasonally wet ecosystems dominated by herbaceous plants. These habitats generally 

occur on poorly drained lowland soils; wet prairies can also occur on well-drained soils in 

which drainage is impeded by shallow pans or bedrock where rain collects, saturating the 

soil and often resulting in standing water from November through April (Alverson 1990, 

Finley 1995). Although soils dry during the summer drought, wet prairie soils have hydric 

characteristics typical of wetlands and support facultative or obligate wetland plant species 

(Reed 1988). 

Both fire and flooding have shaped wet prairies. As with upland prairies, wet prairies are 

capable of supporting forest vegetation (Franklin and Dyrness 1988), but historically 

remained open as a result of periodic fires set by native peoples (Boyd 1986, Boag 1992). 

Summer drought dries both the soil and the vegetation, leaving the prairie susceptible to 

burning. In the past, regular fires reduced the abundance of shrubs and trees, favored the 

growth of grasses such as Deschampsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass), and promoted a rich 

variety of native forbs. 

Wet prairies are dominated by low-growing herbaceous plants. These habitats have a 

complex horizontal structure, with several types of microhabitats. Most well-developed 

wet prairies have a small-scale pattern of raised pedestals 3 to 20 centimeters (1 to 8 

inches) above a lower level of soil. These raised areas, typically 15 to 400 square 

centimeters (2 to 60 square inches) in area, support the bulk of the vegetation. However, 

some plants, such as Juncus spp. (rushes), Plagiobothrys spp. (popcorn flower), or Madia
I-9

spp. (tarweed), are found in the low spaces between pedestals. These low spaces are 

flooded during much of the winter, whereas the pedestals often remain above water 

between winter storms. 

Of the species addressed in this plan, three listed plant species (Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana) and four nonlisted species of 

conservation concern (Delphinium oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta

ssp. congesta, and Sericocarpus rigidus) are found in wet prairie habitats. Common 

species found in wet prairies include cespitose graminoids, such as Deschampsia 

cespitosa and Carex unilateralis (one-sided sedge); short-rhizomatous graminoids, 

including Hordeum brachyantherum (meadow barley); perennial forbs, such as 

Eriophyllum lanatum, Camassia quamash (common camas), Eryngium petiolatum (coyotethistle), and Perideridia erythrorhiza (western yampah); and annual forbs, including 

Plagiobothrys figuratus (fragrant allocarya) and Downingia elegans (elegant downingia). 

Most wet prairies in the region have been over-run by invasive non-native plants; among 

the most dominant are Rosa eglanteria (sweetbriar rose), Agrostis spp., Anthoxanthum 

odoratum (sweet vernal grass), Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle), Cirsium arvense (Canada 

thistle), Alopecurus pratensis (meadow foxtail), and Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass). Other non-native species, such as Phleum pratense (timothy) and Myosotis discolor

(changing forget-me-not), are less invasive, and seem to coexist with native prairie species. 

D. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH PRAIRIES 

As the prairies of western Oregon and southwestern Washington have been lost to 

agriculture and development or overgrown by shrubs and trees, the resulting fragmentation 

of the remnants has had a substantial effect on the native wildlife that depend on those 

habitats. Two consequences of this loss and fragmentation have been: (1) genetic isolation 

for small-bodied animals (amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates) with 

low vagility and limited dispersal abilities, and (2) the small size of most of the remaining 

prairie patches, which may now be too small to support populations of larger-bodied 

animals (birds, reptiles, and medium to large mammals) (Altman et al. 2001). 

Little pre-settlement data exist for mammals of the prairies, with the exception of game 

mammals. Elk (Cervus elaphus), Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus 

columbiana), and Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) were 

common in the 19th century in the Willamette Valley; elk have declined and the Columbian 
I-10

white-tailed deer has been extirpated from the Willamette Valley, although a Federally 

endangered population remains along the Columbia River and it is relatively common in 

the Umpqua Valley (Altman et al. 2001, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). 

Several bird species have declined with the loss of the prairies. The western meadowlark 

(Sturnella neglecta), Oregon vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis) and streaked 

horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) are all highly associated with native grasslands 

and are now uncommon to rare in the region (Altman et al. 2001). The streaked horned 

lark is a candidate for Federal listing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001); however, its 

conservation is not specifically addressed in this recovery plan because its preferred habitat 

is relatively bare, ruderal grasslands that differ from the native prairies occupied by the 

other species addressed in this recovery plan. 

There is little information on the historical occurrence of the herpetofauna of the western 

prairies. Several species of frogs (western toad [Bufo boreas]), snakes (western rattlesnake 

[Crotalus viridis], gophersnake [Pituophis catenifer], sharp-tail snake [Contia tenuis], racer 

[Coluber constrictor]), and the northwestern pond turtle (Actinymys [=Clemmys]

marmorata marmorata), all of which had some association with open grasslands, have 

declined and are now considered uncommon or rare in the Willamette Valley and Puget 

Trough (Altman et al. 2001, Oregon State University 2005). 

Data on native invertebrate diversity in western prairies is spotty. The Fender’s blue 

butterfly, which is listed as endangered, and the Taylor’s checkerspot, a Federal candidate 

for listing, have both undergone substantial declines as their prairie habitats have 

disappeared. The American acetropis grass bug (Acetropis americana), found only in the 

wet prairies of the Willamette Valley (Oregon State University 2005), has also declined 

and has been identified as a species of concern by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). 
II-1

II. SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE RECOVERY PLAN 

A. LISTED SPECIES 

1. Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi Macy) 

Listing Status and Critical Habitat 

Fender’s blue butterfly was listed as endangered, without critical habitat, on January 25, 

2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). Its taxonomy and physical description are 

summarized in Appendix F. 

Critical habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly was designated on October 31, 2006 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). Critical habitat units have been designated in Benton, 

Lane, Polk and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. The primary constituent elements of critical 

habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (i.e., those physical and biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species) are: (1) early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak 

savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs, an absence of dense 

canopy vegetation, and undisturbed subsoils; (2) larval host-plants Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, L. arbustus (longspur lupine), or L. albicaulis (sickle-keeled lupine); (3) adult 

nectar sources, such as: Allium acuminatum (tapertip onion), Allium amplectens

(narrowleaf onion), Calochortus tolmiei, Camassia quamash, Cryptantha intermedia 

(clearwater cryptantha), Eriophyllum lanatum, Geranium oreganum (Oregon geranium), 

Iris tenax (Oregon iris), Linum angustifolium (pale flax), Linum perenne (blue flax), 

Sidalcea campestris (meadow checker-mallow), Sidalcea malviflora ssp. virgata, Vicia 

cracca (bird vetch), V. sativa (common vetch), and V. hirsute (tiny vetch); and (4) 

stepping-stone habitat, consisting of undeveloped open areas with the physical 

characteristics appropriate for supporting the short-stature prairie oak savanna plant 

community (well drained soils), within 1.2 miles (about 2 kilometers) of natal lupine 

patches. Critical habitat does not include human-made structures existing on the effective 

date of the rule and not containing one or more of the primary constituent elements, such as 

buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located. 
II-2

Population Trends and Distribution 

The historic distribution of Fender’s blue butterfly is not precisely known due to the limited 

information collected on this species prior to its description in 1931. Although the type 

specimen for this butterfly was collected in 1929, few collections were made between the 

time of the subspecies’ discovery and Macy’s last observation of the Fender’s blue on May 

23, 1937, in Benton County, Oregon (Hammond and Wilson 1992). Uncertainty regarding 

the butterfly’s host plant caused researchers to focus their survey efforts on common lupine 

species known to occur in the vicinity of Macy’s collections. Fifty years passed before the 

butterfly was found again. 

Fender’s blue butterfly was rediscovered in 1989 at the McDonald Research Forest, Benton 

County, Oregon; it was found to be associated primarily with Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, a rare lupine, and occasionally L. arbustus or L. albicaulis (Hammond and 

Wilson 1993). Recent surveys have determined that Fender’s blue butterfly is endemic to 

the Willamette Valley and persists in about 17 populations on remnant prairies in Yamhill, 

Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties (Figure II-1)(Hammond and Wilson 1993, Schultz et al.

2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished data). Fender’s blue butterfly 

populations occur on upland prairies historically characterized by native bunch grasses 

(Festuca spp.) The association of Fender’s blue butterfly with upland prairie is mostly a 

result of its dependence on Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, although Fender’s blue 

butterfly often uses wet prairies for nectaring and dispersal habitat. Sites occupied by 

Fender’s blue butterfly are predominantly located on the western side of the Willamette 

Valley, within 33 kilometers (21 miles) of the Willamette River. A recent synthesis of 

existing data estimated the current rangewide number of butterflies to be about 3,000 to 

5,000 individuals (Schultz et al. 2003). Fewer than 10 sites with populations of 100 adult 

butterflies or more are known (Table II-1). We acknowledge, however, that our data on 

Fender’s blue butterfly populations are incomplete and show some inconsistencies. Three 

different survey methods have been used to count populations over the last 20 years, and 

their results are not directly comparable (Fitzpatrick 2009). The quality of survey data 

depends on the experience level of the surveyors, weather conditions, and the ability to 

schedule surveys at the peak of the species’ short flight season (Fitzpatrick 2009). In 

addition, not all sites have been surveyed each year, and in most years population counts 

have been obtained on only a portion of known sites, which results in incomplete counts 

and biased population estimates. One of the goals of the recovery program for Fender’s 

blue butterfly is to develop survey protocols that provide more reliable data and are less 

costly to implement. 
II-3

 
II-4

Table II-1. Fender’s blue butterfly: estimated population sizes, 2000-2008. 

Most estimates are derived from surveys of only a portion of the habitat, and are not based on complete counts of the 

populations. Different survey techniques are used at different sites, thus estimates are not directly comparable among 

sites. 

Year Population County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Oak Ridge Yamhill 168 192 293 240 259 96 100? 2262 226 

Gopher Valley Yamhill 12 7 22 21 10 12 20 80 - 

1002 (b) 

Mill Creek Polk 25 22 48 50 43 20 ? 12 (ns) 

Dallas1 Polk (ns) (ns) (ns) (ns) (ns) (ns) (ns) 6 6 

Monmouth 

Road1 Polk 2 0 1 1 5 0 4 (ns) 

McTimmonds 

Valley 1 Polk 4 10 6 6 10 3 (ns) 2 5 

Baskett Polk 922 223 753 1236 16152 768 1520 1385 (b) 

Wren Benton (ns) (ns) (ns) 75 4842 180 - 

200 >8002

 1282 (b) 

Lupine 

Meadows 

Benton (ns) 103 132 211 307 216 370 235 (b) 

Butterfly 

Meadows 

Benton 667 494 451 425 509 84 98 370 420 

Greasy Creek1 Benton (a) (a) (a) (a) 1 2 20 20 (ns) 

N. County Benton (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 12 

eggs (ns) 

Oak Basin Linn (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 23 (ns) 45 

Bond Butte Linn (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (c) (c) 

Coburg Lane (ns) (ns) (ns) 154 236 23 221 355 121 

Willow Creek Lane 1439 577 2039 1336 1400 174 806 644 (b) 

W. Eugene Lane 179 119 195 795 1426 479 470 755 1188 

1

 Estimates at these sites are the actual count of individuals detected, not populations estimates. 

2

 Substantial additional habitat area discovered this year. 

(ns) = Not surveyed. 

(a) = Population not yet known. 

(b) = Bad weather during flight season, no count conducted. 

(c) = Adult Fender’s blue butterflies observed but no count conducted. 
II-5

 

Life History and Ecology 

Adult Fender’s blue butterflies live approximately 10 to 15 days and apparently rarely 

travel farther than 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) over their entire life span (Schultz 1998). 

Although only limited observations have been made of the early life stages of Fender’s 

blue butterfly, the life cycle of the species likely is similar to other subspecies of Icaricia 

icarioides (Hammond and Wilson 1993). The life cycle of Fender's blue butterfly may be 

completed in one year. An adult Fender’s blue butterfly may lay approximately 350 eggs 

over her 10 to 15-day lifespan, of which perhaps fewer than two will survive to adulthood 

(Schultz 1998, Schultz et al. 2003). Females lay their eggs on perennial lupines (Lupinus

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, L. arbustus, or occasionally L. albicaulis), which are the larval 

food plants, during May and June (Ballmer and Pratt 1988). Newly hatched larvae feed 

for a short time, reaching their second instar in the early summer, at which point they enter 

an extended diapause. When the lupine plant senesces, diapausing larvae remain in the 

leaf litter at or near the base of the host plant through the fall and winter. Larvae become 

active again in March or April of the following year, although some larvae may be able to 

extend diapause for more than one season depending upon the individual and 

environmental conditions. Once diapause is broken, the larvae feed and grow through 

three to four additional instars, enter their pupal stage, and, after about two weeks, emerge 

as adult butterflies in May and June (Schultz et al. 2003). 

 

The larvae of many species of lycaenid butterflies, including Icaricia icarioides, possess 

specialized glands that secrete a sweet solution sought by some ant species which may 

actively tend and protect them from predators and parasites (Ballmer and Pratt 1988). Ants 

in the Formica fusca group have been observed tending Fender’s blue butterfly larvae 

(Schultz et al. 2003); the strength or importance of this relationship has not been studied. 

Fender’s blue butterflies have limited dispersal ability. Adult butterflies may remain 

within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of their natal lupine patch (Schultz 1998), although 

anecdotal evidence exists of adult Fender's blues dispersing as far as 5 to 6 kilometers (3.1 

to 3.7 miles) (Hammond and Wilson 1992, Schultz 1998); dispersal of this magnitude is 

not likely anymore because of habitat fragmentation. At large patches, such as the main 

area at Willow Creek in Lane County, 95 percent of adult Fender’s blue butterflies are 

found within 10 meters (33 feet) of lupine patches (Schultz 1998). 
II-6

Habitat Characteristics 

Habitat requirements for Fender’s blue butterfly include lupine host plants (Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii or L. arbustus, and occasionally L. albicaulis) for larval food and 

oviposition sites and native wildflowers for adult nectar food sources. Nectar sources used 

most frequently include Allium amplectens, Calochortus tolmiei, Sidalcea malviflora ssp.

virgata, Eriophyllum lanatum and Geranium oreganum (Wilson et al. 1997, York 2002, 

Schultz et al. 2003). Non-native vetches (Vicia sativa and V. hirsuta) are also frequently 

used as nectar sources, although they are inferior to the native nectar sources (Schultz et al.

2003). Population size of Fender’s blue butterfly has been found to correlate directly with 

the abundance of native nectar sources (Schultz et al. 2003). At least 5 hectares (12 acres) 

of high quality habitat are necessary to support a population of Fender’s blue butterflies 

(Crone and Schultz 2003, Schultz and Hammond 2003); most prairies in the region are 

degraded and of low quality, and thus a much larger area is likely required to support a 

viable butterfly population. 

 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is the preferred larval host plant at most known Fender’s 

blue butterfly populations. At two sites, Coburg Ridge and Baskett Butte, Fender’s blue 

butterfly feeds primarily on Lupinus arbustus, even though Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii is present (Schultz et al. 2003). A third lupine, Lupinus albicaulis, is used by 

Fender’s blue butterfly where it occurs in poorer quality habitats (Schultz et al. 2003). 

Fender’s blue butterfly has not been found to use Lupinus latifolius (broadleaf lupine), a 

plant commonly used by other subspecies of Icaricia icarioides, even though it occurs in 

habitats occupied by the butterfly (Schultz et al. 2003). 

Threats/Reasons for Listing 

Habitat loss, encroachment into prairie habitats by shrubs and trees due to fire suppression, 

fragmentation, invasion by non-native plants and elimination of natural disturbance 

regimes all threaten the survival of Fender’s blue butterfly. Few populations occur on 

protected lands; most occur on private lands which are not managed to maintain native 

prairie habitats. These populations are at high risk of loss to development or continuing 

habitat degradation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). Prairie habitats have been 

invaded by tall non-native grasses that may be limiting the ability of the Fender’s blue 

butterfly to find its host plant (Severns 2008). There is concern about the effects of 

pesticide application for agriculture, gypsy moth control, or mosquito control (Oregon 

Department of Human Service 2003, Oregon Department of Agriculture 2006). Recent 

population viability analyses have determined that the Fender’s blue butterfly is at high risk 
II-7

of extinction throughout most of its range (Schultz and Hammond 2003). Even the largest 

populations have a poor chance of survival over the next 100 years (Schultz et al. 2003). 

Additional discussion and a complete description of threats and listing factors as they apply 

to Fender’s blue butterfly can be found in section III (Threats Assessment) of this recovery 

plan. 

Conservation Measures 

Biologists from Federal and state agencies and private conservation organizations are 

engaged in active research and monitoring programs to improve the status of Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Recent research has focused on population viability analyses (Schultz and 

Hammond 2003; Cheryl Schultz, Washington State University, Vancouver, pers. comm., 

2009), metapopulation dynamics and the effects of habitat fragmentation (Schultz 1998), 

population response to habitat restoration (Wilson and Clark 1997, Kaye and Cramer 2003, 

Schultz et al. 2003), evaluating captive rearing techniques and outcomes (Schultz et al. 

2009), and comparing population monitoring protocols (Fitzpatrick 2009). 

Recent studies have shown that Fender’s blue butterfly populations respond positively to 

habitat restoration. Mowing, burning and mechanical removal of weeds have all resulted in 

increasing Fender’s blue butterfly populations. At two sites in the West Eugene Wetlands 

(The Nature Conservancy’s Willow Creek Natural Area and the Bureau of Land 

Management’s Fir Butte site), adult and larval Fender’s blue butterflies have both increased 

in number following mowing to lower the stature of herbaceous non-native vegetation, 

although the response to habitat restoration is often complicated by other confounding 

factors, such as weather fluctuations (Schultz and Dlugosch 1999, Fitzpatrick 2005, Kaye 

and Benfield 2005a). Wilson and Clark (1997) conducted a study on the effects of fire and 

mowing on Fender’s blue butterfly and its native upland prairie at Baskett Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge in the Willamette Valley. Although fire killed all larvae in burned 

patches, female Fender’s blue butterflies from the nearby unburned source patch were able 

to colonize the entire burned area the following year, including lupine patches that were 

107 meters (350 feet) from the unburned source plants. Fender’s blue butterfly eggs were 

10 to 14 times more abundant in plots that were mowed or burned compared to 

undisturbed, control plots. Woody plants were reduced 45 percent with burning and 66 

percent with mowing. A study that modeled the effect of prescribed burning found that the 

best long-term population growth could be achieved by burning one-third of the habitat of a 

Fender’s blue butterfly population each year (Schultz and Crone 1998). 
II-8

Fender’s blue butterfly population trends have been correlated with lupine vigor; abundant 

leaf growth appears to produce larger butterfly populations. At the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ Fern Ridge Reservoir, the Fender’s blue butterfly population has increased 

dramatically since fall mowing of lupine patches has been implemented. The abundance of 

Fender’s blue butterfly eggs was found to be correlated with the abundance of Kincaid’s 

lupine leaves at a number of study sites (Kaye and Cramer 2003); egg abundance increased 

substantially at sites which had been treated to control non-native weeds (Schultz et al.

2003). 

A recent study, jointly conducted by Washington State University and the Oregon Zoo, 

evaluated techniques for captive rearing and release of Fender’s blue butterflies, using the 

closely related Puget blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides blackmorei) as a surrogate (Schultz 

et al. 2009). The study assessed different rearing techniques and evaluated the quality of 

the offspring produced. Survival in the captive facilities was low, and captive individuals 

had smaller wings and body length and had lower body mass at pupation than did 

individuals in their founding wild population. The authors suggested that captive rearing 

may not be the most effective means for augmenting wild populations, and that an 

alternative conservation strategy for reintroduction could aim to substantially increase 

existing populations via restoration efforts, and then translocate late stage larvae from 

existing populations to reintroduction sites (Schultz et al. 2009). 

Fender’s blue butterfly populations have been monitored using three different count 

protocols. A recent comparison of these protocols showed that they produce inconsistent 

results, and a new standardized protocol for use throughout the range of the species is 

needed (Fitzpatrick 2009). 

Fender’s blue butterfly populations occur on public lands or lands that are managed by a 

conservation organization at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Baskett Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge, the Army Corps of Engineers’ Fern Ridge Reservoir, the Bureau of Land 

Management’s West Eugene Wetlands, The Nature Conservancy’s Willow Creek Preserve 

and Coburg Ridge easement, and on a small portion of Oregon State University’s Butterfly 

Meadows in the McDonald State Forest (see Appendix C). All of these parcels have some 

level of management for native prairie habitat values. A habitat conservation plan that 

addresses conservation of the Fender’s blue butterfly within Benton County is currently in 

preparation (Benton County 2009). 
II-9

2. Erigeron decumbens Nutt. var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) 

Listing Status and Critical Habitat 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens is a perennial herb that was listed as endangered, 

without critical habitat, on January 25, 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). Its 

taxonomy and physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 

Critical habitat was designated on October 31, 2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2006a). Critical habitat units for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens have been 

designated in Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion and Polk Counties, Oregon. The primary 

constituent element of critical habitat is early seral upland prairie, wet prairie, or oak 

savanna habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses, forbs, and spaces to establish 

seedlings or new vegetative growth; an absence of dense canopy vegetation; and 

undisturbed subsoils. Critical habitat does not include human-made structures existing on 

the effective date of the rule and not containing one or more of the primary constituent 

elements, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land on which such 

structures are located. 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens is endemic to the Willamette Valley of western 

Oregon. Herbarium specimens show a historical distribution of E. decumbens var. 

decumbens throughout the Willamette Valley; frequent collections were made in the period 

between 1881 and 1934, yet no collections or observations were recorded from 1934 to 

1980, and the plant was presumed to be extinct (Clark et al. 1993, Gisler 2004). The 

species was rediscovered in 1980 in Lane County, Oregon, and has since been identified at 

more than 30 sites (Figure II-2, and see Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2). Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens has been collected in Benton, Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, 

Polk, Yamhill, and Washington Counties, Oregon, but today the species occurs in Benton, 

Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk Counties, Oregon; at those sites, there are about 94 hectares 

(233 acres) of occupied habitat (Appendix B, Table B-1). 

Population size may fluctuate substantially from year to year. Monitoring at the Oxbow 

West site, near Eugene, found 2,299 Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens plants in 1999, 

2,912 plants in 2000, and only 1,079 plants in 2001 (Kaye 2002). The population at 

Baskett Butte declined to 48 percent of the original measured population between 1993 and 

1999 (Clark 2000). Detecting trends in E. decumbens var. decumbens populations is 
II-10

 
II-11

complicated by the biology and phenology of the species. For instance, Kagan and 

Yamamoto (1987) found it difficult to determine survival and mortality between years 

because of sporadic flowering from year to year. They suggested that some plants may not 

flower in some years, as indicated by the sudden appearance of large plants where they 

were not previously recorded, and the disappearance and later re-emergence of large plants 

within monitoring plots. In addition, Clark et al. (1993) stated that non-reproductive 

individuals can be very difficult to find and monitor due to their inconspicuous nature, and 

that the definition of individuals can be complicated when flowering clumps overlap. 

Life History and Ecology 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens is an herbaceous perennial that occurs as single plants 

or clumps of genetically identical ramets (Clark et al. 1993). It blooms in June and early 

July and produces seeds in late summer (Cronquist 1955). Seedlings emerge in late winter 

or early spring, and plants require two to four years in the wild to reach flowering size. 

Large plants appear to spread vegetatively, but this spread is localized around the 

established plant (Clark et al. 1995). Field investigators have developed a distance-based 

rule for consistently differentiating closely-spaced plants. If it is unclear that two adjacent 

clumps are united underground, they are assumed to be distinct individuals if they are 

separated by 7 centimeters (3 inches) or more. Clumps closer than 7 centimeters (3 inches) 

are assumed to be part of the same plant (Kaye and Benfield 2005b). 

The fruits of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens are single-seeded achenes, like those of 

other Erigeron species, and have a number of small capillary bristles (the pappus) 

attached to the top, which allow them to be distributed by the wind. Population size can 

substantially affect reproductive success in this species. Populations of E. decumbens var. 

decumbens with fewer than 20 individuals appear to suffer a high rate of reproductive 

failure due to inbreeding depression and reduced probability of being pollinated by a 

compatible mate (Wise and Kaye 2006). 

 

A variety of insects have been observed to visit the flowers of Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens; potential pollinators include solitary bees (Ceratina sp., Megachile sp., 

Nomada sp., Halictus ligatus, and Ashmeadiella sp.), beetles (Meligethes nigrescens and 

Acanthoscelides pauperculus), flies (Toxomerus marginata, T. occidentalis and Tachina

sp.), and butterflies (Phyciodes campestris) (Kagan and Yamamoto 1987, Clark et al. 1993, 

Jackson 1996, Gisler 2004). 
II-12

Habitat Characteristics 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens typically occurs where woody cover is nearly absent 

and where herbaceous vegetation is low in stature (Clark et al. 1993). It occurs in both wet 

prairie grasslands and drier upland prairie sites. The wet prairie grassland community is 

typically dominated by Deschampsia cespitosa, Danthonia californica and a number of 

Willamette Valley endemic forbs. It is a flat, open, seasonally wet prairie with bare soil 

between the pedestals created by the bunching Deschampsia cespitosa (Kagan and 

Yamamoto 1987). On drier upland prairie sites, associated species commonly include 

Symphotrichum hallii, Festuca idahoensis ssp. roemeri and Toxicodendron diversilobum

(Meinke 1982, Clark et al. 1993). Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens prefers heavier 

soils, and has been found on the following soil associations: Bashaw, Briedwell, 

Chehulpum, Dayton, Dixonville, Dupee, Hazelair, Marcola, Natroy, Nekia, Pengra, 

Philomath, Salkum, Saturn, Stayton, and Witzel. 

Threats/Reasons for Listing 

Like many native species endemic to Willamette Valley prairies, Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens is threatened by habitat loss due to urban and agricultural development, 

successional encroachment into its habitat by trees and shrubs, competition with non-native 

weeds, and small population sizes (Kagan and Yamamoto 1987, Clark et al. 1993, Gisler 

2004). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000a) estimated that habitat loss is occurring 

at 80 percent of the remaining 84 remnants of native prairies occupied by Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. At the time of its 

listing, we estimated that 24 of the 28 extant Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

populations occurred on private lands “expected to be lost in the near future unless 

conservation actions are implemented” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a: 3882). 

Populations occurring on private lands are the most vulnerable to threats of development, 

because state and Federal plant protection laws have little effect on private lands, although 

publicly owned populations are not immune from other important limitations or threats to 

the species. For instance, Clark et al. (1993) identified four populations protected from 

development on public lands (Willow Creek, Basket Slough National Wildlife Refuge, 

Bald Hill Park, and Fisher Butte Research Natural Area), but stated that even these appear 

to be threatened by the proliferation of non-native weeds and successional encroachment of 

brush and trees. Likewise, vulnerability arising from small population sizes and inbreeding 

depression may be a concern for the species, regardless of land ownership, especially 

among 17 of the 28 remaining sites that are smaller than 3.5 hectares (8 acres) (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2000a). Given that the majority of populations are on private lands, 
II-13

working with private landowners is critical if we are to promote the eventual conservation 

and recovery of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. 

Additional discussion and a complete description of threats and listing factors as they apply 

to Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens can be found in section III (Threats Assessment) of 

this recovery plan. 

Conservation Measures 

Some research has been conducted on the ecology and population biology of Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens, effective methods for habitat enhancement, and propagation 

and reintroduction techniques (Clark et al. 1995, 1997; Wilson and Clark 1997; Kaye and 

Kuykendall 2001b; Leininger 2001; Kaye et al. 2003a). The results of these studies have 

been used to direct the management of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens populations at 

sites that are managed for native prairie values. 

The efficacy of mowing and burning as tools to restore habitat for Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens is under investigation. Preliminary findings indicate that Erigeron decumbens

var. decumbens responds negatively to both mowing and burning, although it is possible 

that positive effects will be detected in future (Thorpe and Kaye 2007). 

Several studies have investigated the feasibility of growing Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens in controlled environments for augmentation of wild populations. Cold 

stratification or seed-coat scarification is necessary for successful germination (Clark et 

al. 1995, Kaye and Kuykendall 2001b). Stem and rhizome cuttings have also been used 

successfully to establish plants in the greenhouse (Clark et al. 1995, Wilson et al. 2001). 

Attempts to establish Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens at new sites has shown that 

transplanting cultivated plants is much more effective than sowing seeds directly (Kaye et 

al. 2003b). It is likely that conservation of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens may 

require augmenting small populations with propagated individuals (Clark et al. 1995). 

Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon 

(Berry Botanic Garden 2005). 

 

Habitat for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens occurs on public lands or lands that are 

managed by a conservation organization at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Baskett 

Slough National Wildlife Refuge, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Fern Ridge 

Reservoir, the Bureau of Land Management’s West Eugene Wetlands, and The Nature 

Conservancy’s Willow Creek Preserve (see Appendix C). All of these parcels have some 
II-14

level of management for native prairie habitat values. A habitat conservation plan that 

addresses conservation of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens within Benton County is 

currently in preparation (Benton County 2009). 

3. Lomatium bradshawii [Rose ex Mathias] Mathias & Constance 

(Bradshaw’s lomatium) 

Listing Status and Critical Habitat 

Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw’s lomatium, also known as Bradshaw’s desert-parsley) is 

a perennial herb that was listed as endangered, without critical habitat, on September 30, 

1988 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Its taxonomy and physical description are 

summarized in Appendix F. 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Lomatium bradshawii was historically overlooked and poorly documented, and there were 

no known collections between 1941 and 1969, leading to the assumption that the taxon 

might be extinct. By 1980, following a study of the species, six populations of the species 

had been located, including one large population (Kagan 1980). Since 1980, over 40 new 

sites have been discovered, including 3 large populations. 

For many years Lomatium bradshawii was considered an Oregon endemic, its range 

limited to the area between Salem and Creswell, Oregon (Kagan 1980). However, in 1994, 

two populations of the species were discovered in Clark County, Washington. The 

Washington populations, though few in number, are large in population size, with one site 

estimated to have over 800,000 individuals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished 

data). Because of their proximity, these two populations are considered to be a single 

occurrence under NatureServe guidelines. In addition to the Washington populations, there 

are currently more than 60 sites with Lomatium bradshawii, concentrated in three 

population centers located in Benton, Lane, Linn, and Marion Counties, Oregon (Gisler 

2004, Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 2007) (Figure II-3, and see Appendix 

B, Tables B-1 and B-2). Most of these populations are small, ranging from about 10 to 

1,000 individuals, although the two largest sites each have over 100,000 plants (Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center 2007). The total area of occupied habitat is about 300 

hectares (742 acres) (Appendix B, Table B-2). 

Some populations that were large when discovered have since declined in size 

substantially. A large population at Buford Park near Eugene, Oregon, dropped from about 
II-15

 
II-16

23,000 plants in 1993 to just over 3,000 plants in 1994 (Greenlee and Kaye 1995), 

recovered to 20,000 plants in 2000, and declined to about 200 plants in 2007 (Kate 

Norman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 2010a). Herbivory by a 

booming vole population was suspected to be the cause of the decline. 

Life History and Ecology 

Lomatium bradshawii blooms in the spring, usually in April and early May. The flowers 

have a spatial and temporal separation of sexual phases, presumably to promote 

outcrossing, resulting in protandry on a whole plant basis, and protogyny within the 

flowers. A typical population is composed of many more vegetative plants than 

reproductive plants. The plant is pollinated by insects. Over 30 species of solitary bees, 

flies, wasps and beetles have been observed visiting the flowers (Kaye and Kirkland 1994, 

Jackson 1996). The very general nature of the insect pollinators probably buffers 

Lomatium bradshawii from the population swings of any one pollinator (Kaye 1992). 

Lomatium bradshawii does not spread vegetatively and depends exclusively on seeds for 

reproduction (Kaye 1992). The large fruits have corky thickened wings, and usually fall to 

the ground fairly close to the parent. Fruits appear to float somewhat, and may be 

distributed by water. The fine-scale population patterns at a given site appear to follow 

seasonal microchannels in the tufted hairgrass prairies, but whether this is due to dispersal, 

habitat preference, or both, is not clear (Kaye 1992, Kaye and Kirkland 1994). 

In a genetic study that included six populations of Lomatium bradshawii, the species 

displayed little population differentiation but the level of diversity was high across the 

species (Gitzendanner 2000). Isolated populations in Washington appear to have lower 

levels of diversity, but they do not appear to be genetically differentiated from the other 

populations of the species, consistent with historical gene flow among all populations, and 

a recent bottleneck in the Washington populations. 

The species generally responds positively to disturbance. Low intensity fire appears to 

stimulate population growth of Lomatium bradshawii. The density and abundance of 

reproductive plants increased following fires (Pendergrass et al. 1999), although 

monitoring showed the effects to be temporary, dissipating after one to three years. 

Frequent burns may be required to sustain population growth, as determined from 

population models (Caswell and Kaye 2001, Kaye et al. 2001). Annual fall mowing has 

significantly increased the number of individual Lomatium bradshawii plants persisting in 
II-17

the City of Eugene’s Amazon Park, from 10,134 individuals in 1995 to 31,252 individuals 

in 2005 (Trevor Taylor, City of Eugene, in litt. 2008). 

Habitat Characteristics 

Lomatium bradshawii is restricted to wet prairie habitats. These sites have heavy, sticky 

clay soils or a dense clay layer below the surface that results in seasonal hydric soils. Most 

of the known Lomatium bradshawii populations occur on seasonally saturated or flooded 

prairies, which are found near creeks and small rivers in the southern Willamette Valley 

(Kagan 1980). The soils at these sites are dense, heavy clays with a slowly permeable clay 

layer located between 15 and 30 centimeters (6 and 12 inches) below the surface. This 

slowly permeable clay layer, which results in a perched water table in winter and spring, 

allows soils to be saturated to the surface or slightly inundated during the wet season. The 

soils include Dayton silt loams, Natroy silty clay loams or Bashaw clays; other soils on 

which the species has been found include Amity, Awbrig , Coburg, Conser, Courtney, 

Cove, Hazelair, Linslaw, Oxley, Panther, Pengra, Salem, Willamette, and Witzel. 

Less frequently, Lomatium bradshawii populations are found on shallow, basalt areas in 

Marion and Linn County near the Santiam River. The soil type is characterized as Stayton 

Silt Loam; it is described as well drained, in alluvium underlain by basalt (Kaye and 

Kirkland 1994). The shallow depth to bedrock, 50 centimeters (20 inches) or less, results 

in sites which are poorly suited to agriculture. This soil type occurs at scattered locations 

in sites with deeper soils belonging to the Nekia-Jory association, which were originally 

vegetated by grassland and oak savanna (Alverson 1990). Lomatium bradshawii at these 

sites occurs in areas with very shallow soil, usually in vernal wetlands or along stream 

channels. 

Lomatium bradshawii is often associated with Deschampsia cespitosa, and frequently 

occurs on and around the small mounds created by senescent Deschampsia cespitosa

plants. In wetter areas, Lomatium bradshawii occurs on the edges of Deschampsia 

cespitosa or sedge bunches in patches of bare or open soil. In drier areas, it is found in low 

areas, such as small depressions, trails or seasonal channels, with open, exposed soils. The 

grassland habitat of Lomatium bradshawii frequently includes these species: Carex spp., 

Danthonia californica, Eryngium petiolatum, Galium cymosum (bedstraw), Grindelia 

integrifolia (Willamette Valley gumweed), Hordeum brachyantherum, Juncus spp., Luzula 

comosa (Pacific woodrush), Microseris laciniata (cut-leaved microseris), and Perideridia

sp. (yampah) (Kagan 1980). In most sites, introduced pasture grasses (Anthoxanthum 

odoratum, Holcus lanatus, Poa pratensis [Kentucky bluegrass], Agrostis capillaris 
II-18

[colonial bentgrass], Dactylis glomerata and Festuca arundinacea) are present. Invasive 

bentgrasses, including Agrostis stolonifera, have been found at many protected sites with 

Lomatium bradshawii populations, including The Nature Conservancy’s Willow Creek 

Preserve and William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge (Kate Norman, pers. comm. 

2009). 

Threats/Reasons for Listing 

Expanding urban development, pesticides, encroachment of woody and invasive species, 

herbivory and grazing are threats to remaining Lomatium bradshawii populations (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). The majority of Oregon’s Lomatium bradshawii

populations are located within a 16-kilometer (10-mile) radius of Eugene. The continued 

expansion of this city is a potential threat to the future of these sites. Even when the sites 

themselves are protected, the resultant changes in hydrology caused by surrounding 

development can alter the species’ habitat (Meinke 1982, Gisler 2004). The majority of 

sites from which herbarium specimens have been collected are within areas of Salem or 

Eugene which have been developed for housing and agriculture. The populations in 

Washington occur on private lands and are not protected (Gisler 2004). 

Populations occurring on roadsides are at risk from maintenance activities, and from 

adverse effects of management on adjacent lands. Pesticide use on agricultural fields and 

herbicide application adjacent to roads may harm Lomatium bradshawii populations across 

its range. There is concern that pesticides kill the pollinators necessary for plant 

reproduction; Lomatium bradshawii does not form a seed bank, therefore, any loss of 

pollinators (and subsequent lack of successful reproduction) could have an immediate 

effect on population numbers (Kaye and Kirkland 1994). Herbicides may drift, and even 

when Lomatium bradshawii is not the target, applications near a population may damage or 

kill the plants outright. For example, an herbicide application on private land adjacent to 

the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge drifted onto the refuge and damaged or 

killed Lomatium bradshawii plants in 2006 (Jock Beall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Corvallis, Oregon, pers. comm., 2008). 

Additional discussion and a complete description of threats and listing factors as they apply 

to Lomatium bradshawii can be found in section III (Threats Assessment) of this recovery 

plan. 
II-19

Conservation Measures 

Extensive research has been conducted on the ecology and population biology of Lomatium 

bradshawii, effective methods for habitat enhancement, and propagation and reintroduction 

techniques (Kagan 1980, Kaye 1992, Kaye and Kirkland 1994, Kaye and Meinke 1996, 

Caswell and Kaye 2001, Kaye and Kuykendall 2001b, Kaye et al. 2003b). The results of 

these studies have been used to direct the management of the species at sites managed for 

wet prairies. 

Propagation studies have found that long-term (8 weeks) cold stratification was necessary 

to fully break dormancy in this species (Kaye et al. 2003b). Lomatium bradshawii plants 

can be grown from seed in a greenhouse environment (Kaye et al. 2003b). Plants may be 

successfully established at existing populations or new locations through out-planting of 

greenhouse-grown plants. Fertilizing transplants may have a negative effect on survival in 

some cases. Direct seeding has a relatively high success rate (17 to 38 percent), and is 

improved by removal of competing vegetation (Kaye and Kuykendall 2001b, Kaye et al.

2003b). Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, 

Oregon (Berry Botanic Garden 2005) and the University of Washington Botanic Garden. 

Studies of the effects of cattle grazing on Lomatium bradshawii populations show mixed 

results. Grazing in the springtime, when the plants are growing and reproducing, can harm 

the plants by biomass removal, trampling and soil disturbance; however, late-season 

livestock grazing, after fruit maturation, has been observed to lead to an increase in 

emergence of new plants, and the density of plants with multiple umbels, although it did 

not alter survival rates or population structure (Drew 2000). Observed increases in 

seedlings may be due to small disturbances in the soil, a reduction of shading by nearby 

plants, and reduced herbivory by small mammals. 

Populations of Lomatium bradshawii occur on public lands or lands that are managed by a 

conservation organization at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s William L. Finley and 

Oak Creek units of the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers at Fern Ridge Reservoir, the Bureau of Land Management at the 

West Eugene Wetlands, The Nature Conservancy at Willow Creek Natural Area and 

Kingston Prairie Preserve, and Lane County at Howard Buford Recreation Area (see 

Appendix C). All of these parcels have some level of management for native prairie 

habitat values. A habitat conservation plan that addresses conservation of Lomatium 

bradshawii within Benton County is currently in preparation (Benton County 2009). 
II-20

4. Lupinus sulphureus Dougl. ex Hook. ssp. kincaidii [C.P. Sm] L. Phillips 

(Kincaid’s lupine) 

Listing Status and Critical Habitat 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is a perennial herb that was listed as threatened, without 

critical habitat, on January 25, 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). A recovery 

outline for the species was published in 2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). Its 

taxonomy and physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 

Critical habitat was designated on October 6, 2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). 

Critical habitat units for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii have been designated in Benton, 

Lane, Polk and Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Lewis County, Washington. The primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat are: (1) early seral upland prairie or oak savanna 

habitat with a mosaic of low-growing grasses and forbs and spaces to establish seedlings or 

new vegetative growth, an absence of dense canopy vegetation, and undisturbed subsoils; 

and (2) the presence of insect outcrossing pollinators, such as Bombus mixtus and B. 

californicus (bumblebees), with unrestricted movement between existing lupine patches. 

Critical habitat does not include human-made structures existing on the effective date of 

the rule and not containing one or more of the primary constituent elements, such as 

buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located. 

 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is found in dry upland prairies from Lewis County, 

Washington in the north, south to the foothills of Douglas County, Oregon; however, most 

of the known and historical populations are found in the Willamette Valley (Figure II-4, 

Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2). Historically, the species was documented from 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada (Dunn and Gillet 1966), but has not been 

located in that region since the 1920s (Kaye 2000). Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is 

currently known at about 164 sites, comprising about 246 hectares (608 acres) (Appendix 

B, Table B-2). Until the summer of 2004, Kincaid’s lupine was known from just two 

extant populations in Washington, in the Boistfort Valley in Lewis County, more than 160 

kilometers (100 miles) from the nearest population in the 
II-21

. 

 
II-22

Willamette Valley. In 2004, two small populations were found at Drew’s Prairie and 

Cowlitz Prairie to the east of the Boistfort Valley in Lewis County; only one plant was 

observed at Drew’s Prairie, and more than 40 plants were found at Cowlitz Prairie (Caplow 

and Miller 2004; Ted Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington, pers. 

comm., 2006; Joe Arnett, Washington Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 2008). 

Before Euro-American settlement of the region, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii was 

likely well distributed throughout the prairies of western Oregon and southwestern 

Washington; today, habitat fragmentation has resulted in existing populations that are 

widely separated by expanses of unsuitable habitat. 

Monitoring the size of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii populations is challenging because 

its pattern of vegetative growth renders it difficult to distinguish individuals (Wilson et al.

2003). Instead of counting plants, most monitoring for this species relies on counting the 

number of leaves per unit area, partly because there is a strong correlation between 

Fender’s blue butterfly egg numbers and lupine leaf density (Schultz 1998, Kaye and 

Thorpe 2006). Leaf counts are time consuming, however, and recent evaluations have 

shown that lupine cover estimates are highly correlated with leaf counts, much faster to 

perform, and useful for detecting population trends (Kaye and Benfield 2005a). 

Life History and Ecology 

Flowering begins in April and extends through June. As the summer dry season arrives, 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii becomes dormant, and is completely senescent by midAugust (Wilson et al. 2003). Pollination is largely accomplished by small native 

bumblebees (Bombus mixtus and B. californicus), solitary bees (Osmia lignaria, 

Anthophora furcata, Habropoda sp., Andrena spp., Dialictus sp.), and occasionally 

European honey bees (Apis mellifera) (Wilson et al. 2003). Insect pollination appears to be 

critical for successful seed production (Wilson et al. 2003). 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii reproduces by seed and vegetative spread. It is able to 

spread extensively through underground growth. Individual clones can be several 

centuries old (Wilson et al. 2003), and become quite large with age, producing many 

flowering stems. Excavations and morphological patterns suggest that plants 10 meters (33 

feet) or more apart can be interconnected by below-ground stems, and that clones can 

exceed 10 meters (33 feet) across (Wilson et al. 2003). As part of a genetic evaluation, 

collections taken from small populations of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii at the Baskett 

Slough National Wildlife Refuge were found to be genetically identical, indicating that the 

population consists of one or a few large clones (Liston et al. 1995). Reproduction by seed 
II-23

is common in large populations where inbreeding depression is minimized and ample 

numbers of seeds are produced. In small populations, seed production is reduced and this 

appears to be due, at least in part, to inbreeding depression (Severns 2003). 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is vulnerable to seed, fruit and flower predation by 

insects, which may limit the production of seeds. Seed predation by bruchid beetles and 

weevils and larvae of other insects has been documented, and may result in substantially 

reduced production of viable seed (Kaye and Kuykendall 1993, Kuykendall and Kaye 

1993). Floral and fruit herbivory by larvae of the silvery blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche 

lygdamus columbia) has also been reported (Kuykendall and Kaye 1993). The vegetative 

structures of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii support a variety of insect herbivores, 

including root borers, sap suckers and defoliators (Wilson et al. 2003). 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is the primary larval host plant of the endangered 

Fender’s blue butterfly (Wilson et al. 2003). Female Fender’s blue butterflies lay their 

eggs on the underside of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii leaves in May and June; the 

larvae hatch several weeks later and feed on the plant for a short time before entering an 

extended diapause, which lasts until the following spring (Schultz et al. 2003). Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, like other members of the genus Lupinus, is unpalatable to 

vertebrate grazers. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii forms root nodules with Rhizobium

spp. bacteria that fix nitrogen, and also has vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae, which 

may enhance the plant’s growth (Wilson et al. 2003). 

Habitat Characteristics 

In the Willamette Valley and southwestern Washington, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii

is found on upland prairie remnants where the species occurs in small populations at widely 

scattered sites. A number of populations are found in road rights-of-way, between the road 

shoulder and adjacent fence line, where they have survived because of a lack of agricultural 

disturbance. Some of the populations in Washington occur in pastures and appear to 

benefit from light grazing by livestock, which reduces the cover of competing shrubs and 

grasses (Joe Arnett, Washington Department of Natural Resources, in litt 2008). Common 

native species typically associated with Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii include: Festuca 

idahoensis ssp. roemeri, Danthonia californica, Calochortus tolmiei, Eriophyllum lanatum, 

and Fragaria virginiana. The species appears to prefer heavier, generally well-drained 

soils and has been found on 48 soil types, typically Ultic Haploxerolls, Ultic Argixerolls, 

and Xeric Palehumults (Wilson et al. 2003). 
II-24

In Douglas County, Oregon, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii appears to tolerate more 

shaded conditions, where it occurs at sites with canopy cover of 50 to 80 percent (Barnes 

2004). In contrast to the open prairie habitats of the more northerly populations, the 

Douglas County sites are dominated by tree and shrub species, including Pseudotsuga 

menziesii (Douglas-fir), Quercus kelloggii (California black oak), Arbutus menziesii

(Pacific madrone), Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine), Calocedrus decurrens (incense 

cedar), Arctostaphylos columbiana (hairy manzanita) and Toxicodendron diversilobum. 

In contrast to historical ecosystem composition, invasive non-native species are a 

significant component of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii habitat today. Common 

invasives include: Arrhenatherum elatius, Brachypodium sylvaticum, Dactylis glomerata, 

Festuca arundinacea, Rubus armeniacus and Cytisus scoparius (Wilson et al. 2003). In 

the absence of fire, some native species, such as Toxicodendron diversilobum and 

Pteridium aquilinum, invade prairies and compete with Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. 

 Threats/Reasons for Listing 

The three major threats to Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii populations are habitat loss, 

competition from non-native plants and elimination of historical disturbance regimes 

(Wilson et al. 2003). Habitat loss from a wide variety of causes (e.g., urbanization, 

agriculture, silvicultural practices, and roadside maintenance) has been the single largest 

factor in the decline of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2000a). Land development and alteration in the prairies of western Oregon and 

southwestern Washington have been so extensive that the remaining populations are 

essentially relegated to small, isolated patches of habitat. Habitat loss is likely to continue 

as private lands are developed; at least 49 of 54 sites occupied by Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii in 2000 at the time of listing were on private lands and are at risk of being lost 

unless conservation actions are implemented (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). 

Habitat fragmentation and isolation of small populations may be causing inbreeding 

depression in Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. The subspecies was likely wide-spread 

historically, frequently outcrossing throughout much of its range, until habitat destruction 

and fragmentation severely isolated the remaining populations (Liston et al. 1995). There 

is some evidence of inbreeding depression, which may result in lower seed set (Severns 

2003). Hybridization between Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Lupinus arbustus 

has been detected at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge (Liston et al. 1995). 
II-25

Before settlement by Euro-Americans, the regular occurrence of fire maintained the open 

prairie habitats essential to Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. The loss of a regular 

disturbance regime, primarily fire, has resulted in the decline of prairie habitats through 

succession to native trees and shrubs, and has allowed the establishment of numerous nonnative grasses and forbs. Some aggressive non-native plants form dense monocultures, 

which compete for space, water and nutrients with the native prairie species, and ultimately 

inhibit the growth and reproduction of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii by shading out the 

plants (Wilson et al. 2003). When Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii was listed, we 

estimated that 83 percent of upland prairie sites within its range were succeeding to forest 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). 

Additional discussion and a complete description of threats and listing factors as they apply 

to Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii can be found in section III (Threats Assessment) of 

this recovery plan. 

Conservation Measures 

Active research efforts have focused on restoring the essential components of Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii habitat by mimicking the historical disturbance regime with the 

application of prescribed fire, mowing and manual removal of weeds. Research and habitat 

management programs for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii have been implemented at 

several sites, including Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land 

Management’s Fir Butte site and The Nature Conservancy’s Willow Creek Preserve 

(Wilson et al. 2003, Kaye and Benfield 2005a). Prescribed fire and mowing before or after 

the growing season have been effective in reducing the cover of invasive non-native plants; 

following treatments, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii has responded with increased leaf 

and flower production (Wilson et al. 2003). Research has also been conducted on seed 

germination, propagation and reintroduction of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kaye 

and Kuykendall 2001a, 2001b, Kaye and Cramer 2003, Kaye et al. 2003b). Seeds of this 

species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon (Berry Botanic 

Garden 2005). 

The Bureau of Land Management, Umpqua National Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service completed a programmatic conservation agreement for Lupinus sulphureus ssp.

kincaidii in Douglas County, Oregon, in April 2006 (Roseburg Bureau of Land 

Management et al. 2006). The objectives of the agreement are: (1) to maintain stable 

populations of the species in Douglas County by protecting and restoring habitats, (2) to 

reduce threats to the species on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands, (3) 
II-26

to promote larger functioning metapopulations, with increased population size and genetic 

diversity, and (4) to meet the recovery criteria in the Recovery Outline for the species (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2006b). 

Populations of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii occur on public lands or lands that are 

managed by a conservation organization at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s William L. 

Finley National Wildlife Refuge and Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, the Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Fern Ridge Reservoir, Bureau of Land Management units in Lane and 

Douglas Counties, the Umpqua National Forest, The Nature Conservancy’s Willow Creek 

Preserve, and at a small portion of Oregon State University’s Butterfly Meadows in the 

McDonald State Forest (see Appendix C). All of these parcels have some level of 

management for native prairie habitat values. A habitat conservation plan that addresses 

conservation of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii within Benton County is currently in 

preparation (Benton County 2009). 

5. Sidalcea nelsoniana Piper (Nelson’s checker-mallow) 

Listing Status and Critical Habitat 

Sidalcea nelsoniana is a perennial herb that was listed as threatened, without critical 

habitat, on February 12, 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b). Its taxonomy and 

physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 

 

Population Trends and Distribution 

In the past, Sidalcea nelsoniana has been collected in Benton, Clackamas, Linn, Marion, 

Polk, Tillamook, Yamhill, and Washington Counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz and Lewis 

Counties, Washington. Sidalcea nelsoniana is currently known from about 90 sites, 

comprising about 517 hectares (1,277 acres) of total cover, distributed from southern 

Benton County, Oregon, northward through the central and western Willamette Valley, to 

Cowlitz and Lewis Counties, Washington (CH2MHill 1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1998) (Figure II-5; Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2). This species also occurs in several 

higher elevation west slope Coast Range meadows that flank the western Willamette 

Valley in Yamhill, Washington and Tillamook Counties, Oregon. Known populations 

range in elevation from 45 to 600 meters (150 to 1,970 feet). 

In the Willamette Valley, populations of Sidalcea nelsoniana occur at low elevations 

(below 200 meters [650 feet]) within a mosaic of urban and agricultural areas, with 

concentrations around the cities of Corvallis and Salem. In the Coast Range, Sidalcea 
II-27

 

 
II-28

nelsoniana populations range in elevation from 490 to 600 meters (1,610 to 1,970 feet), 

and are found in open, grassy meadows within a larger matrix of coniferous forest. 

Life History and Ecology 

In the Willamette Valley, Sidalcea nelsoniana begins flowering as early as mid-May, and 

continues through August to early September, depending upon the moisture and climatic 

conditions of each site. Coast Range populations experience a shorter growing season and 

generally flower later and senesce earlier. Sidalcea nelsoniana inflorescences are 

indeterminate, and often simultaneously exhibit fruits, open flowers, and unopened buds. 

Seeds are deposited locally at or near the base of the parent plant and may be shed 

immediately or persist into winter within the dry flower parts that remain attached to the 

dead stems. Above-ground portions of the plant die back in the fall, usually followed by 

some degree of regrowth at the base, with the emergence of small, new leaves that persist 

through the winter directly above the root crown. It is not uncommon for some plants to 

continue producing some flowers into the fall and early winter, although this is usually 

limited to one or two small stems per plant, consequently with little seed production (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). 

Perfect-flowered Sidalcea nelsoniana are protandrous, with complete temporal separation 

of male and female phases in individual flowers (Gisler and Meinke 1998). This prevents 

self-fertilization, and combined with the bottom-to-top foraging observed among most bee 

visitors, also discourages selfing through geitonogamy. Outcrossing is encouraged 

because pollinators leave male-phase flowers at the top of one raceme and then fly to 

female phase flowers on the bottom of the next raceme. Some selfing will still occur in 

perfect-flowered plants, however, due to within-plant, between-raceme foraging. Female 

plants, which lack male flowers, are obligately outcrossed (Gisler and Meinke 1998). In 

most Willamette Valley (but not Coast Range) populations, female (male- sterile) Sidalcea 

nelsoniana plants vastly outnumber perfect plants. Sidalcea nelsoniana is also capable of 

vegetative expansion via rhizomes or laterally spreading root systems that form multiple 

crowns bearing distinct clusters of flowering stems (CH2MHill 1986, Glad et al. 1994). 

 

Sidalcea nelsoniana is pollinated by a variety of insects, including at least 17 species of 

bees, 3 species of wasps, 9 species of flies, 6 species of beetles, and 5 species of 

lepidopterans (Gisler 2003). Three species of bumblebees (Bombus californicus, B. 

sitkensis and B. vosnesenskii) were the most common and active pollinators (Gisler 2003). 

One solitary bee pollinator, Diadasia nigrifrons, is a checker-mallow specialist, and may 

also pollinate Sidalcea nelsoniana in the Willamette Valley (Gisler and Meinke 1998). 
II-29

 

Pre-dispersal seed predation by weevils (Macrorhoptus sidalceae) is extremely high in 

many populations, and may severely curtail, if not virtually eliminate, seed survival in 

many populations (Gisler and Meinke 1998). The weevils appear to be restricted to 

Willamette Valley, southwestern Washington and lower Coast Range populations (around 

Grand Ronde), but do not infest the Coast Range populations in Yamhill, Tillamook, and 

Washington Counties. The weevils are native, host-specific, and are themselves parasitized 

by tiny undescribed wasps (Gisler and Meinke 1998). 

 

Habitat Characteristics 

In the Willamette Valley, Sidalcea nelsoniana is known from wet prairies and stream sides. 

Although occasionally occurring in the understory of Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon ash) 

woodlands or among woody shrubs, Willamette Valley Sidalcea nelsoniana populations 

usually occupy open habitats supporting early seral plant species. These native prairie 

remnants are frequently found at the margins of sloughs, ditches, and streams; roadsides; 

fence rows; drainage swales; and fallow fields. Soil textures of the occupied sites vary 

from gravelly, well drained loams to poorly drained, hydric clay soils (CH2MHill 1986, 

Glad et al. 1994). 

Some of the native plants commonly associated with Sidalcea nelsoniana in the Willamette 

Valley include: Achillea millefolium (yarrow), Juncus effusus (common rush), Carex spp. 

(sedge), Spiraea douglasii (western spiraea), Crataegus douglasii (Douglas’ hawthorn),

Geum macrophyllum (large-leaved avens), and Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 1995). Most sites have been densely colonized by invasive weeds, especially 

introduced forage grasses. Common non-native species found with Sidalcea nelsoniana

include Festuca arundinacea, Rosa spp. (rose), Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle), 

Hypericum perforatum (common St. John’s wort), Rubus spp. (blackberry), Phleum 

pratense (timothy), Holcus lanatus (velvet grass), Vicia spp., Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum (oxeye-daisy), Agrostis capillaris, Alopecurus pratensis, Phalaris 

arundinacea, Geranium spp. (geranium), Lotus corniculatus (bird's-foot trefoil) and 

Daucus carota (Oregon Department of Agriculture 1995). 

Coast Range Sidalcea nelsoniana populations typically occur in open, wet to dry meadows, 

intermittent stream channels, and along margins of coniferous forests, with clay to loam 

soil textures (Glad et al. 1987). These areas generally support more native vegetation than 

Willamette Valley sites. Native plants commonly associated with Sidalcea nelsoniana in 

the Coast Range include Senecio triangularis (spear-head senecio), Fragaria virginiana, 
II-30

Juncus spp., Carex spp., and Achillea millefolium; non-native associated species often 

include Senecio jacobaea (tansy ragwort), Holcus lanatus, and Phleum pratense.

A variety of animal species are associated with Sidalcea nelsoniana. Stems and 

inflorescences are commonly eaten by deer and elk. Sidalcea nelsoniana flowers are 

visited by a diverse assemblage of insects, including leafcutter bees (Megachilidae), honey 

bees (Apidae), bumble bees (Bombidae), hover flies (Syrphidae), butterflies (Hesperiidae), 

and pollen-foraging beetles (Cerambycidae and Meloidae). The species is also a host for 

various phytophagous insects such as aphids (Aphididae), stinkbugs (Pentatomidae), 

scentless plant bugs (Rhopalidae), spotted cucumber beetles (Chrysomelidae), plant bugs 

(Miridae), milkweed bugs (Lygaeidae), spittlebugs (Cercopidae), butterfly larvae 

(Lycaenidae: Strymon melinus; Nymphalidae: Vanessa anabella), and in the Willamette 

Valley, weevils (Curculionidae: Macrohoptus sidalcae). Other insects found in 

association with Sidalcea nelsoniana include ants (Formicidae) and earwigs (Forficulidae) 

(Bureau of Land Management 1985, CH2M Hill 1986, Oregon Department of Agriculture 

1995). 

 

Threats/Reasons for Listing 

As with the other rare prairie plants addressed in this plan, Sidalcea nelsoniana is 

threatened by urban and agricultural development, ecological succession that results in 

shrub and tree encroachment of open prairie habitats, and competition with invasive weeds 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b). 

At many Willamette Valley sites, seedling establishment is inhibited by the dense thatch 

layer of non-native grasses (Gisler 2004). Other factors specific to Sidalcea nelsoniana

include pre-dispersal seed predation by weevils (Gisler and Meinke 1998), the potential 

threat of inbreeding depression due to small population sizes, and habitat fragmentation 

(Gisler 2003). 

There is a strong potential for interspecific hybridization among Sidalcea nelsoniana and 

its congeners in the region, although there are some ecological and genetic reproductive 

barriers to prevent it from occurring (Gisler 2003, 2004). Sidalcea nelsoniana flowers later 

in the year than sympatric populations of Sidalcea malviflora ssp. virgata (rose checkermallow), but allopatric populations sometimes overlap in flowering periods. The two 

species are sexually compatible, thus human-mediated movement of the plants could result 

in formation of hybrids. Sidalcea nelsoniana and S. cusickii (Cusick’s checker-mallow) are 

also fully compatible, and they also share pollinators and flowering times, but their 
II-31

geographic ranges are parapatric, with nearest populations narrowly separated by less than 

a mile at the south end of Finley National Wildlife Refuge (Gisler 2004). If these species 

come into contact through human-mediated dispersal, hybridization could easily occur. 

Sidalcea nelsoniana is frequently found growing together with S. campestris, and they also 

share pollinators and flowering times, but they exhibit very low sexual compatibility 

(probably due to chromosomal pairing problems resulting from polyploidy) (Gisler 2004). 

Reproductive barriers among the checker-mallows in the Willamette Valley likely evolved 

in response to selective pressure against hybridization (Gisler 2003, 2004); managers 

should be aware of the potential for hybridization as plants are moved around within the 

region. 

Additional discussion and a complete description of threats and listing factors as they apply 

to Sidalcea nelsoniana can be found in section III (Threats Assessment) of this recovery 

plan. 

Conservation Measures 

Extensive research has been conducted on the ecology and population biology of Sidalcea 

nelsoniana, methods of seed predator control, and propagation and reintroduction 

techniques (Gisler and Meinke 1998, 2001; Bartels and Wilson 2001; Gisler and Meinke 

2001; Gisler 2003; Wilson 2004). The results of these studies have been used to direct the 

management of the species at sites managed for wet prairies. 

Sidalcea nelsoniana has a highly complex breeding system that facilitates both outcrossing 

and selfing. Control of seed predation by native weevils may be needed to enhance 

reproductive success at some populations which are heavily infested with weevils (Gisler 

and Meinke 1998). Research into habitat management techniques indicates that burning 

may not be directly beneficial to Sidalcea nelsoniana, and that caution should be used in 

management of native prairie fragments with populations of Sidalcea nelsoniana (Bartels 

and Wilson 2001, Wilson 2004). The species has proved to be readily grown in controlled 

environments, and several approaches have successfully cultivated healthy plants for 

augmentation of existing populations (Gisler 2003). Seeds of this species have been 

banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon (Berry Botanic Garden 2005) and 

the University of Washington Botanic Garden. 

Populations of Sidalcea nelsoniana are protected on lands managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service at William L. Finley and Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuges, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde in Polk County, and by the Bureau of Land 
II-32

Management at Walker Flat in Yamhill County, Oregon (see Appendix C). In December 

2007, Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, in Clark County, Washington, outplanted 2,530 

seedlings to establish a new population of Sidalcea nelsoniana at the refuge; monitoring 

and management of the new population is ongoing. A habitat conservation plan that 

addresses conservation of Sidalcea nelsoniana within Benton County is currently in 

preparation (Benton County 2009). 

6. Castilleja levisecta Greenm. (Golden paintbrush) 

A recovery plan for Castilleja levisecta was published in 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000b). That plan did not offer specific recovery tasks for the historical 

populations of Castilleja levisecta in Oregon. This recovery plan will provide specific 

tasks to restore the species in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. These tasks will be 

complementary to, but will not supersede, the recovery goals in the final recovery plan for 

the species. 

The treatment of Castilleja levisecta that follows is an abbreviated version of the 

introduction from the Recovery Plan for the Golden Paintbrush (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000b), which includes a complete review of the species’ ecology and status. 

Listing Status and Critical Habitat 

Castilleja levisecta is a perennial herb that was listed as threatened, without critical habitat, 

on June 11, 1997 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Its taxonomy and physical 

description are summarized in Appendix F. 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Historically, Castilleja levisecta has been reported from more than 30 sites in the Puget 

Trough of Washington and British Columbia, and as far south as the Willamette Valley of 

Oregon (Hitchcock et al. 1959, Sheehan and Sprague 1984, Gamon 1995, Gamon et al.

2001; Figure II-6). Many populations have been extirpated as their habitats were converted 

for agricultural, residential, and commercial development. Eleven populations are 

currently known to exist in Washington and British Columbia; more than half of these 

populations occur on Whidbey Island and the San Juan Islands off the north coast of the 

Washington mainland, two are on Canadian islands, and one is in the Puget Trough near 

Olympia, Washington. In Oregon, Castilleja levisecta historically occurred in the 

grasslands and prairies of the Willamette Valley in Linn, Marion and Multnomah Counties; 
II-33
II-34

the species has been extirpated from all of these sites as the habitat has been changed or 

modified by urbanization or agriculture. The last sighting of Castilleja levisecta in the wild 

in Oregon was during 1938 in Linn County; recent surveys have failed to re-locate 

Castilleja levisecta in Oregon (Sheehan and Sprague 1984, Caplow 2004). In 2005, small 

populations of Castilleja levisecta were planted in common garden plots at William L. 

Finley and Baskett Butte National Wildlife Refuges in the Willamette Valley. The 

propagules came from populations in Washington and Canada, and surveys in 2008 and 

2009 found that a few plants have survived at both Refuges (Tom Kaye, Institute for 

Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon, pers. comm., 2009).

Life History and Ecology 

Castilleja levisecta is a short-lived perennial herb. Individual plants generally survive 5 to 

6 years or longer. This species apparently reproduces exclusively by seed; vegetative 

spread has never been reported. Plants may flower as early as February, and flowers are 

observed into summer. The fruit is a capsule, which matures in August; by mid-summer, 

the plants senesce, although some plants produce shoots in the fall that overwinter. 

Capsules persist on the plants well into winter. 

The genus Castilleja, like many others in the figwort family, is hemi-parasitic (Center for 

Plant Conservation 2005). Roots of paintbrushes are capable of forming parasitic 

connections to roots of other plants. Paintbrush plants are probably not host-specific (Mills 

and Kummerow 1988). It has been clearly shown that golden paintbrush grows well 

independently of a host plant and that they do not necessarily require a host to survive. 

This evidence suggests that this species of Castilleja is a facultative root parasite. 

The breeding system of Castilleja levisecta has not been thoroughly documented. Evans et 

al. (1984) reported that a species of bumblebee, Bombus californicus, was observed 

visiting Castilleja levisecta. Pollinator exclusion experiments showed that fruits can be 

produced in the absence of pollinator visitation, but fruit set was almost five times greater 

in unbagged inflorescences compared to inflorescences bagged to prevent visits from 

pollinators (Wentworth 1994). Although seed dispersal has not been directly observed, the 

seeds are probably shaken from the seed capsules and fall a short distance from the parent 

plant. The seeds are light and could possibly be dispersed short distances by the wind. 
II-35

Habitat Characteristics 

Habitat descriptions for Castilleja levisecta are based on those extant populations in 

Washington and British Columbia; absent comparable habitat information for Oregon, we 

assume that the habitat of the extirpated populations in the Willamette Valley was similar. 

Castilleja levisecta occurs in upland prairies, on generally flat grasslands, including some 

that are characterized by mounded topography. Low deciduous shrubs are commonly 

present as small to large thickets. In the absence of fire, some of the sites have been 

colonized by trees, primarily Pseudotsuga menziesii, and shrubs, including Rosa nutkana

(wild rose) and Cytisus scoparius, an aggressive non-native shrub. 

The mainland population in Washington occurs in a gravelly, glacial outwash prairie. Most 

of the extant populations are on loamy sand or sandy loam soils derived from glacial 

origins; at the southern end of its historic range, populations occurred on clayey alluvial 

soils, in association with Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) woodlands (Caplow 2004). 

Recent analyses of likely sites for reintroduction of Castilleja levisecta in Oregon found 

that habitats are dominated by non-native annuals, and will require management before 

successful reintroductions can be expected (Lawrence 2005). 

Threats/Reasons for Listing 

Threats to Castilleja levisecta include habitat modification as succession changes prairies 

and grasslands to shrub and forest lands; development for commercial, residential, and 

agricultural use; low potential for expansion of Castilleja levisecta populations and their 

refugia because existing habitat is constricted; recreational picking; and herbivory (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).

Conservation Measures 

Some research has been conducted on the population biology, fire ecology, propagation 

and restoration of Castilleja levisecta (Dunwiddie et al. 2001, Gamon et al. 2001, Kaye 

2001, Kaye and Lawrence 2003, Caplow 2004, Lawrence 2005). The results of these 

studies have been used to direct the management of the species at sites managed for upland 

prairies, and are critical to the future reintroduction and recovery of the species. A 

reintroduction plan has been prepared (Caplow 2004), as directed by the Golden Paintbrush 

Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b); reintroduction into likely historical 

habitat is the best hope for the species to recover in the prairies of Oregon and 

southwestern Washington. Recent research has considered the most appropriate seed 

sources and site characteristics for the reintroduction of Castilleja levisecta to the 

Willamette Valley (Lawrence 2005). The findings of this study are consistent with those 
II-36

recommended for the other prairie species addressed in this plan, in that the optimal sites 

for reintroduction were high quality prairies dominated by native perennial species with 

low abundance of non-native plant species. Furthermore, the study recommended against 

using genetic diversity, effective population size, or geographic distance in determining 

source material for reintroductions, instead suggesting that plant materials from Whidbey 

Island, Washington, had the greatest potential for successful reintroductions to the 

Willamette Valley (Lawrence 2005). Greenhouse trials and surveys of potential 

reintroduction sites in the Willamette Valley have recently been completed (Lawrence 

2005). Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, 

Oregon (Berry Botanic Garden 2005) and the University of Washington Botanic Garden. 

B. NONLISTED SPECIES 

1. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is a candidate for Federal listing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2001) The species is listed as endangered by the State of Washington 

(Washington Natural Heritage Program 2008); the species has no state protection in 

Oregon since invertebrates are not protected under the Oregon Endangered Species Act. Its 

taxonomy and physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Historically, Taylor's checkerspot was likely distributed throughout prairies in the 

Willamette Valley, Puget Sound, and south Vancouver Island. Historic range and 

abundance are not precisely known because extensive searches did not occur until recently. 

Northwest prairies were formerly more common, larger, and interconnected, and likely 

would have supported a greater distribution and abundance of Taylor's checkerspot than 

exist today. Before its decline, the checkerspot was documented at more than 70 sites in 

British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). These 

sites included coastal and inland prairies on southern Vancouver Island and surrounding 

islands in British Columbia and the San Juan Island archipelago, as well as open prairies on 

post-glacial gravelly outwash and balds in Washington's Puget Trough and Oregon's 

Willamette Valley. In Oregon, there were 13 recorded sites from which this subspecies had 

been either collected or observed over the last century (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2009a). 
II-37

At present populations remain in about nine sites in Washington (around the Puget Sound 

area and Olympic Peninsula) and two sites in British Columbia. There are two known 

extant populations in Oregon (Figure II-7), both in Benton County (Vaughan and Black 

2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). One population occurs in a Bonneville 

Power Administration right-of-way and the other occurs in Benton County’s Beazell Park. 

The combined population at these sites may exceed 1,000 individuals.

Life History and Ecology 

Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies produce one brood per year. They overwinter (diapause) 

in the fourth or fifth larval instar phase, usually in May. Adults emerge in the spring, and 

have a flight period as adults of 10 to 14 days during April and May, when they mate and 

lay clusters of as many as 1,200 eggs. Larvae emerge and grow until the fourth or fifth 

instar. Larvae feeding on wildflowers in Puget Trough have been documented to enter 

diapause in mid-June to early July, hibernating through the winter. 

Habitat Characteristics 

Habitat requirements for the Taylor's checkerspot consist of open prairies and savannas 

where food plants for larvae and nectar sources for adults are available. Taylor’s 

checkerspot larvae have been documented feeding on members of the figwort or 

snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae), including paintbrush (Castilleja hispida) as well as 

native and non-native Plantago spp. in the plantain family (Plantaginaceae) (Dornfield 

1980, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The last remaining populations in Oregon 

depend upon the non-native Plantago lanceolata. 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

The major limiting factors affecting this species are the significant loss of suitable habitat 

that is largely due to agricultural and urban development, encroachment of trees, and 

spread of invasive plants which threaten the native grasslands in which the species is found 

(Vaughan and Black 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). Pesticide use and 

recreational activities pose a direct threat to the butterflies themselves. The impact of these 

threats has led to extirpation of many small populations. Most of the remaining checkerspot 

populations are a considerable distance from one another, likely well beyond dispersal 

distance. Natural re-colonization as colonies disappear is unlikely. 
II-38

 
II-39

Conservation Measures 

Various efforts to conserve Taylor’s checkerspot in Washington are ongoing, including a 

multi-agency candidate conservation agreement, land acquisition, and habitat restoration 

projects (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The Bonneville Power Administration 

developed a management plan for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly populations in the vicinity 

of Cardwell Hill in Benton County, Oregon; the management plan specifies conservation 

measures for right-of-way maintenance to protect the butterfly and its habitat, and 

identifies specific opportunities and management activities that will preserve and enhance 

the species’ habitat in the area (Bonneville Power Administration 2005). The Bonneville 

Power Administration has also set aside funds to purchase conservation easements on 

privately-owned sites with existing populations of Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies to 

further the conservation of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b). A habitat 

conservation plan that addresses conservation of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within 

Benton County is currently in preparation (Benton County 2009). 

2. Delphinium leucophaeum Greene (Pale larkspur) 

Delphinium leucophaeum is a perennial herb that has been identified by the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office as a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Both 

the States of Oregon and Washington list the species as endangered (Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 2008, Washington Natural Heritage Program 2008). Its taxonomy and physical 

description are summarized in Appendix F. 

 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Delphinium leucophaeum is found primarily in the northern Willamette Valley, at fewer 

than 20 sites in Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill Counties, and in 

one site in Lewis County, Washington (Meinke 1982, Gisler 2004, Oregon Natural 

Heritage Information Center 2007, Washington Natural Heritage Program 2008) (Figure 

II-8). The species has been found at elevations from 40 to 150 meters (125 to 500 feet). 

Life History and Ecology 

Delphinium leucophaeum flowers in May and June and produces fruits through August. 

Seedlings germinate in the winter, and may take five years to first flowering (Washington 

Natural Heritage Program 2008). This species does not reproduce vegetatively in the wild 

(Darr 1980). The species’ hermaphroditic flowers are pollinated by bumblebees (Bombus 

californicus) (Goodrich 1983). Delphinium leucophaeum is able to hybridize with other
II-40
II-41

Delphinium species, including the parapatric Delphinium pavonaceum (Meinke 1982, 

Goodrich 1983). 

Habitat Characteristics 

Delphinium leucophaeum occurs in a variety of habitat types, including edges of oak 

woodlands, dry roadside ditches, basalt cliffs, along river banks and on bluffs, on moist 

rocky slopes, lowland meadows and in the shade of oak and mixed oak/conifer stands 

(Darr 1980; Goodrich 1983; Keith Karoly, Reed College, in litt. 2006). Soils in most 

occupied habitats were high in organic matter, loose, and very shallow (5 to 7 centimeters 

[2 to 3 inches]) (Goodrich 1983). Associated species include Quercus garryana, 

Holodiscus discolor (ocean spray), Polypodium glycorrhiza (licorice fern), Festuca rubra

(red fescue), Elymus glaucus and Symphoricarpos albus (snowberry) (Washington Natural 

Heritage Program 2008). 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

Habitat loss, alteration of disturbance regimes, and habitat invasion by trees and shrubs put 

this species at risk of continued declines (Gisler 2004). The species is known from very 

few, small populations, which puts the species at risk of extinction from random 

demographic and stochastic events. 

Conservation Measures 

Delphinium leucophaeum occurs at only a few sites in Oregon and Washington, some of 

which are in protective ownership (The Nature Conservancy’s Camassia Natural Area in 

Clackamas County, Metro’s Willamette Narrows and Cooper Mountain Nature Park, and 

the City of Lake Oswego’s Iron Mountain City Park) (see Appendix C). Several of the 

extant populations have been monitored over the years, documenting wide fluctuations in 

population size (Gisler 2004). The species has been successfully cultivated in greenhouse 

trials (Gisler 2004). Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in 

Portland, Oregon (Berry Botanic Garden 2005). 

3. Delphinium oreganum Howell (Willamette Valley larkspur) 

Conservation Status 

Delphinium oreganum is a perennial herb that has been identified by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office as a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2008) and a candidate for 

state listing in Oregon (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2008). Its taxonomy and 

physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 
II-42

Population Trends and Distribution 

Delphinium oreganum is endemic to the Willamette Valley and high elevation peaks in the 

northern Coast Range (Figure II-9). This species is found in Lane, Linn, Marion, Yamhill 

and Clatsop Counties, Oregon (Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 2006 data). 

Life History and Ecology 

The blooming period is from late May to late June although blooms can be found earlier or 

later due to various factors such as elevation, moisture level, and age of individuals (Boyer 

1999). 

Habitat Characteristics 

Delphinium oreganum is usually found growing along roadsides and well drained grassy 

areas (Boyer 1999). Sites are located at low elevations in the Willamette Valley and most 

commonly in wet prairies with shrub or Fraxinus latifolia overstory. The Saddle Mountain 

site is the only known Coast Range site and it is at a much higher elevation (700-975 

meters [2,300-3,200 feet]) than the Willamette Valley populations (45-425 meters [150-

1,400 feet]). The Saddle Mountain population is found on open, moderately moist slopes. 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

The species is threatened by continued loss of habitat to urban, industrial and agricultural 

development, herbicides, disturbance associated with road maintenance, successional 

encroachment and habitat invasion by exotic species. 

Conservation Measures 

Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon 

(Berry Botanic Garden 2005). 

4. Delphinium pavonaceum Ewan (Peacock larkspur) 

Conservation Status 

Delphinium pavonaceum is a perennial herb that has been identified by the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office as a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). It is 

endemic to the Willamette Valley, and is listed as endangered by the State of Oregon 

(Oregon Department of Agriculture 2008). Its taxonomy and physical description are 

summarized in Appendix F. 
II-43
II-44

Population Trends and Distribution 

Currently, only 19 populations of Delphinium pavonaceum are known to persist, which are 

found generally in the southern Willamette Valley in Benton, Clackamas, Marion and Polk 

Counties (Gisler 2004, Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 2004) (Figure II-10). 

The species occurs at elevations from 45 to 120 meters (150 to 400 feet) (Darr 1980, Gisler 

2004). The largest populations occur on the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge in 

Benton County. 

Life History and Ecology 

Delphinium pavonaceum typically flowers from April to June. The plant does not spread 

vegetatively and reproduces only by seed; seedlings germinate in the winter and may take 

at least three years before flowering (Goodrich 1983). Flowers are pollinated by insects; 

bumblebees (Bombus californicus and B. appositus) and unidentified moths have been 

observed pollinating the flowers (Goodrich 1983, McKernan 2004). Infrequent fires 

appear to benefit the species (McKernan 2004). Delphinium pavonaceum is able to 

hybridize with other Delphinium species, including D. leucophaeum and D. menziesii

(Meinke 1982, Goodrich 1983). 

Habitat Characteristics 

Delphinium pavonaceum is found in native wet prairie habitats, on the edges of Fraxinus 

latifolia and Quercus garryana woodlands, and along roadsides and fence rows, in soils 

that are generally moist heavy clay loams or dry, well drained heavy clays (Darr 1980, 

Meinke 1982, Gisler 2004). 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

The species is threatened by continued loss of habitat to urban and agricultural 

development, herbicides, road maintenance, successional encroachment and habitat 

invasion by exotic species (Gisler 2004) 

Conservation Measures 

The largest extant populations of Delphinium pavonaceum occur on William L. Finley 

National Wildlife Refuge; active management at the refuge has focused on restoring native 

prairie habitats (McKernan 2004) (see Appendix C). Some work has been done to evaluate 

methods for growing plants from seed in controlled conditions for later reintroduction to 

the wild (Goodrich 1983). Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic 

Garden in Portland, Oregon (Berry Botanic Garden 2005). A habitat conservation plan that 
II-45

addresses conservation of Delphinium pavonaceum within Benton County is currently in 

preparation (Benton County 2009). 

5. Horkelia congesta Dougl. ex Hook. ssp. congesta (Shaggy horkelia) 

Conservation Status 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta is a perennial herb that has been identified by the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office as a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). It 

is endemic to the Willamette and Umpqua Valleys of western Oregon, and is a candidate 

for listing by the State of Oregon (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2008). Its taxonomy 

and physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Since its discovery, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta has been reported from about 40 

locations in 6 western Oregon counties (Douglas, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Washington 

Counties). Currently, it is known to persist at only 26 sites in 4 counties (Douglas, Benton, 

Lane, and Linn Counties), indicating that the species may have been extirpated from the 

northern portion of its range (Gisler 2004) (Figure II-11). A long-term monitoring program 

at the Bureau of Land Management’s Long Tom Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

has documented a slow decline of the population over the last decade (Kaye 2002). 

Life History and Ecology 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta is an herbaceous perennial that blooms from April to June 

and reproduces by seed. Plants form rosettes of basal leaves and eventually produce one or 

more flowering stems. Occasionally, the root caudex splits beneath the soil surface, thus 

producing rosettes that appear separate but are connected underground. Horkelia congesta

ssp. congesta does not appear capable of vegetative reproduction, and reproduces solely by 

seeds (Gisler 2004). No field studies have been conducted on the breeding system of the 

species. Solitary bees (Halictus sp. and Andrena sp.), syrphid flies, and muscid flies have 

been observed pollinating flowers in the wild (Gisler 2004). 
II-46

 
II-47

Habitat Characteristics 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta occurs in prairie and oak savanna remnants in the 

Willamette Valley and on grassy balds in the Umpqua Valley. In the Willamette Valley, 

the species occurs on slightly elevated sites in wet prairies, dry uplands, open areas and 

even the shady understory of oak and fir woodlands (Gisler 2004). Extant populations 

range in elevations from 80 to 450 meters (275 to 1,500 feet), with the higher elevation 

sites located in the southern portion of the range (Gisler 2004). The taxon has been found 

on clay loam, cobbly silty clay, cobbly loam, gravelly loam, silt clay loam, and silty clay 

loam. 

Associated species include Linanthus bicolor (bicolored linanthus), Lomatium bradshawii,

Danthonia californica, Eriophyllum lanatum, Habenaria elegans (elegant rein orchid), 

Lomatium utriculatum (fine-leaved desert parsley), Carex tumulicola (foot-hill sedge), 

Camassia leichtlinii (great camas), Montia howellii (Howell’s montia), Sidalcea

campestris, Microcala quadrangularis (microcala), Lomatium nudicaule (naked desert 

parsley), Wyethia angustifolia (narrow-leaved dwarf sunflower), Orthocarpus

 attenuatus (narrow-leaved orthocarpus), Iris tenax, Sanicula crassicaulis tripartita (Pacific 

black snakeroot), Luzula comosa, Festuca rubra, Sidalcea malviflora ssp. virgata,

Potentilla gracilis, Lupinus micranthus (small-flowered lupine), Lotus micranthus (smallflowered trefoil), Ranunculus occidentalis (western buttercup), Fragaria virginiana, 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and Achillea millefolium (Alverson 1990). 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

The species is threatened by the continued loss of native prairie habitat, invasive weeds and 

successional changes to its grassland habitat (Gisler 2004). Grazing by deer is also a 

potential threat to small populations (Kaye 2002). 

Conservation Measures 

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta has been the subject of several research and conservation 

projects. Long-term monitoring has been conducted at the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Long Tom Area of Critical Environmental Concern (Kaye 2002, Gisler 2004), and studies 

have examined the feasibility of propagation as a tool for population augmentation or 

reintroduction (Kaye and Brandt 2005). Direct seeding can be an effective method of 

establishing plants at new sites or augmenting existing populations, and outplanting of 

container-grown plants from seed has a very high success rate (Kaye and Brandt 2005). 

Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon 

(Berry Botanic Garden 2005). 
II-48

 
II-49

6. Sericocarpus rigidus Lindl. (White-topped aster) 

Conservation Status 

Sericocarpus rigidus is a perennial herb that has been identified by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office as a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). The State of 

Oregon lists the species as threatened (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2008), and it is 

considered a state sensitive species in Washington (Washington Natural Heritage Program 

2008). Its taxonomy and physical description are summarized in Appendix F. 

 

Population Trends and Distribution 

Sericocarpus rigidus is found from the Willamette Valley in Oregon, northwards through 

the Puget Trough region of western Washington and into Canada on Vancouver Island, 

British Columbia. About 96 populations have been identified, the majority of which are 

found in western Washington (Gisler 2004). Within the range of this recovery plan, 

populations of Sericocarpus rigidus occur in Clackamas, Linn, Marion, and Lane Counties, 

Oregon; no occurrences of Sericocarpus rigidus are currently known in Clark, Cowlitz or 

Lewis Counties, Washington (Figure II-12). The West Eugene Wetlands in Lane County 

has at least 16 sites with populations of Sericocarpus rigidus. 

Sericocarpus rigidus expands vegetatively, thus, it is difficult to distinguish genetically 

distinct individuals in the field (Gamon and Salstrom 1992). The largest known population 

in the Willamette Valley, on land managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers near Fern 

Ridge Reservoir in Lane County, was estimated at 1,001 to 10,000 flowering stems in 

1996. 

Life History and Ecology 

Populations of Sericocarpus rigidus consist of one to many clones of 50 to 1000 ramets; 

shoots emerge from creeping rhizomes in April, and flowering occurs in July and August 

(Gamon and Salstrom 1992). Reproduction probably occurs primarily through vegetative 

means; seedlings have only rarely been observed in the wild (Gamon and Salstrom 1992). 

The species is pollinated by insects; one butterfly and several types of bees have been 

observed visiting the flower (Gamon and Salstrom 1992). Populations in Washington are 

generally not limited by pollinators (Bigger 1999). Although some seed production results 

when pollinations occur within patches, seed set increases when pollen is moved among 

patches of plants (Giblin and Hamilton 1999), suggesting that inbreeding depression can 

limit sexual reproduction in this species. 
II-50
II-51

Habitat Characteristics 

Over most of its range, Sericocarpus rigidus is found in well-drained upland prairies, oak 

savannas and woodlands, but also occurs in wet prairie in Lane County (Alverson 1991). 

Populations are found at elevations of 30 to 175 meters (100 to 575 feet) above sea level, 

generally on clayey soils (Gamon and Salstrom 1992, Gisler 2004). The taxon has been 

found on very cobbly loam, very stony silt loam, silt loams, and silty clay loams and 

gravelly outwash soils (Gamon and Salstrom 1992). Soil associations include Dayton, 

Dixonville-Philomath-Hazelair complex, Natroy, Nekia, Salkum, Stayton, and Witzel. 

Associated species include Viola adunca (western violet), Potentilla sp. (cinquefoil), 

Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata (heal-all), Deschampsia cespitosa, Symphotrichum hallii, 

and Lomatium bradshawii (Meinke 1982). 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

As with all of the other species addressed in this recovery plan, habitat loss, alteration of 

disturbance regimes, and habitat invasion by trees, shrubs, and non-native weeds put this 

species at risk of continued declines (Gisler 2004). 

Conservation Measures 

Sericocarpus rigidus has been successfully propagated from seed and from rhizome 

cuttings (Gisler 2004). Attempts to transplant young plants into natural habitats have been 

most successful using rhizome cuttings (Kaye and Brandt 2005); in some studies, 

establishing new populations from seed has shown a low success rate (Clark et al. 2001, 

Kaye and Kuykendall 2001b). Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic 

Garden in Portland, Oregon (Berry Botanic Garden 2005). 

7. Sisyrinchium hitchcockii Henderson (Hitchcock's blue-eyed-grass) 

Conservation Status 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii is a perennial herb that has been identified by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office as a species of concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). It is not 

State listed in Oregon, but is on the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center List 1 

(taxa threatened with extinction throughout their range) (Oregon Natural Heritage 

Information Center 2007). Its taxonomy and physical description are summarized in 

Appendix F. 
II-52

Population Trends and Distribution 

There are four occurrence records in Lane County and five in Douglas County (Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center data 2006) (Figure II-13). Information is very sparse 

and of limited use in gauging population trends. Since potential habitat is declining, it is 

very likely that the plant species is also declining. 

Life History and Ecology 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii blooms mid-May into July. The species is pollinated by solitary 

bees in the Megachilidae family (Henderson 1976). 

Habitat Characteristics 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii has been documented in valley grassland and oak savannas from 

Humboldt County in northern California to the Willamette Valley, Oregon (Henderson 

1976). 

Threats/Reasons for Decline 

Willamette Valley and Umpqua Valley prairies and oak savannas, which are presumed to 

provide habitat for the species, are threatened by development (residential, industrial and 

agricultural). 

Conservation Measures 

Seeds of this species have been banked at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon 

(Berry Botanic Garden 2005). 
II-53

 
III-1

III. THREATS ASSESSMENT 

The major factors in the decline of western Oregon and southwestern Washington prairie 

species have been: (1) alteration of natural and human-mediated disturbance processes 

(e.g., fire and flooding) that maintained the early seral stage of the plant communities; (2) 

habitat conversion to agricultural landscapes through livestock grazing and croplands; (3) 

urbanization, which results in the permanent loss of native prairies; and (4) invasion by 

non-native plants (Altman et al. 2001, Wilson et al. 2003). The loss, degradation and 

fragmentation of prairies have had cascading effects to the species dependent on those 

habitats, resulting in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic diversity, reduced gene flow 

among populations, destruction of population structure, and increased susceptibility to local 

population extirpation caused by environmental catastrophes. 

An analysis of threats is an essential component of our listing, delisting, and 

reclassification decisions. Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act directs us to 

determine the status of species with respect to the following five factors: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 

range; 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

C. Disease or predation; 

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the continued existence of a species. 

The analyses conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that resulted in the listing of 

Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Sidalcea nelsoniana and Castilleja levisecta (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1988, 1993b, 1997, 2000a) assessed the threats to the species’ 

continued existence; habitat loss was considered to be one of the largest, and generally 

least reversible, of the causes of the species’ decline. Where populations of the species 

persist in the wild, we identified 24 distinct threats; each threat is described below, and is 

classified according to the five factors listed above. 
III-2

1. Conversion to non-habitat land uses (Factor A). Conversion of natural prairie 

habitats into non-urban uses, including agriculture, tree farms, golf courses, and other land 

uses, directly eliminates habitat of prairie plants and wildlife. 

2. Adjacent land use practices (Factor A). Exogenous impacts from nearby lands, 

which could include herbicide or insecticide drift, spreading invasive or noxious weeds, or 

escaped grazing animals, degrade prairie habitats by reducing the viability of remnant 

populations of prairie species. 

3. Historic management / disturbance (Factor A). The effects of past management, 

which have included plowing, cultivation or grazing, may continue to limit the 

productivity, suitability or quality of prairie habitats. 

4. Housing / urban development (Factor A). Permanent loss of habitat through 

conversion to urban and residential development has been identified as the single largest 

threat to the prairies of the region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). This is 

especially a concern where prairie habitat abuts existing urban areas, such as near the town 

of Dallas (Polk County, Oregon) and in the West Eugene Wetlands (Lane County, Oregon). 

5. Hydrologic alterations (Factor A). Changes in the natural hydrology of a site, such as 

by ditching or draining a wet prairie, can alter the annual duration of soil saturation, which 

in turn affects the species composition of the site. 

6. Improper prairie management (Factor A). Management practices to maintain native 

prairie composition and structure require proper timing and techniques to achieve desired 

results; although mowing, grazing and burning are techniques that can be useful in 

restoring native prairies, if applied at the wrong season, at the wrong frequency, or at the 

wrong scale, these activities could be detrimental to restoring native prairie species. 

7. Invasive species (Factor A). Invasive non-native species are a threat in virtually all 

known prairie remnants in the region. Invasive plant species dramatically change the 

structure of prairies, often forming tall, dense patches that shade out the natives, and 

compete for water and nutrients (Wilson et al. 2003). Among the most common and 

difficult-to-manage invasive plant species are Agrostis spp., Arrhenatherum elatius, 

Brachypodium sylvaticum, Centaurea x pratensis (meadow knapweed), Cytisus scoparius, 
III-3

Festuca arundinacea, Phalaris arundinacea, Pyrus communis, Rosa eglanteria and Rubus 

armeniacus. 

Moreover, transgenic glyphosate-resistant strains of Agrostis stolonifera (creeping 

bentgrass) that have recently been commercially developed for the golf course industry 

would pose a serious threat if they should escape into native prairie habitat or if herbicide 

resistance genes should be transferred by introgression into wild populations of Agrostis in 

western Oregon or southwestern Washington (Reichman et al. 2006; Kate Norman, pers. 

comm. 2010b). Field trials in central Oregon have documented pollen-mediated transfer of 

glyphosate resistance genes into Agrostis populations at distances up to 21 kilometers (13 

miles) (Watrud et al. 2004), as well as the persistence of high proportions of transgenic 

individuals despite eradication efforts (Zapiola et al. 2008). Because almost all remaining 

native prairie habitats in western Oregon and southwestern Washington are within a 21-

kilometer radius of a golf course or grass seed farm, it is unlikely that establishment of 

glyphosate-resistant Agrostis in prairie habitat can be reliably prevented if transgenic 

strains are commercially deployed in the region. The targeted use of herbicides is a 

critically important tool to control invasive plant species. Because glyphosate-based 

products are the only herbicides that are both labeled for use in wet areas and do not place 

non-target plant species at risk by moving in the soil, invasion of glyphosate-resistant 

Agrostis into wet prairie habitat would be difficult or impossible to counteract and could 

severely affect listed plant species. 

8. Isolation / fragmentation (Factor A). Destruction of prairie habitats throughout the 

region has resulted in the increased isolation and fragmentation of the remaining habitat 

patches, which has resulted in smaller population sizes, loss of genetic diversity, reduced 

gene flow among populations, disruption of metapopulation structure, and increased 

susceptibility to local population extirpation caused by environmental catastrophes. 

9. Road development / maintenance (Factor A). The species addressed in this recovery 

plan occur in many small, fragmented populations, many of which are adjacent to roads. 

Routine roadside maintenance generally involves herbicide application or mowing, which 

reduces or even eliminates populations. 

10. Utilities installation and maintenance (Factor A). Similar to roadside maintenance, 

clearing and maintaining utility corridors can directly remove or fragment populations. 
III-4

11. Timber harvest / silviculture / logging (Factor A). Conversion of native prairies to 

conifer plantations is a major threat. When sites are prepared for tree planting, soil 

disturbance and herbicide application are common activities which may negatively affect 

adjacent prairie habitats. Establishment of tree farms in or immediately adjacent to prairies 

will eventually shade out some habitat, and may also increase the effects of fragmentation, 

if insect pollinators are unable to travel through forested habitat. Ultimately, tree harvest 

can also cause intense habitat disturbance and may reduce the size or quality of adjacent 

prairies. However, selective cutting of invasive trees that are colonizing prairie may also 

be useful as a prairie restoration technique. 

12. Wildfire / burning (Factor A). Similar to improper prairie management, wildfires 

and intentional burning can be a negative force if applied at the wrong time of year, such as 

before the end of the growing season, if the fire destroys prairie plants before they set seed 

for the next growing season. 

13. Field research activities (Factor B). Increasing our knowledge of prairie ecology is 

vital to the successful restoration of the species covered in this recovery plan, however, 

research itself can be a threat. For example, increased foot traffic in fragile habitats may 

result in crushing sensitive plants or butterfly larvae, collection of specimens may further 

reduce small population sizes, and seeds of invasive plants may be carried in on boots or 

equipment. 

14. Recreation (Factor B). As attractive open spaces in a largely forested region, prairies 

attract human recreation, which can have negative effects. For example, off-road vehicles, 

hikers, cyclists and horses may crush or uproot plants or kill butterfly larvae, and seeds of 

invasive species may be spread by foot traffic, vehicle tires and horse manure. 

15. Over-collecting / poaching (Factor B). Rare butterflies are often the target of 

collectors, and the rarity of Fender’s blue butterfly makes it vulnerable to poaching; rare 

plants are less likely to be collected, although removal for herbarium specimens may be a 

concern. 

16. Herbivores / predators (Factor C). Herbivory and predation are a part of the natural 

life cycle of prairie plants and wildlife, respectively. These forces may become a threat, 

however, when populations are small, and loss of even a very few individuals affects the 

viability of the population. In some cases, prolific populations of native wildlife such as 

deer, gophers, and voles have had serious negative impacts to plant populations. 
III-5

17. Livestock grazing (Factor C). Grazing removes vegetative and reproductive plant 

structures, which can be destructive if it occurs at an inappropriate scale or time. Selective 

foraging on native plants may also lead to the dominance of less-palatable non-natives. 

Depending on the intensity of the grazing, and the type of livestock, the effect can also 

include substantial disturbance of the substrate; Fender’s blue butterfly larvae may also be 

trampled. Grazers also can increase the spread of non-native plant seeds into native 

habitats. 

18. Parasites (Factor C). Similar to the herbivore / predator threat, seed parasites, gallforming insects, and butterfly parasitoids are all a part of the natural environment. As 

populations of the listed prairie species become very small, parasites can reduce the 

viability of small populations, making them increasingly vulnerable to local extirpation. 

Non-native parasites introduced for agricultural purposes may also have unintended 

negative effects to rare species. 

19. Habitat vandalism (Factor D). The deliberate destruction of individuals or habitat 

occasionally occurs when rare species cause unpopular restrictions on use of public or 

private lands; although not a common occurrence, vandalism could further reduce habitat 

function and destroy individual plants or animals. 

20. Succession to native woody plants (Factor E). Among the most urgent threats to 

western prairies, succession to native shrublands or forest occurs when the historical prairie 

disturbance regime has been suppressed. Common native species that invade and 

ultimately take over prairie habitats in the absence of periodic disturbance include: 

Crataegus douglasii, Fraxinus latifolia, Quercus garryana, Pseudotsuga menziesii and 

Toxicodendron diversilobum. 

21. Impaired ecological functions (Factor E). Frequently an effect of fragmentation and 

isolation, impaired ecological function occurs when remnant prairie patches become too 

small to sustain adequate numbers of nectar or host plants for butterflies, and inter-patch 

distance exceeds the dispersal abilities of invertebrate pollinators of plants. The collapse or 

disruption of these processes may ultimately destroy remnant prairie patches. 

22. Small population size / low genetic variability (Factor E). Again, a frequent result 

of fragmentation and isolation is that small populations may be at risk of inbreeding 

depression; as patches get smaller and more separated from adjacent populations, the local 
III-6

pool of genetic material shrinks, potentially resulting in a loss of resilience to 

environmental change. Small populations are also at risk of extirpation due to stochastic 

events, such as unusually wet or dry years, or unseasonable fires. 

23. Pesticide use on-site (Factor E). Herbicides and insecticides, if not carefully applied, 

may have direct impacts to sensitive prairie species, or may have indirect impacts through 

damage to host plants or pollinators; in either case, the effects of improperly applied 

pesticides may further reduce population size. 

24. Hybridization (Factor E). 

Hybridization has been identified as a threat for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and 

Sidalcea nelsoniana. Hybrids of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Lupinus arbustus 

have been detected at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge. Interspecific hybridization 

between Sidalcea nelsoniana and the other Sidalcea species in the Willamette Valley, 

particularly with S. cusickii, is a concern; human-mediated dispersal of these taxa beyond 

their native ranges could allow hybridization. 

Many of the threats above are interconnected, resulting from widespread changes in land 

use and management associated with agricultural and urban development within prairie 

habitats of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. Without frequent disturbance, 

prairie habitats are naturally colonized by trees and become forest habitat through 

successional processes. Historically, Willamette Valley prairies were periodically burned, 

either by wildfires or by fires set by Native Americans (Johannessen et al. 1971). Since 

Euro-American settlers arrived, fire suppression has allowed shrubs and trees to invade 

grassland habitat. Common native shrub and tree species that encroach on undisturbed 

prairies include Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus garryana, Fraxinus latifolia, Crataegus 

douglasii and Toxicodendron diversilobum. One of the most significant threats to prairie 

species is this continued encroachment into prairie habitats by woody vegetation, which 

ultimately can replace the open prairies with woody plant communities. Moreover, prairies 

have been widely invaded by non-native plants, which shade out or crowd out important 

native species. Fast growing non-native shrubs (Rubus armeniacus and Cytisus scoparius), 

non-native grasses such as Agrostis sp. and Arrhenatherum elatius, and non-native forbs, 

such as Centaurea x pratensis, can form dense monocultures and virtually take over the 

prairies. This threat would be exacerbated if invading plants expressed herbicide-resistance 

genes that prevented land managers from controlling them with targeted use of herbicides. 

These plants compete for space, water and nutrients with the native prairie species. 

Ultimately, they inhibit the growth and reproduction of native prairie plants (e.g. Lupinus 
III-7

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, the larval host plant of Fender’s blue butterfly and native nectar 

sources are shaded out by non-native plants) (Hammond 1996, Schultz et al. 2003, Wilson 

et al. 2003). Thus, when highly invasive non-native plants become dominant they can 

effectively preclude butterflies from using the native plant species they need to survive and 

reproduce (Hammond 1996). Native plant seedling establishment is also inhibited by the 

dense thatch layer formed by non-native grasses; at many Willamette Valley sites, Sidalcea 

nelsoniana seedlings are excluded by such thatch layers (Gisler 2004). 

The extensive conversion of prairie habitat to agriculture, urban development, and other 

uses (such as tree farms, golf courses, and networks of roads and utility corridors) has 

directly reduced the amount of habitat available to prairie species, as well as fragmenting 

the remaining habitat into small patches that are isolated from one another and increasingly 

affected by spillover impacts of management and invasive plant populations on adjacent 

lands. Restriction of prairie habitat to small patches can result in a variety of adverse 

effects to native prairie species, including inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity; 

vulnerability to extinction from stochastic fluctuations in population size and demographic 

composition with small population size and lack of immigration; and the inability of 

patches to support viable populations of associated species such as pollinators, larval host 

plants, or nectar sources. Habitat fragmentation has isolated the remaining populations of 

Fender’s blue butterfly to such an extent that butterfly movement among suitable habitat 

patches may now occur only rarely (Schultz 1998). The rarity of host lupine patches and 

fragmentation of habitat are the major ecological factors limiting reproduction, dispersal, 

and subsequent colonization of new habitat (Hammond and Wilson 1992, 1993; Hammond 

1994; Schultz 1997; Schultz and Dlugosch 1999). Extirpation of remaining small 

populations is expected from localized events and probable low genetic diversity associated 

with small populations (Schultz and Hammond 2003). 

Drift of herbicides and insecticides from nearby applications can affect Fender’s blue 

butterfly and listed plant species either directly or indirectly through effects on various 

pollinators, larval host plants, and nectar sources. Fender’s blue butterflies may be 

threatened by the application of pesticides used to control invertebrates that pose a threat to 

human health or agricultural products. The Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Gypsy 

Moth Eradication Program sprays Btk (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki) whenever an 

infestation of the non-native gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is detected (Oregon 

Department of Agriculture 2006). Btk, a bacterium which is lethal to all butterfly and moth 

larvae, has been shown to drift at toxic concentrations over 3 kilometers (2 miles) from the 

point of application (Barry et al. 1993). The state’s gypsy moth control program could 
III-8

incidentally kill Fender’s blue butterfly larvae when Btk is sprayed near a Fender’s blue 

butterfly population. There is evidence that Btk application in the Northwest has reduced 

populations of non-target butterflies (Black et al. 2002). 

The application of mosquito adulticides to control the spread of West Nile Virus also poses 

the risk of incidental harm to Fender’s blue butterflies. The Oregon Department of Human 

Services’ program to control West Nile Virus focuses on reduction of breeding habitat for 

the mosquito carriers of the disease and the use of larvicides to kill mosquito larvae 

(Oregon Department of Human Services 2006); however, the program recognizes that there 

are some instances in which the use of mosquito adulticides (e.g., Malathion and 

pyrethrins) is justified (Oregon Department of Human Services 2003). The pesticides used 

to kill adult mosquitoes are also lethal to other invertebrates, including Fender’s blue 

butterflies. The potential for pesticide drift in lethal concentrations is of concern when 

habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly is nearby. 

The human population density and urban development in the Willamette Valley have 

resulted in increased recreational pressure and potential for vandalism in prairie habitat. 

Hikers, cyclists, horseback riders, and off-road vehicles can affect prairie species through 

trampling, erosion, and introduction of weed seeds. The presence of nearby improvements 

and population centers also contributes to restrictions on the use of habitat management 

methods such as prescribed burning. 

Most of the land in the Willamette Valley is privately owned, and many of the remaining 

populations of rare prairie species occur on private lands. Plant populations occurring on 

private lands are particularly vulnerable to threats of development, because state and 

Federal plant protection laws have little effect on private lands. Effective cooperation with 

private landowners, both those with property supporting prairie species and those on 

adjoining lands, is crucial for conservation and recovery of native prairie species. 

The Recovery Team and a group of experts familiar with the rare species and habitats in 

the region reviewed the threats to the listed species at each known remaining site (Table 

III-1). The threats most frequently identified as severe were: (1) invasive species, (2) 

small population size / low genetic variability, (3) succession to native woody plants, (4) 

impaired ecological function, and (5) isolation / fragmentation. These rankings reflect the 

general assessment by Altman et al. (2001) that alteration of the natural and historical 

disturbance regime and loss of prairie habitats to development have resulted in small, 

fragmented populations of increasingly rare species threatened by continued degradation of 
III-9

the natural processes needed to maintain their native habitats. Castilleja levisecta is not 

shown in Table III-1 because no wild populations of the species are known to exist in the 

area covered by this recovery plan. 

Recovery of Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium 

bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Sidalcea nelsoniana and Castilleja levisecta

will focus on controlling and reversing the threats to the species and their habitats. 

Conservation recommendations for candidate and other nonlisted species addressed in this 

recovery plan (Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium 

oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus 

rigidus and Sisyrinchium hitchcockii) will seek to protect and restore populations and 

habitats to preclude the further decline of these species, and possibly the eventual need to 

list them as threatened or endangered. 
III-10

Table III-1. Threat matrix. Threats are evaluated at all sites and pooled for each species. Severest threats for 

each species shown as “XX”. See text for description of threats.

Listing Species* 

Factor 

Threat 

BLUE LUSUKI ERDEDE SINE LOBR 

On-site agriculture conversion and 

management practices 

XX X X X 

Adjacent land use practices XX X X X X 

Historic management / disturbance XX X X X 

Housing / urban development XX X X X X 

Hydrologic alterations X X X X X 

Improper prairie management X X X X X 

Invasive species XX X XX XX XX 

Isolation / fragmentation XX X X X X 

Road development / maintenance X X X X X 

Utilities installation and 

maintenance 

X X X X X 

Timber harvest / silviculture / 

logging 

X X X X 

A 

Wildfire / burning X X X X X 

Field research activities X X X X 

B Recreation X X X X X 

Over-collecting / poaching X X 

Herbivores / predators X X X X 

C Livestock grazing X X X X X 

Parasites X X 

D Habitat vandalism X X X X X 

Succession to native woody plants XX X XX XX XX 

Impaired ecological functions XX X X X X 

Small population size / low genetic 

variability 

XX XX X X XX 

Pesticide use on-site X X X X X 

E 

Hybridization X X 

*Key to species abbreviations: 

BLUE = Fender's blue butterfly 

LUSUKI = Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 

ERDEDE = Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 

SINE = Sidalcea nelsoniana 

LOBR = Lomatium bradshawii
 

IV-1

IV. RECOVERY 

A. RECOVERY STRATEGY AND RATIONALE 

1. Overview 

An endangered species is “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species is “any species which is likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range” (Endangered Species Act, Section 3). It follows then that a species will no longer be 

considered threatened or endangered once the degree of risk to the species has been reduced to 

the point that it is no longer in danger of extinction (or likely to become so) throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and it is likely to remain at this low degree of risk into the 

foreseeable future. The fundamental precept of any recovery strategy must therefore be focused 

on reducing extinction risk and ensuring the persistence of the species. The first step in this 

process is identifying the possible sources of risk as well as the factors that influence the longterm viability of a species. 

The threats analyses conducted for the listing determinations and in section III above showed 

that all of the listed species addressed in this plan have declined as their native prairie habitats 

have been destroyed, fragmented and degraded. Recovery for the listed prairie species of 

western Oregon and southwestern Washington will require restoration and maintenance of 

prairie habitats, protection and enhancement of populations, and management to maintain 

ecosystem functions, including healthy pollinator populations. The recovery plan calls for 

multiple viable populations of the listed prairie species in protected habitats distributed across 

their historical ranges. We consider a viable population to be one that has sufficient numbers, 

population trend and distribution of reproductive individuals so as to provide a high likelihood of 

persisting into the foreseeable future despite demographic, genetic and environmental 

uncertainties, including random catastrophic events. 

The recovery strategy, criteria and actions proposed in this recovery plan are based on the 

following fundamental concepts for reducing the risk of extinction and ensuring, to the extent 

possible, the persistence of the species into the foreseeable future: 

1. Reduce or eliminate the systematic threats to the species identified and described in 

section III (Threats Assessment); 
 

IV-2

2. Reduce risk from random, chance events (demographic, environmental, and genetic 

uncertainties) and natural catastrophes by: 

a. ensuring that populations are at or above the minimum population targets; and 

b. increasing the probability of persistence into the foreseeable future by ensuring 

the preservation of multiple potentially interacting populations distributed across 

each species’ historical range; 

3. Conserve genetic variability within the species to provide for both short-term fitness 

and the preservation of the evolutionary potential for the species to adapt to changing 

conditions; 

4. Provide for long-term survival of the species by: 

a. protecting and securing habitat sufficient to support the target population sizes 

and maintain connectivity between subpopulations; 

b. restoring and maintaining high quality, diverse prairie habitats dominated by 

native species and with healthy native pollinator populations through active 

management; 

c. monitoring populations to ensure that population trends are generally stable or 

increasing and to provide feedback for adaptive management; and 

d. for the plant species, seed banking in an appropriate repository to provide a backup supply of genetic stock that represents as much of the available genetic 

diversity within the species as possible. 

A key component of the recovery strategy is the maintenance of populations of each species 

distributed across its historical range. Nunney and Campbell (1993) suggest a conservation 

strategy of protecting and maintaining multiple reserves for each species, each supporting at least 

the estimated minimum viable population size and containing heterogeneous habitat that 

effectively divides the population into subpopulations. Populations that are represented at 

multiple sites in this way have a greater chance of being buffered from the negative effects of 
 

IV-3

environmental variation, have a reduced chance of being simultaneously eliminated by a single 

catastrophic event, and stand a better chance of achieving natural levels of gene flow and 

maintaining ecological processes (Simberloff and Abele 1982, Soulé and Simberloff 1986, 

Simberloff 1988, Menges 1991, Fahrig and Merriam 1994, Neel and Cummings 2003). 

Maintaining the potential for occasional genetic exchange among units of a subdivided 

population is critical to long-term fitness; as few as one migrant per generation among 

subpopulations can maintain the essential level of gene flow (Newman and Tallmon 2001, Wang 

2004). In addition, to ensure retention of allelic and genotypic diversity, populations should be 

conserved across the geographic range of the species, as reciprocal transplant studies often show 

local adaptive differentiation in plant populations (Waser and Price 1985, Hamrick et al. 1991). 

Neel and Cummings (2003) found that from 53 to 100 percent of populations are needed to 

capture all alleles and meet the genetic diversity conservation standard of the Center for Plant 

Conservation. Multiple reserve populations distributed across the range of the species also 

provide for variation in habitat quality or community structure (Shaffer 1981). We have divided 

the geographic area covered by this recovery plan into 10 recovery zones (Figure IV-1), which 

will provide a framework for establishing populations of listed species across their historical 

ranges. 

While the recovery strategy for the listed species in this plan emphasizes maintenance of 

populations on permanently-protected parcels with conservation-oriented management plans in 

place, habitats that are not permanently protected will also perform a function as connections 

between subpopulations, stepping stones, and buffers around protected habitats. For example, 

habitats for listed species that are covered under the Safe Harbor Agreement program of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service can advance the recovery of listed species by providing conservation on 

private or other non-Federal properties. Actions taken under a Safe Harbor Agreement must 

provide a net conservation benefit that contributes to the recovery of the covered species, 

although the agreement does not have to provide permanent conservation for the enrolled 

property. Examples of the conservation benefits of Safe Harbor Agreements may include 

reduced habitat fragmentation; maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of existing habitats; 

increases in habitat connectivity; stabilized or increased numbers or distribution; the creation of 

buffers for protected areas; and opportunities to test and develop new habitat management 

techniques. Safe Harbor Agreements are an important conservation tool for engaging private 

landowners in recovery of listed prairie species in the region. 
 

IV-4

F 
 

IV-5

The recovery criteria for the listed species covered in this recovery plan focus on the importance 

of protecting existing populations. However, maintenance of suitable but currently unoccupied 

habitats is also important to recovery of rare species that occur in a mosaic of occupied and 

unoccupied suitable habitats. In this context, it is likely that only a subset of the available habitat 

will be occupied at any given time, and distribution of populations will shift as habitat conditions 

change. Currently, recovery actions focus on managing occupied patches, however it is also 

important to preserve the regional and local dynamics of patchy populations by protecting areas 

that could be occupied in the future as habitat suitability changes over time (Freckleton and 

Watkinson 2002). 

Although this recovery plan provides estimates of the minimum population sizes by which to 

gauge probable long-term persistence and viability of the populations, it should be recognized 

that the numbers of individuals for these disturbance-adapted species naturally vary widely from 

year-to-year depending upon environmental conditions. This means that the suggested minimum 

population numbers are meant to serve as a general index of population viability when 

considered in conjunction with the other criteria for prairie management, connectivity, quality 

and diversity, rather than as an absolute stand-alone threshold to be met for recovery. The 

Recovery Team considers that protection and appropriate management of the habitat for 

restoration and maintenance of native prairies is of greater importance than the absolute total 

numbers of individuals present in each recovery zone. 

An essential component of prairie quality is the presence of healthy pollinator populations. 

Pollinator ecology in these ecosystems is not well known, but at a minimum, maintenance of 

nesting sites (e.g., bare ground, woody structure adjacent to prairie habitat) and a wide diversity 

of flowering plants will provide important habitat elements for native pollinating insects, which 

are essential to the survival of the listed plant species addressed here. Additional research into 

the specific pollinators of the listed plants, and the habitat needs of the pollinators is identified in 

the Recovery Actions section below. 

While the widespread loss and degradation of prairie ecosystems in western Oregon and 

southwestern Washington has been the key factor underlying the decline of the plant and animal 

species associated with these communities, changing climate will place an even greater stress on 

the region’s prairie habitats and the species that depend on them. The Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that recent warming is already strongly affecting 

terrestrial biological systems (IPCC 2007); this is evident in earlier timing of spring events such 

as migration and egg-laying, and in poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal distribution 
 

IV-6

(IPCC 2007). The IPCC has further concluded that the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to 

be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated 

disturbances (e.g., flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global 

change drivers (IPCC 2007). Projections for the Willamette Valley include a rate of climate 

change that exceeds the ability of native species to adapt and an increase in invasive species that 

compete with native species (Climate Leadership Initiative and the National Center for 

Conservation Science and Policy 2009). 

 

Although climate change is almost certain to affect prairie habitats, there is great uncertainty 

about the direction and specific effects of climate change on listed prairie species. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has developed a strategic plan to address the threat of climate change to 

vulnerable species and ecosystems; goals of this plan include maintaining ecosystem integrity by 

protecting and restoring key ecological processes such as pollination, seed dispersal, nutrient 

cycling, natural disturbance cycles and predator-prey relationships (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2009c). Our recovery program will implement these goals by attempting to establish 

conditions that allow populations of target species to be resilient to changing environmental 

conditions and to persist as viable populations into the future. The recovery goals for the listed 

species covered by this recovery plan will stress maintaining large populations distributed across 

their entire historical range, with management plans focusing on protecting sites with high 

habitat heterogeneity and a range of elevations. Maintenance of large populations is essential to 

buffering environmental variation and ensuring the continuation of evolutionary processes (Traill 

et al. 2010); habitat heterogeneity and elevational gradients within reserves will provide a large 

range of microhabitats, and therefore will allow for the greatest amount of internal species 

movement under changing environmental conditions (Halpin 1997). Additional recovery actions 

to address climate change will focus on monitoring species status and response to changing 

conditions, and seeking expert input and consensus on recommendations to prepare for future 

environmental change. 

2. Fender’s Blue Butterfly 

In this section, we describe the foundation for determining target abundance goals and 

distribution across recovery zones for recovery of Fender’s blue butterfly. Schultz and 

Hammond (2003) investigated population viability using diffusion approximation methods 

developed by Dennis et al. (1991). These methods predict extinction risk based on mean 

population growth rate, variance in growth rate and population size. Extinction risk is highly 

sensitive to variability in population growth rate. Schultz and Hammond (2003) estimated that 
 

IV-7

Fender’s blue butterfly populations experience very high variance in population growth rate 

(0.112 to 1.715). Maintaining populations with variance this high requires mean population 

growth rates to be comparably high (in the range of 1.4 or higher; Schultz and Hammond 

2003). However, the variation in population growth rate is, biologically, a combination of 

demographic and environmental stochasticity. As populations get larger, the influence of 

demographic stochasticity declines, so the overall variance in growth rate declines. Thus, at 

population sizes large enough to have a low extinction risk, a somewhat lower variance in 

population growth rate can reasonably be assumed. 

 

Based on the population viability model for the Fender’s blue butterfly, Schultz and Hammond 

(2003) concluded that recovery of the species would require a minimum average growth rate of 

1.55 at three independent sites in each of three zones that span the species’ historical range. This 

recommendation is based on the minimum growth rate needed for a 95 percent probability that at 

least one site survives 100 years given an initial population size of 300 individuals, a variance in 

population growth rate of 0.79 and three independent sites (Schultz and Hammond 2003). A key 

assumption of this modeling effort was that within-patch extinction is irreversible; that is, once a 

population disappears, recolonization is impossible. This assumption represents the worst case 

scenario, and as the recommendations in this recovery plan are implemented, permanent patch 

extinction would likely become the exception rather than the rule. Recovery tasks identified in 

the Recovery Actions section below emphasize establishing connections among populations with 

stepping-stone habitats to allow natural recolonization; population reintroduction and 

augmentation programs may also be developed as part of the recovery effort for the species. 

The importance of patch size as it relates to population persistence has also been investigated 

recently. A model was used to evaluate the likelihood of population persistence of 12 existing 

populations of Fender’s blue butterfly; the population that had the highest probability of 

persisting 100 years was an isolated one at Butterfly Meadows in the McDonald State Forest, a 

large (5-hectare [12-acre]) site (Schultz and Hammond 2003). Crone and Schultz (2003) 

concluded that Fender’s blue butterfly requires patches of at least 2 - 6 hectares (5 -15 acres) to 

persist in the absence of immigration from other patches. The most conservative estimate of 

minimum patch size (6 hectares [15 acres]) should be sufficient to buffer against environmental 

factors and high stochastic variance in growth rates. 

A more recent study modeled the existing patchwork of Fender’s blue butterfly populations and 

fragmented prairie habitats in the West Eugene Wetlands area to evaluate the region’s potential 

to support a viable population of the species (McIntire et al. 2007). This study assumed that all 
 

IV-8

historical upland prairies in the region could be restored to high quality habitat, and concluded 

that management of existing habitats, restoration of degraded sites and establishing connectivity 

among sites could support a very large viable population of Fender’s blue butterflies, which 

would be sufficient for long-term persistence of the species in the Eugene area. 

In order to set downlisting and delisting goals for Fender’s blue butterfly populations, 

new modeling was done to establish targets based on minimum, rather than average, population 

levels (Cheryl Schultz, Washington State University, Vancouver, pers. comm., 2009). Targets 

based on minimum population size relate directly to minimum acceptable extinction risk and 

avoid the “noise” inherent in averaging population counts across years, which can mask 

potentially large variations due to environmental stochasticity. Minimum population size is also 

a less expensive and labor-intensive metric of population status than are average population 

counts; population monitoring can be considered completed when the minimum number of adult 

butterflies is detected, rather than continuing with an exhaustive effort to do a complete count of 

the population. A simple diffusion approximation model (Dennis et al. 1991) was used to 

calculate extinction probabilities, using population data collected at The Nature Conservancy’s 

Willow Creek Preserve in the Main Area. This data set was chosen because it has been 

consistently collected for over 15 years, and long-term management has produced high quality 

habitat at the site (Fitzpatrick and Elias 2007). The model calculated the probability that each 

subpopulation within a network would persist using single-population extinction probabilities, 

Pe, for subpopulations with N butterflies each; the model then calculated the probability that the 

network would persist as 1- Pe M, where M (metapopulation size) is the number of 

subpopulations, which assumes subpopulations are independent and is reasonable based on 

McIntire et al. (2007). The minimum population size for each network was calculated as N × M 

(i.e., the number of butterflies per subpopulation multiplied by the number of subpopulations). 

This modeling allows us to establish downlisting and delisting criteria tied to specific extinction 

probabilities (e.g., a 5 percent extinction probability equates to 95 percent probability of 

persistence for the species over the next 100 years). The model output provides a range of 

options (various combinations of networks and independent populations) that would achieve the 

desired persistence probability in each recovery zone. This strategy explicitly takes advantage of 

the benefits of multiple networks and independent populations by spreading the risk of stochastic 

events such as fire and exotic species invasions, as well as providing plentiful habitat 

heterogeneity (i.e., shady sites or north-facing aspects may be better in hotter years, open sites or 

south-facing aspects may fare better in cooler years). 
 

IV-9

It is important to note that setting goals using a minimum population count, as discussed above, 

does not mean managing for small populations. In every case, the minimum population count 

over a given period of years used in the recovery criteria corresponds to a substantially larger 

average population size over that time period. For example, over a period of 10 years, a network 

that has a minimum count of 1,000 adult butterflies (i.e., the population count in each of 10 

consecutive years never falls below 1,000 individuals) would likely have an average count of 

approximately 6,000 adult butterflies. In contrast, if we set targets using the average population 

count over 10 years, years with very large counts would mask the large variance inherent in an 

invertebrate population, and the result could be that we would ignore years with very low 

population counts, which might have important implications for the probability of population 

persistence. 

We have used the results of this new modeling to set population targets for downlisting and 

delisting of Fender’s blue butterfly. We recognize, however, that counts of adult Fender’s blue 

butterflies during the brief flight season are an imperfect method for tracking the populations, 

because the species is difficult to count, surveys require a high level of field experience, and bad 

weather during the flight season often results in incomplete counts (Fitzpatrick 2009). Another 

concern is that the cost of surveying the large number of widely scattered populations has 

already exceeded the available budgets of some land managers. In the future we may evaluate 

other methods of tracking population size that use metrics other than adult counts. Our recovery 

targets may be revised in the future based on new data and refined modeling. 

In this recovery plan, we attempt to adapt these theoretical models to practical application. To 

do so, we begin with these principles: 1) that recovery of Fender’s blue butterfly will require 

large interconnected populations in a complex environment, and 2) that these populations must 

occur on protected sites managed for high quality prairie habitat. Variance in population growth 

rate is normally high for insect populations; stochastic factors, especially variation in weather 

from year to year, will periodically reduce population numbers. Given this, maintaining high 

quality habitats and connectivity among sites will be critical to allow Fender’s blue butterfly 

populations to rebound after bad weather years. 

Fender’s blue butterfly is listed as endangered. In the recovery program for the species, we set 

goals for downlisting and delisting. Recovery goals for downlisting and delisting differ both 

quantitatively and qualitatively. Goals for downlisting to threatened will focus on protecting 

existing populations, securing the habitat and managing for high quality prairie habitats. Goals 

for delisting will focus on creating new populations, expanding existing populations, managing 
 

IV-10

for larger and more connected populations, and maintaining robust populations which will likely 

persist in a variable environment over the long term. 

We set recovery targets for the Fender’s blue butterfly in terms of “functioning networks” and 

independent populations. A functioning network is the term we use to describe a metapopulation 

that consists of several potentially interacting subpopulations of Fender’s blue butterfly 

distributed across a landscape. A functioning network must be composed of three or more 

subpopulations, each occupying habitat of at least the minimum patch size (currently defined as 

6 hectares [15 acres]) and separated by no more than the maximum separation distance (currently 

defined as approximately 2 kilometers [1.2 miles]) from the next nearest subpopulation or 

connected by stepping-stone patches of lupine less than 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) apart. We set the 

maximum distance separating subpopulations within a functioning network based on the known 

flight distance of an adult Fender’s blue butterfly; this distance is currently understood to be 

about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) (Schultz 1998). Small patches of lupine and nectar plants may 

form stepping stones between more distant subpopulations; these patches should be less than 1 

kilometer (0.6 mile) apart. There is no minimum size necessary for a patch to function as a 

stepping stone, as long as the patch contains both lupine and nectar plants and the intervening 

habitats are relatively free from barriers to butterfly movement. If, at some point in the future, 

functioning networks merge such that two networks become one larger network, the intent of 

these criteria would still be met. An independent population is an isolated population that meets 

certain minimum size and habitat quality criteria, and which would be likely to persist in the 

long-term. An independent population must be at least the minimum patch size (currently 

defined as 6 hectares [15 acres]). 

Populations must be distributed across the historical range of the species. Three recovery zones 

have been delineated for Fender’s blue butterfly that encompass the historical range: Salem 

(combines the Salem East and Salem West recovery zones), Corvallis (combines the Corvallis 

East and Corvallis West recovery zones), and Eugene (combines the Eugene East and Eugene 

West recovery zones) (Figure IV-2). 
 

IV-11

F 
 

IV-12

To downlist Fender’s blue butterfly to threatened, we set an extinction risk threshold of 90 

percent probability of persistence for 25 years; we believe this is consistent with the standard for 

classifying a species as threatened (“...likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” Endangered Species Act, Section 3). To 

achieve this standard, each recovery zone must have two functioning networks or one 

functioning network and two independent populations. One functioning network in each 

recovery zone must meet a minimum population criterion (a count of 200 adult butterflies) each 

year for at least 10 years; the 200 butterflies should be distributed among the subpopulation sites 

in the network. Two functioning networks or one functioning network and two independent 

populations in each zone must be protected and managed for high quality prairie habitat; see 

section B below for specific criteria and Figure IV-3 for a schematic illustration of this concept. 

To delist Fender’s blue butterfly, we set an extinction risk threshold of 95 percent probability of 

persistence for 100 years; we believe this is consistent with the standard for recovery (i.e., to 

reduce the degree of risk to the species to the point that it is no longer in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become so, throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and it is likely to remain 

at this low degree of risk into the foreseeable future). This standard may be achieved with a 

variety of combinations of networks and independent populations in each recovery zone. The 

conservation opportunities differ in each of the three recovery zones for the Fender’s blue 

butterfly, thus rather than establish a one-size-fits-all standard, we modeled several combinations 

of networks and independent populations; this allows the recovery program to assess 

conservation opportunities as they become available. Each recovery zone will likely have a 

unique combination of networks and independent populations (see Figure IV-4 for potential 

functioning networks and independent populations in each zone). A substantial portion of each 

functioning network and independent population must be protected and managed for high quality 

prairie habitat; see section B below for specific criteria. 

As described in the paragraphs above, we set downlisting and delisting criteria in terms of 

extinction risk thresholds of 90 and 95 percent probability of persistence, respectively. The 

Endangered Species Act does not specify, nor has the Service established, standard extinction 

risk thresholds for recovery. In the case of the Fender’s blue butterfly, the Recovery Team 

determined, based on recent viability analysis modeling of the best available data, that these 

population goals were appropriate to meet the standards for downlisting to threatened or delisting 

(i.e., removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants). We do 

not mean to imply that these extinction risk thresholds should be applied to other species unless a 

similar rigorous analysis of the data is conducted. 
 

IV-13

Fig
 

IV-14

Fi
 

IV-15

The Recovery Team has identified potential functioning networks and independent populations 

of the Fender’s blue butterfly (Table IV-1, Figure IV-4); these areas are those that we currently 

understand to have the greatest potential for supporting viable populations of Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Nine of the potential functioning networks build on designated critical habitat units for 

Fender’s blue butterfly; these units were identified as “the largest, best quality sites that 

significantly contribute to both local metapopulation function and rangewide distribution” (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). Thus, critical habitat units are a logical starting point for 

development of functioning networks for Fender’s blue butterfly recovery. Several of the 

potential sites do not currently support populations of Fender’s blue butterfly, and would require 

reintroduction. It is important to note that there may be additional, currently unidentified sites 

that could also contribute to recovery by supporting a functioning network of Fender’s blue 

butterflies. Recovery will not necessarily be limited to the establishment of functioning 

networks at the specific sites named in this recovery plan. 
 

IV-16

Table IV-1. Potential Functioning Networks and Independent Populations for Fender’s blue butterfly recovery. 

Recovery 

Zone 

Population 

FN = Functioning Network 

IP = Independent Population

Constituent Sites 

Protection Status 

0 = None 

1 = Safe Harbor Agreement 

2 = Public ownership 

3 = Conservation easement

Notes 

(habitat information, 

ownership1

 and alternate 

site names) 

Areas 1-4 1 Private & County; 

Hammond Areas 1-5 

Hacker Road 2 County 

Area 5 1 

Lupine only; 

Private, enrolled in 

SHA 

Oak Ridge (FN) 

Old Moores Valley Road 2 County 

Yamhill Oaks Preserve 3 TNC & County 

roadside 

Area 1 0 Private & County; 

Hammond Area 1 

Deer Creek Park 2 County 

Gopher Valley (FN) 

Muddy Valley 1 Not currently occupied 

Private 

On Refuge Areas 1-10 2 USFWS; 

Hammond Areas 1-10 

Baskett Butte East 1 3 Private 

Baskett Butte East 2 3 Private 

Baskett (FN) 

Baskett Butte North 1 Private 

Monmouth Road (IP) Monmouth Road 2 

Surrounding area not 

surveyed; Private & 

ODOT roadside patch 

McTimmonds Valley (IP) McTimmonds Valley 2 

Surrounding area not 

surveyed; Private & 

ODOT roadside patch 

Dallas (IP) Areas 1-4 1 (partial coverage) Private; Hammond 

Areas 1-4 

Area 1 2 Surrounding area not 

surveyed; ODOT 

Salem 

Mill Creek (IP) 

Area 2 0 Private; Hammond 

Areas 1-2 

Sites 1-10 1 & 3 on various areas 

Private; Hammond 

areas 1-7, 

Isaacs Area 8, Howell 

Area 9, Elks Rifle 

Range Area 10 

Wren (FN) 

Powerline 2 BPA 

Fitton Green (IP or FN) Fitton Green 2 Lupine introduced; 

County 

Corvallis 

Lone Star (IP or FN) Lone Star 3 

No lupine currently, 

but site is managed for 

FBB; Greenbelt Land 

Trust 
 

IV-17

Table IV-1. Potential Functioning Networks and Independent Populations for Fender’s blue butterfly recovery. 

Recovery 

Zone 

Population 

FN = Functioning Network 

IP = Independent Population

Constituent Sites 

Protection Status 

0 = None 

1 = Safe Harbor Agreement 

2 = Public ownership 

3 = Conservation easement

Notes 

(habitat information, 

ownership1

 and alternate 

site names) 

Lupine Meadows (IP) Lupine Meadows 3 Greenbelt Land Trust 

Butterfly Meadows 

(IP or FN) Areas 1 - 11 2 on small piece & 0 OSU & Private 

Henkle Way Area 1 0 & 2 Private & County 

Hwy 34 2 Fender’s found in 

2009; ODOT 

Area 2 0 Fender’s found in 

2009; Private 

Greasy Creek (FN) 

Area 3 0 Fender’s found in 

2009; Private 

E.E. Wilson 2 Lupine only, no 

Fender’s; ODFW 

Camp Adair 2 

Lupine only, no 

Fender’s; National 

Guard 

North Benton County 

(IP or FN) 

Soap Creek Ranch 2 Fender’s eggs found in 

2007 and 2009; OSU 

Finley (IP) William L. Finley National 

Wildlife Refuge 2 Lupine only, no Fender’s; USFWS 

Main 2 BLM 

RFI 10 N 2 BLM 

RFI 10 S 2 BLM Oak Basin (IP) 

Area 4 1 Private 

North Ridge 0 Private 

Saddle 3 on approx. 3/4 & 0 on 

1⁄4 

TNC & Private 

West Slope 3 TNC 

Coburg (FN) 

South Slope 3 TNC 

Bond Butte 2 ODOT Bond Butte (IP) Bond Butte 0 Private 

Fir Grove (previously Burn 

Area) 3 TNC 

Willow Creek Bailey Hill 3 TNC 

Willow Creek Main 3 TNC 

Willow Creek (FN) 

Willow Creek North Area 3 TNC 

Big Spires 2 ACOE 

Eaton Lane (N & S) 2 ACOE 

Fir Butte 2 BLM 

N. Fisher Butte 2 ACOE 

N. Green Oaks 2 ACOE 

S. Green Oaks 2 ACOE 

Eugene 

West Eugene (FN) 

Oxbow West 2 BLM 
 

IV-18

Table IV-1. Potential Functioning Networks and Independent Populations for Fender’s blue butterfly recovery. 

Recovery 

Zone 

Population 

FN = Functioning Network 

IP = Independent Population

Constituent Sites 

Protection Status 

0 = None 

1 = Safe Harbor Agreement 

2 = Public ownership 

3 = Conservation easement

Notes 

(habitat information, 

ownership1

 and alternate 

site names) 

Horkelia Prairie 2 

Eggs first documented 

in 2004; larvae 

documented in 2009; 

ACOE 

Shore Lane 2 ACOE 

Spires Lane E & W 2 ACOE 

Isabelle 2 Eggs only; Eugene 

West Lawn Cemetery 0 Lupine only, no 

Fender’s; Private 

Turtle swale 2 Eggs only in 2004; 

BLM 

Dragonfly Bend 2 Lupine only, no 

Fender’s; Eugene 

Briggs Site easement 3 

Planted lupine in 2007 

& 2008; no Fender’s; 

BLM 

Hillaire Rd. 0 Lupine only, no 

Fender’s; Private 

Schultz Experiment site 2 2 Lupine only, no 

Fender’s; BLM 

Royal Amazon 2 

Lupine only; these 

sites could connect one 

large network in 

Eugene zone; ACOE 

N. Greenhill 2 Lupine only, no 

Fender’s: BLM 1 Abbreviations: 

ACOE = Army Corps of Engineers 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management 

BPA = Bonneville Power Administration

ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 

ODOT = Oregon Dept. of Transportation 

OSU = Oregon State University 

TNC = The Nature Conservancy 

USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3. Prairie Plants 

(a) Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana

In this section, we describe the foundation for determining target abundance goals and 

distribution across recovery zones for recovery of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, 

Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana. The 

Recovery Team developed a basic model to determine how many populations of each species 
 

IV-19

should be required for delisting. One premise of this exercise was that for recovery to occur, a 

sufficient number of healthy populations should be present to ensure a very high likelihood that a 

species will survive for at least 100 years. The model examined species extinction risk as a 

function of the number of populations and the risk of individual population extinction. The 

Recovery Team agreed that the risk of species extinction over a century should be no greater 

than 0.1 percent. The team also felt that for most individual populations, a 100-year extinction 

probability of 60 percent was a conservative estimate. With these values, the model predicted 

that at least 14 populations would be sufficient for species maintenance (Figure IV-5). The 

model assumed that extinction risk is not correlated among populations; that is, population 

declines across the range of a species are independent. This assumption may not be valid for 

regional non-population-specific threats, such as climate change or vole outbreaks, but the 

Recovery Team agreed that the model provided a useful conceptual tool for gauging the relative 

importance of population number and local extinction risk on species recovery. If significant 

autocorrelation among populations were to occur, the number of populations necessary to stave 

off extinction would need to be higher. Also, if the actual risk of individual population 

extinction was lower than 60 percent, which would result from habitat management and 

protection activities, the number of populations could be lower. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0 5 10 15 20

no. populations

Species extinction risk

Population EP=30%

Population EP=40%

Population EP=50%

Population EP=60%

Population EP=70%

Figure IV-5. Effect of population number on species extinction risk, given levels of extinction probability (EP) of 

individual populations ranging from 30 percent to 70 percent. 
 

IV-20

The Recovery Team elected to build in additional redundancy and set a target of 20 populations 

spread across a species’ range as the goal for recovery. There should be at least 2 populations in 

each recovery zone for which historical data indicate that the species occurred, although there 

may be a few exceptions for zones in which limited conservation opportunities exist. These 

targets will provide a substantial safeguard against extinction for the listed plant species. If new 

information on individual population extinction risks, differences in risks among populations, 

and correlations among populations is developed as part of the recovery program, the model 

results may be updated to refine the recovery guidelines. See Figures IV-6, IV-7, IV-8 and IV-9 

and Appendix B, Table B-1 for the current known distribution of plant populations by recovery 

zone. 

Critical habitat has been designated for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). Designated critical habitat 

units for these species were identified as “the largest, best quality sites that significantly 

contribute to both local metapopulation function and rangewide distribution” 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006a). Thus, in recovery zones with designated critical habitat, 

critical habitat units are a logical core for recovery populations of Erigeron decumbens var.

decumbens and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. 

The Recovery Team’s analysis did not establish the minimum size of populations needed to 

confer a low risk of population extinction. However, by reviewing their collective professional 

experience, the Recovery Team concluded that each occupied recovery zone should have a goal 

of at least 10,000 plants subdivided into at least two populations. The target may be achieved 

with a combination of at least two populations which must number at least 2,000 individuals; 

scattered independent populations must number at least 200 individuals. Some recovery zones 

have larger target numbers, based on historical abundance data. In recovery zones with a target 

of 10,000 plants, there must be at least two separate populations; if the target is 15,000 plants, 

then there must be at least three separate populations. Populations may be subdivided into 

subpopulations in a patchy landscape, although there must be the potential for genetic 

interchange, via pollinator movement, among the component subpopulations. Recent models 

have shown that as few as one migrant per generation may be sufficient to prevent inbreeding in 

disjunct subpopulations (Newman and Tallmon 2001, Wang 2004). Connected populations 

should be within “stepping-stone” distance, which is defined as within pollinator flight distance 

of another subpopulation. See Figure IV-10 for a schematic illustration of this concept. The 

maximum separation distance between populations will vary with the plant and the pollinator 

species. Additional research is needed to identify the main pollinators of each listed plant; until 
 

IV-21

F
 

IV-22

F
 

IV-23

F
 

IV-24

F
 

IV-25

F
 

IV-26

better information is available, we recommend that subpopulations be separated by no more than 

3 kilometers (2 miles) to be considered within stepping-stone distance. 

Determining the number of individuals in a population is problematic for two of the listed plant 

species addressed in this plan. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana exhibit 

clonal or clumping growth, and it may not be possible to distinguish individual plants. 

Therefore, population targets for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii are expressed in terms of 

foliar cover, which is a measure of the area occupied by the plants (Kaye and Thorpe 2006). The 

degree of clumping in Sidalcea nelsoniana differs from site to site. Population targets for 

Sidalcea nelsoniana are expressed as total number of plants, which may be measured in terms of 

foliar cover where individual plants cannot be distinguished. 

The recovery zones shown in Figure IV-1 may also provide useful guidance in decisions to 

transfer seeds and propagules of plants among sites in the range of this recovery plan. In 

general, seeds or propagules used to augment or establish a population should be taken from a 

population within the same recovery zone, unless there is better information to support a 

different decision. We recommend that managers use plant materials from the closest population 

with the most similar habitat to the recipient population that has a sufficient population to 

support seed collection. If none are available, plant material should come from the next nearest 

zone with similar habitat type. Further genetic research, identified below in the Recovery 

Actions section, may refine the seed transfer zone concept for each of the listed plant species in 

this recovery plan. 

(b) Castilleja levisecta

Our conservation strategy for Castilleja levisecta is to provide target population sizes and 

recovery zones for restoration of the species in the Willamette Valley (see Figure IV-11). This is 

consistent with the objectives set for the species in its recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000b). 

B. RECOVERY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA 

The primary goal of this plan is to remove the threats to the species and achieve recovery 

sufficient to downlist and eventually delist the endangered Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens, and Lomatium bradshawii, and delist the threatened Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana. It is also a goal of this plan to contribute to 
 

IV-27
 

IV-28

the recovery of Castilleja levisecta, although this species has its own recovery plan and recovery 

criteria (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). 

An additional goal is to focus on the restoration of both native upland and wet prairie ecosystems 

within this region. Such an ecosystem approach takes into consideration the needs of nonlisted 

species that are endemic to prairie habitats. Consequently, many of the recovery actions 

proposed in this plan may help to stabilize and enhance populations of species such as Taylor’s 

checkerspot butterfly, Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium oreganum, Delphinium 

pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus and Sisyrinchium 

hitchcockii and preclude the need to extend the protections of the Endangered Species Act to 

other of the region’s prairie species in the future. 

To reach the goal of recovery for the threatened and endangered prairie species, the objectives 

are to restore and maintain multiple viable populations of each species distributed across its 

historical range. A key component of this objective is the protection and restoration of 

functional upland and wet prairie ecosystems to provide high quality, diverse habitats for the 

prairie species. Sufficient connectivity must be achieved among the constituent subpopulations 

to ensure adequate gene flow and prevent the problems associated with the isolation of small 

populations. Current threats to the species must be controlled or eliminated, and populations 

must be protected and managed appropriately to ensure that the species are no longer in danger 

of extinction within the foreseeable future nor likely to become so. The recovery criteria 

presented below represent our best estimate for measuring when these objectives will have been 

met for each of the species in this plan. Criteria for downlisting and delisting may be revised, as 

necessary, if additional information provided by the recommended research projects, new 

modeling and monitoring programs indicates that a change in any of the criteria is appropriate. 

We set recovery criteria to serve as objective, measurable guidelines to assist us in determining 

when a listed species has recovered to the point that the protections afforded by the Endangered 

Species Act are no longer necessary. However, the actual change in status (downlisting or 

delisting) requires a separate rulemaking process based upon an analysis of the same five factors 

considered in the listing of a species (see section III, Threats Assessment). The recovery criteria 

presented in this recovery plan thus represent our best assessment of the conditions that would 

most likely result in a determination that downlisting or delisting of the species is warranted (i.e.,

that the species no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act) as the 

outcome of a formal analysis in a subsequent regulatory rulemaking. Alternatively, due to 

unforeseen changes in threats or advances in our knowledge of the species, a future analysis of 
 

IV-29

the five listing factors may lead to a recommendation to downlist or delist, even though precise 

compliance with the recovery criteria defined in the recovery plan has not been achieved.

1. Downlisting Criteria 

(a) Fender’s Blue Butterfly 

Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened will be considered for the Fender’s blue 

butterfly when all of the following conditions have been met:

1. Distribution and abundance. Each recovery zone has one functioning network with a 

minimum count of 200 butterflies, distributed among three subpopulations, for at least 10 

years; in addition to this network, there must be a second functioning network or two 

independent populations with butterflies present each year in each recovery zone (Table 

IV-2). 

2. Habitat quality and management. Sites supporting populations of Fender’s blue 

butterflies considered in Criterion 1(a)1 above must meet these criteria: 

a. Prairie quality. Sites supporting populations of Fender’s blue butterflies must be 

managed for high quality prairie habitat. High quality prairie habitat consists of a 

diversity of native, non-woody plant species, various nectar plants that bloom 

throughout the flight season of Fender’s blue butterfly, low frequency of non-native 

plant species and encroaching woody species, and essential habitat elements (e.g., 

nest sites and food plants) for native pollinators. At least one of the larval host plant 

species, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, L. arbustus or L. albicaulis, must be 

present. See Appendix D for suggested criteria for evaluating prairie quality and 

diversity. 

b. Security of habitat. A substantial portion of the habitat for each population should 

either be owned or managed by a government agency or private conservation 

organization that identifies maintenance of the Fender’s blue butterfly and the prairie 

ecosystem upon which it depends as the primary management objective for the site, 

or the site must be protected by a permanent or long-term conservation easement or 

covenant that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the 

species. 
 

IV-30

Table IV-2. Distribution and Abundance Goals for Fender’s Blue Butterfly. 

DOWNLISTING GOALS 

Downlisting goals are set at a 90% probability of persistence for 25 years. Attainment of these population 

targets in all three recovery zones, together with the criteria for distribution, habitat quality and 

management described in the text, would indicate that the species’ status has improved and could be 

considered for reclassification to threatened. Note that the minimum population size in the table represents 

the minimum population count in a network in each of 10 consecutive years. The average population size 

in a network corresponding to these minima would be substantially larger. 

Recovery Zone* 

Number of functioning 

networks (FN) and 

independent 

populations (IP) in a 

recovery zone 

Minimum population 

size in one 

network/zone over 

10 years 

Salem (Salem East + Salem West) 

2 FN 

or

1 FN + 2 IP 

200 

Corvallis (Corvallis East + Corvallis West) 

2 FN 

or

1 FN + 2 IP 

200 

Eugene (Eugene East + Eugene West). 

2 FN 

or

1 FN + 2 IP 

200 

DELISTING GOALS 

Delisting goals are set at a 95% probability of persistence for 100 years. Each row below represents a 

combination of functioning networks and independent populations within a recovery zone. If each of the 

three recovery zones meets the criteria in one row below, the species would be projected to have a 95 

percent probability of persistence for 100 years. Attainment of these population targets, together with the 

criteria for distribution, habitat quality and management described in the text, would indicate that the 

species has recovered and could be considered for delisting. Note that the minimum population size in the 

table represents the minimum population count in a network or independent population in each of 10 

consecutive years. The average population size in a network or independent population corresponding to 

these minima would be substantially larger. 

Number of functioning networks (FN) and 

independent populations (IP) in a recovery zone 

Minimum population 

size per network over 

10 years 

Minimum population 

size per independent 

population over 

10 years 

2 FN + 0 IP 4500 n/a 

2 FN + 2 IP 800 3000 

2 FN + 2 IP 1000 1000 

2 FN + 2 IP 1500 500 

2 FN + 3 IP 1000 700 

2 FN + 3 IP 1500 300 

3 FN + 0 IP 1000 n/a 

3 FN + 1 IP 800 200 

3 FN + 2 IP 500 250 

4 FN + 0 IP 400 n/a 

*We have set population targets for Fender’s blue butterfly in the following recovery zones: Salem (Salem 

East + Salem West), Corvallis (Corvallis East + Corvallis West) and Eugene (Eugene East + Eugene West); 

see Figure IV-2. The other recovery zones shown in Figure IV-1 are not within the historical range of the 

species. 
 

IV-31

c. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Each population site and 

stepping stone patch must be managed to ensure the maintenance or restoration of 

high quality prairie habitat to support the Fender’s blue butterfly and to control 

threats. Use of herbicides, mowing, burning or livestock grazing in management 

should be implemented with appropriate methods and timing to avoid impacts to 

Fender’s blue butterfly or its nectar or host plants. Management should be 

coordinated with adjacent landowners to minimize effects of pesticide drift, changes 

in hydrology, timber harvest, or road/utility maintenance. Other potential threats 

relating to scientific research, overcollection, vandalism, recreational impacts, or 

natural herbivory/predation/parasitism should be successfully managed so as not to 

significantly impair recovery of the species. 

Each population shall have in place a management and monitoring plan approved by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that includes identification of appropriate 

management response to any potential declines that may be detected in habitat quality 

or the Fender’s blue butterfly population during the course of monitoring. 

Management plans should include a focus on protecting habitat heterogeneity within 

protected sites and across a range of elevations and aspects to buffer the potential 

effects of climate change. 

(b) Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and Lomatium bradshawii

Reclassification from Endangered to Threatened will be considered for Erigeron decumbens

var. decumbens and Lomatium bradshawii when all of the following conditions have been 

met: 

1. Distribution and abundance. For each species, the distribution of populations should 

reflect the extent of the species’ historical geographic distribution to the extent practicable. 

Subpopulations contributing to larger interacting populations should be within pollinator 

flight distance (3 kilometers [2 miles]) of each other. See Tables IV-3 and IV-4 for 

distribution and abundance goals for each species. 

2. Population trend and evidence of reproduction. For each species, the number of 

individuals in the population shall have been stable or increasing over a period of at least 10 

years. The term “stable” in this context does not mean that the population size is static over 

time; over a period of 10 years, the number of individuals in the population may exhibit 
 

IV-32

Table IV-3. Distribution and Abundance Goals for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

Status: Endangered 

Downlisting Goals Delisting Goals

Recovery Zone Minimum # of 

Populations / 

Zone 

Target # of Plants 

/ Zone 

Minimum # of 

Populations / Zone 

Target # of Plants 

/ Zone 

SW Washington 0 0 0 0 

Portland 0 0 0 0 

Coast Range * * * * 

Salem East 1 5,000 3 15,000 

Salem West 2 10,000 3 15.000 

Corvallis East 1 5,000 2 10,000 

Corvallis West 2 10,000 2 10,000 

Eugene East 1 5,000 2 10,000 

Eugene West 3 15,000 3 15,000 

Douglas County * * * * 

+ additional populations (may 

occur in any zone within 

species’ range) 

2 10,000 5 25,000 

Total 12 60,000 20 100,000 

* This recovery zone is not within the historical range of the species. 

Table IV-4. Distribution and Abundance Goals for Lomatium bradshawii

Status: Endangered 

Downlisting Goals Delisting Goals

Recovery Zone Minimum # of 

Populations / 

Zone 

Target # of Plants 

/ Zone 

Minimum # of 

Populations / Zone 

Target # of Plants 

/ Zone 

SW Washington 1 5,000 2 10,000 

Portland 0 0 0 0 

Coast Range * * * * 

Salem East 1 5,000 2 10,000 

Salem West 0 0 0 0 

Corvallis East 2 10,000 3 15,000 

Corvallis West 2 10,000 2 10,000 

Eugene East 1 5,000 3 15,000 

Eugene West 3 15,000 3 15,000 

Douglas County * * * * 

+ additional populations (may 

occur in any zone within 

species’ range) 

2 10,000 5 25,000 

Total 12 60,000 20 100,000 

* This recovery zone is not within the historical range of the species. 
 

IV-33

natural year-to-year variability, but the trend must not be declining. Populations must show 

evidence of reproduction by seed set or presence of seedlings. 

3. Habitat quality and management. Sites supporting populations of listed plants 

considered in Criterion 1(b)1 above must meet these criteria: 

a. Prairie quality. Sites supporting populations of the listed plant species must be 

managed for high quality prairie habitat. High quality prairie habitat consists of a 

diversity of native, non-woody plant species, low frequency of aggressive non-native 

plant species and encroaching woody species, and essential habitat elements (e.g., 

nest sites and food plants) for native pollinators. See Appendix D for suggested 

criteria for evaluating prairie quality and diversity. 

b. Security of habitat. For each listed species, a substantial portion of the habitat for 

the populations should either be owned or managed by a government agency or 

private conservation organization that identifies maintenance of the species and the 

prairie ecosystem upon which it depends as the primary management objective for the 

site, or the site must be protected by a permanent or long-term conservation easement 

or covenant that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the 

species. 

c. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Each population must be 

managed appropriately to ensure the maintenance or restoration of quality prairie 

habitat for each species and to control threats to the species. Use of herbicides, 

mowing, burning or livestock grazing in management should be implemented with 

appropriate methods and timing to avoid impacts to listed plant species. Management 

should be coordinated with adjacent landowners to minimize effects of pesticide drift, 

changes in hydrology, timber harvest, or road/utility maintenance. Species that may 

hybridize with Sidalcea nelsoniana or Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii should be 

managed as appropriate to avoid contact with these taxa. Other potential threats 

relating to scientific research, overcollection, vandalism, recreational impacts, or 

natural herbivory/parasitism should be successfully managed so as not to significantly 

impair recovery of the species. 

Management and monitoring plans must be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and should include standardized monitoring and performance criteria by which 
 

IV-34

to assess their effectiveness following implementation and to allow for adaptive 

management, as necessary. Management plans should include a focus on protecting 

habitat heterogeneity within protected sites and across a range of elevations and aspects 

to buffer the potential effects of climate change. 

2. Delisting Criteria 

(a) Fender’s Blue Butterfly 

Delisting will be considered for the Fender’s blue butterfly when all of the following 

conditions have been met: 

1. Distribution and abundance. Each of the three recovery zones has a combination of 

functioning networks and independent populations such that the probability of persistence is 

95 percent over the next 100 years; see Table IV-2 for options that would achieve this 

standard. Annual population surveys in each functioning network and independent 

population must count at least the minimum number of adult butterflies specified in Table 

IV-2 for 10 consecutive years.

2. Habitat quality and management. Sites supporting populations of Fender’s blue 

butterflies considered in Criterion 2(a)1 above must meet these criteria: 

a. Prairie quality. Same as Downlisting Criterion 1(a)(2)(a) 

b. Security of habitat. Same as Downlisting Criterion 1(a)(2)(b) 

c. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Same as Downlisting Criterion 

1(a)(2)(c) 

3. Post-delisting monitoring plan and agreements to continue post-delisting monitoring 

are in place and ready for implementation at the time of delisting. Monitoring of 

populations following delisting will verify the ongoing recovery of the species, provide a 

basis for determining whether the species should be again placed under the protection of the 

Endangered Species Act, and provide a means of assessing the continuing effectiveness of 

management actions. 
 

IV-35

(b) Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana

Delisting will be considered for four prairie plant species (Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana) when all of the following conditions have been met: 

1. Distribution and abundance. For each species, the distribution of populations should 

reflect the extent of the species’ historical geographic distribution to the extent practicable. 

See Tables IV-3, IV-4, IV-5 and IV-6 for distribution and abundance goals for each species. 

2. Population trend and evidence of reproduction. For each species, the number of 

individuals in the population (or area of foliar cover for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii or 

Sidalcea nelsoniana) shall have been stable or increasing over a period of at least 15 years. 

Stable does not mean that the population size is static over time; over a period of 15 years, 

the number of individuals in the population may exhibit natural year-to-year variability, but 

the trend must not be declining. Populations must show evidence of reproduction by seed set 

or presence of seedlings. 

3. Habitat quality and management. Sites supporting populations of listed plants 

considered in Criterion 2(b)(i)1 above must meet these criteria:

a. Prairie quality. Same as Downlisting Criterion 1(b)(3)(a) 

b. Security of habitat. Same as Downlisting Criterion 1(b)(3)(b) 

c. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Same as Downlisting Criterion 

1(b)(3)(c) 

4. Genetic material is stored in a facility approved by the Center for Plant 

Conservation. For each plant species, the stored genetic material in the form of seeds must 

represent the species’ geographic distribution and genetic diversity through collections across 

the full range of the species. Collections from large populations are particularly important as 

reservoirs of genetic variability within the species. 
 

IV-36

Table IV-5. Distribution and Abundance Goals for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii

Status: Threatened

Delisting Goals Recovery Zone Minimum # of Populations / Zone Target Foliar Cover / Zone 

SW Washington 2 5,000 m2

Portland 0 0 

Coast Range * * 

Salem East 1 2,500 m2

Salem West 3 7,500 m2

Corvallis East 2 5,000 m2

Corvallis West 3 7,500 m2

Eugene East 2 5,000 m2

Eugene West 3 7,500 m2

Douglas County 2 5,000 m2

+ additional populations (may 

occur in any zone within 

species’ range) 

2 5,000 m2

Total 20 50,000 m2

* This recovery zone is not within the historical range of the species. 

Table IV-6. Distribution and Abundance Goals for Sidalcea nelsoniana

Status: Threatened

Delisting Goals 

Recovery Zone Minimum # of Populations / Zone Target # of Plants (or Foliar 

Cover) / Zone 

SW Washington 2 10,000 (5,000 m2) 

Portland 1 5,000 (2,500 m2) 

Coast Range 3 15,000 (7,500 m2) 

Salem East 2 10,000 (5,000 m2) 

Salem West 4 20,000 (10,000 m2) 

Corvallis East 2 10,000 (5,000 m2) 

Corvallis West 4 20,000 (10,000 m2) 

Eugene East * * 

Eugene West * * 

Douglas County * * 

+ additional populations (may 

occur in any zone within 

species’ range) 

2 10,000 (5,000 m2

) 

Total 20 100,000 (50,000 m2

) 

* This recovery zone is not within the historical range of the species. 
 

IV-37

5. Post-delisting monitoring plans and agreements to continue post-delisting 

monitoring are in place and ready for implementation at the time of delisting. 

Monitoring of populations following delisting will verify the ongoing recovery of the 

species, provide a basis for determining whether the species should be again placed under the 

protection of the Endangered Species Act, and provide a means of assessing the continuing 

effectiveness of management actions. 

(c) Castilleja levisecta

Recovery goals for Castilleja levisecta were set in the recovery plan for the species (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). Meeting the following conditions in the Willamette 

Valley will substantially contribute to the species’ recovery and may allow the species to be 

delisted, if recovery goals set in the recovery plan have been met throughout the rest of the 

species’ range: 

1. Distribution and abundance. Establish a total of five populations distributed across at 

least three of the following recovery zones: Southwest Washington, Portland, Salem East, 

Salem West, Corvallis East, Corvallis West, Eugene East, Eugene West. Priority should be 

given to reestablishing populations in zones for which there are historical records (Southwest 

Washington, Portland, Salem East, Corvallis East). See Table IV-7 for distribution and 

abundance goals for Castilleja levisecta. 

2. Population trend and evidence of reproduction. Populations must maintain a 5-year 

running average population size of at least 1,000 individuals. Populations must show 

evidence of reproduction by seed set or presence of seedlings. 

3. Habitat quality and management. 

a. Prairie quality. Habitat supporting populations of the species must be managed for 

high quality prairie values. High quality prairie habitat consists of a diversity of 

native, non-woody plant species, low frequency of non-native plant species and 

encroaching woody species, and habitat elements (e.g., nest sites and food plants) for 

native pollinators. See Appendix D for suggested criteria for evaluating prairie 

quality and diversity. 
 

IV-38

b. Security of habitat. A substantial portion of the habitat for the populations should 

either be owned or managed by a government agency or private conservation 

organization that identifies maintenance of the species and the prairie ecosystem upon 

which it depends as the primary management objective for the site, or the site must be 

protected by a permanent or long-term conservation easement or covenant that 

commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the species. 

c. Management, monitoring, and control of threats. Each population must be 

managed appropriately to ensure the maintenance or restoration of quality prairie 

habitat and to control threats to the species. Management and monitoring plans must 

be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and should include standardized 

monitoring and performance criteria by which to assess their effectiveness following 

implementation and to allow for adaptive management, as necessary. Management 

plans should include a focus on protecting habitat heterogeneity within protected sites 

and across a range of elevations and aspects to buffer the potential effects of climate 

change. Use of herbicides, mowing, burning or livestock grazing in management 

should be implemented with appropriate methods and timing to avoid impacts to 

Table IV-7. Distribution and Abundance Goals for Castilleja levisecta

Status: Threatened

Conservation Goals in the Willamette Valley 

Recovery Zone Name Target # of Populations Target # of Flowering 

Individuals / Population 

SW Washington 

Portland 

Salem East 

Salem West 

Corvallis East 

Corvallis West 

Eugene East 

Eugene West 

A total of 5 populations, distributed 

across at least 3 of these zones 1,000 

Coast Range * * 

Douglas County * * 

Total 5 5,000 

* This recovery zone is not within the historical range of the species. 
 

IV-39

listed plant species. Management should be coordinated with adjacent landowners to 

minimize effects of pesticide drift, changes in hydrology, timber harvest, or 

road/utility maintenance. Other potential threats relating to scientific research, 

overcollection, vandalism, recreational impacts, or natural herbivory/parasitism 

should be successfully managed so as not to significantly impair recovery of the 

species

The recovery criteria above address the threats to the species and the five listing factors 

previously discussed in section III. Meeting the downlisting or delisting criteria would indicate 

that the threats to the species that resulted in its listing as threatened or endangered have been 

ameliorated. The specific threats addressed by each criterion are specified in Tables IV-8 and 

IV-9. 

C. RECOVERY ACTIONS 

1. Preserve, restore, and manage populations and habitat for the listed prairie species 

covered by this plan. 

The listed prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington addressed by this 

plan are now found only in small, highly fragmented upland and wet prairie habitat remnants. 

The first step in the recovery of these species is to identify and protect the remaining populations 

with the greatest potential for restoration. The next step is to augment and, if necessary, 

reintroduce populations to restore connectivity between those that are currently isolated from one 

another to restore gene flow and create a population structure that provides for resiliency in a 

dynamic natural environment. Recovery for all of these species will depend upon the successful 

establishment of a network of protected populations in managed, suitable prairie habitats 

distributed across their historical range. As a large portion of the remnant prairie habitats within 

the range of these species is in private ownership, recovery will to a large extent depend upon the 

successful development of partnerships with private landowners and support of their efforts to 

protect, restore and manage native prairie habitats in the region. 

1.1 Preserve, restore, and manage populations and habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

1.1.1 Evaluate the status of extant populations. 

Fender’s blue butterfly is endemic to prairie habitats in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, where 

it occurs in relatively few, isolated populations. Although several sites have been monitored for 
 

IV-40

Table IV-8. Crosswalk between downlisting / delisting criteria and threat factors for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Each of the downlisting and delisting criteria address the threats that face the species; attainment of the 

downlisting or delisting criteria would indicate that the causative threats have been ameliorated. 

Criterion Addresses These Threats Downlisting / Delisting 

Criteria Threat 

Factor 

Threat Type 

(see section III and Table III-1 for a full description of threats)

Distribution and abundance A Isolation / fragmentation 

targets 

[Criteria 1(a)(1) & 2(a)(1), 

Table IV-2] 

E 

Small population size / low genetic variability 

A Invasive species 

Succession to native woody plants 

Prairie quality 

 [Criteria 1(a)(2)(a) & 

2(a)(2)(a)] E Impaired ecological functions 

Security of habitat A Historic management / disturbance 

[Criteria 1(a)(2)(b) & 

2(a)(2)(b)] D Habitat vandalism 

On-site agriculture conversion and management practices 

Adjacent land use practices 

Housing / urban development 

Hydrologic alterations 

Improper prairie management 

Invasive species 

Road development / maintenance 

Utilities installation and maintenance 

Timber harvest / silviculture / logging 

A 

Wildfire / burning 

Field research activities 

B Recreation 

Over-collecting / poaching 

Herbivores / predators 

C Livestock grazing 

Parasites 

D Habitat vandalism 

Succession to native woody plants 

Impaired ecological functions 

Management, monitoring and 

control of threats [Criteria 

1(a)(2)(c) & 2(a)(2)(c)] 

E 

Pesticide use on-site 
 

IV-41

Table IV-9. Crosswalk between downlisting / delisting criteria and threat factors for Erigeron decumbens 

var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Sidalcea nelsoniana and Castilleja 

levisecta. Each of the downlisting and delisting criteria address the threats that face the species; attainment 

of the downlisting or delisting criteria would indicate that the causative threats have been ameliorated. 

Criterion Addresses These Threats

Downlisting / Delisting 

Criteria Threat 

Factor 

Threat Type 

(see section III and Table III-1 for a full description of threats)

Distribution and abundance A Isolation / fragmentation 

targets 

[Criteria 1(b)(1) & 2(b)(1), 

Tables IV-3 to IV-7] 

E 

Small population size / low genetic variability 

Population trend and evidence Small population size / low genetic variability 

of reproduction 

[Criteria 1(b)(2) & 2(b)(2)] 

E Impaired ecological functions 

A Invasive species 

Succession to native woody plants 

Prairie quality 

[Criteria 1(b)(3)(a) & 

2(b)(3)(a)] E Impaired ecological functions 

Security of habitat A Historic management / disturbance 

[Criteria 1(b)(3)(b) & 

2(b)(3)(b)] D Habitat vandalism 

On-site agriculture conversion and management practices 

Adjacent land use practices 

Housing / urban development 

Hydrologic alterations 

Improper prairie management 

Invasive species 

Road development / maintenance 

Utilities installation and maintenance 

Timber harvest / silviculture / logging 

A 

Wildfire / burning 

Field research activities 

B Recreation 

Over-collecting / poaching 

Herbivores / predators 

C Livestock grazing 

Parasites 

D Habitat vandalism 

Succession to native woody plants 

Impaired ecological functions 

Pesticide use on-site 

Management, monitoring and 

control of threats 

[Criteria 1(b)(3)(c) & 

2(b)(3)(c)] 

E 

Hybridization 

Genetic material is stored in a 

facility approved by the Center 

for Plant Conservation 

[Criteria 2(b)(4)] 

E 

Small population size / low genetic variability 
 

IV-42

over 10 years, we lack information on the status of many populations that occur 

on private lands, where permission for access to the property has not been granted 

to surveyors. An assessment of population status is required to provide the 

current population baseline information and to determine when the populations 

have achieved the targets set in the recovery criteria, thereby allowing for 

consideration of downlisting or delisting. This information is also necessary to 

evaluate the efficacy of management programs and allow for adaptive 

management, as necessary, of individual populations to guide the species toward 

its recovery goals. 

1.1.1.1 Develop a standardized population monitoring protocol. 

Several different monitoring protocols have been used to assess Fender’s 

blue butterfly populations (Fitzpatrick 2009). The development and 

implementation of one standardized monitoring protocol across the range 

of the butterfly would allow for greater accuracy in tracking population 

trends over time and allow for direct comparisons among populations. 

The monitoring method should provide sufficient statistical precision, but 

not be unduly time intensive or costly to implement, especially for larger 

populations. Methods should also be designed to achieve a desired level 

of statistical precision around population estimates or estimates of 

population change. The monitoring protocol should also avoid or 

minimize harm to the species (e.g., through larval mortality, capture of 

adults or trampling of the habitat). In developing a new monitoring 

protocol, consider evaluating metrics other than adult counts (i.e., larvae 

or egg counts).

1.1.1.2 Survey existing populations and surrounding suitable habitats to 

determine geographic extent of populations. 

At known population sites, survey existing populations and work with 

adjacent landowners to evaluate the geographic extent of those 

populations. 

1.1.1.3 Attempt to locate additional populations of Fender’s blue butterfly by 

surveying suitable habitats in areas not currently known to support 

populations. 
 

IV-43

Through partnerships with private landowners, we have recently identified 

several new population sites. There are still several areas within the range 

of the species in which we should focus on finding populations using 

presence/absence surveys. Three of the most important areas are: Mill 

Creek in Polk County, Greasy Creek Valley in Benton County, and the 

Beef Barn area in Benton County. 

1.1.2 Identify and protect sites within potential functioning networks and 

independent populations. 

Fender’s blue butterfly is at risk of extinction throughout its range; therefore the 

protection and active management of populations in potential functioning 

networks and independent population sites across the recovery zones are critical 

to ensuring the continued existence of the species. Full recovery of Fender’s blue 

butterfly will require restoring lands to expand existing sites as well as creating 

new sites through habitat restoration, management, and reintroduction of the 

butterfly. 

1.1.2.1 Identify and evaluate sites and populations for inclusion in the 

development of potential functioning networks and independent 

populations. 

Potential functioning networks and independent populations have been 

identified for Fender’s blue butterfly (Figure IV-4); pending the outcome 

of additional surveys and assessment of suitable habitats, there may be 

other, more suitable sites for establishment of functioning networks or 

independent populations. Currently, subpopulation sites in Yamhill and 

Benton Counties have the highest priority for protection. 

The status of the extant populations must be carefully evaluated and 

management strategies developed to achieve functioning networks and 

independent populations of Fender’s blue butterflies in each recovery 

zone. Considerations will include factors such as current population size, 

land ownership, habitat quality, surrounding land uses, availability of 

contiguous land area to provide for potential population or habitat 

expansion, site management needs, feasibility of providing needed 

management treatments, and security of sites from vandalism and 

disturbance. The preservation of populations found in unique ecological 
 

IV-44

conditions is also an important consideration (e.g., stable climax 

grasslands on valley hillsides, as opposed to early successional grasslands 

on the valley floor). The restoration of a mosaic of appropriate lupine 

habitat “stepping stones” to expand and maintain population networks is 

fundamental to the conservation strategy for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

There is no minimum size necessary for a patch to function as a stepping 

stone, as long as the patch contains lupine host plants and nectar plants 

and the intervening habitats are relatively free from barriers to butterfly 

movement. 

1.1.2.2 Evaluate protected status of populations and sites identified for 

inclusion in all functioning networks and independent populations 

and ensure long-term protection of those not yet secured. 

A substantial portion of each population contributing to functioning 

networks and each independent population must be under some form of 

permanent or long-term protection to ensure their persistence. Some of 

the largest remaining populations of Fender’s blue butterfly are already 

under protective ownership or management (see Appendix C), but many 

extant populations are not yet secured. Protections will also be required 

for reintroduced populations. Some of the possible mechanisms for 

protecting habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly include conservation 

easements, management agreements, habitat conservation plans, Safe 

Harbor Agreements and acquisition of land from willing sellers. The 

appropriate mechanism will depend upon the extent of rights needed to 

maintain the habitat, but will also depend upon the interest of the 

landowner(s). Landowners of occupied sites or sites identified as having 

the potential to contribute to the recovery of Fender’s blue butterfly 

through restoration and management activities should be contacted and 

provided the opportunity to participate in the recovery program, informed 

as to the various conservation tools available to them (see Recovery 

Action 3.1), and offered assistance with management, restoration, and 

monitoring of Fender’s blue butterfly populations and appropriate prairie 

habitat for the butterfly on their property.

1.1.3 Develop and implement management plans for each functioning network and 

independent population. 
 

IV-45

Comprehensive management plans will be essential to the maintenance of the 

populations within each functioning network and at independent population sites, 

to respond in the event of a decline, and to buffer the populations from the 

influences of environmental variation that could adversely affect them. Sitespecific management plans that specify how each of these three functions will be 

carried out must be developed for each functioning network and independent 

population. Management plans should include a focus on protecting habitat 

heterogeneity within protected sites and across a range of elevations and aspects 

to buffer the potential effects of climate change.

1.1.4 Manage all functioning networks and independent populations to reduce 

threats and expand and increase populations. 

All populations and sites that comprise the functioning networks and independent 

populations must be managed to provide the appropriate habitat for Fender’s blue 

butterfly, meet the minimum patch size and connectivity requirements, and 

control the threats to the species. The appropriate habitat for Fender’s blue 

butterfly has three key features: the presence of a larval host plant (most often 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and occasionally L. arbustus or L. albicaulis), 

native forbs for adult nectar sources, and a mixture of native grasses and forbs 

that maintain the historical short-grass structure of the upland prairies (Wilson et 

al. 1997, Schultz 2001). 

1.1.4.1 Set back succession and reduce competition from non-native plants. 

Fender’s blue butterfly is found in upland prairie and oak savanna habitats 

characterized by short-grass stature dominated by native grasses (Festuca 

idahoensis ssp. roemeri and Danthonia californica) and forbs. These 

species tend to be intolerant of shade, and are therefore adversely affected 

by the presence of trees or shrubs. Competition with invasive non-native 

plant species is also a threat to these systems. Active management is 

required to maintain suitable prairie habitat to support Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Management strategies include periodic prescribed burning, 

mowing, and manual removal of woody vegetation. Optimal intensity, 

timing, and frequency of these treatments may vary on a site-by-site basis, 

and will need to be refined through future research and management 

experience. Spot application of herbicides under carefully controlled 

conditions may also be effective in eliminating or reducing non-natives. 
 

IV-46

1.1.4.1.1 Prescribed fire. 

Controlled burns are a common management tool for 

maintaining open grassland habitats. Research on the effects of 

fire on Fender’s blue butterfly has shown that although fire likely 

kills all larvae in burned patches, these patches may be 

recolonized by females from nearby unburned source patches, 

with a significant increase in the abundance of eggs that are 

subsequently laid in the burned plots (Wilson and Clark 1997). 

Due to the lethality to larvae, however, controlled burns should 

be confined to no more than one-third of the area occupied by 

Fender’s blue butterflies at any site, to ensure the preservation of 

a source population for recolonization. 

Burning should be conducted in the late summer and early fall 

(September or October), after plant communities have set seed 

and senesced. Due to air quality concerns and other social 

issues, controlled burning is not an option in all areas. 

Prescribed burning requires careful site preparation and 

permitting, and should be performed only by qualified personnel 

with careful consideration to public safety in mind. 

1.1.4.1.2 Mowing. 

As described below for management of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, annual mowing has only positive effects on Fender’s 

blue butterfly at several life history stages (egg laying, egg to 

larva survival, etc.), and need not be limited to only a portion of 

the site, as with burning. In considering mowing as an option, 

land managers will need to assess the quantity and identity of 

non-native plants at the site that may respond positively to this 

technique. Mowing should generally be done in late summer 

(August or September), after the listed plants have become 

dormant and Fender’s blue butterfly larvae (if present) have 

entered diapause. The most appropriate timing and methods of 

mowing, however, should be considered on a site-by-site basis. 
 

IV-47

1.1.4.1.3 Manual removal of woody plants. 

In the Willamette Valley, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii does 

not tolerate shading by woody plants; therefore trees and shrubs 

that are not eliminated by burning or mowing must be manually 

removed. Following cutting, burning, or mowing, stumps should 

be treated with herbicide to prevent resprouting the following 

year. 

1.1.4.1.4 Habitat management using other methods as appropriate, 

pending results of ongoing and planned research.

Prairie restoration is an evolving discipline. New strategies and 

techniques should be applied to protecting and managing 

Fender’s blue butterfly habitats as they become available. 

1.1.4.2 Restore native prairie species, with an emphasis on larval host plants 

and adult nectaring sources. 

Although the total eradication of invasive non-native plants is unlikely, 

many species can be controlled through the careful and appropriate 

application of herbicides or mechanical control methods (e.g., rotary line 

trimmers, pruners, or hand-pulling). Herbicides should be applied when 

native prairie plants are dormant, although research into carefully 

controlled application of herbicides (e.g., hand-wicking) during the 

growing season should be investigated (see Recovery Action 1.3.1). At 

sites where Fender’s blue butterflies are present, and until current research 

quantifies the potential impact of herbicides, herbicide applications should 

proceed with caution, with emphasis on spot-treatment and timed when 

native plants are dormant. Ground disturbing activities often encourage the 

growth of non-native weedy species from a persistent seed bank and, if 

applied, should be judiciously used. Sites should be replanted with 

common native prairie species and various nectar species. 

1.1.4.2.1 Restore and enhance populations of larval host plants. 

Perennial lupines are the larval host plants for Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is used by the 

butterfly most frequently, and an emphasis on the restoration of 

L. sulphureus ssp. kincaidii serves the dual purpose of achieving 
 

IV-48

the recovery goals for this threatened species as well. Two other 

lupines (Lupinus arbustus and L. albicaulis) are also used by 

Fender’s blue butterfly, although the latter is considered inferior 

because it is relatively short-lived. 

1.1.4.2.2 Restore and enhance populations of nectar sources. 

Adult Fender’s blue butterflies require a wide variety of nectar 

sources to provide a consistent and abundant food supply. 

Native species of forbs are considered superior sources of nectar, 

although a few exotic plants are heavily used at some sites 

(Schultz and Dlugosch 1999). Some suggested nectar species are 

shown in Appendix D. 

1.1.4.3 Evaluate and reduce grazing impacts from domestic stock, and assess 

the use of livestock grazing as a habitat management tool. 

Any grazing by domestic stock at sites managed for Fender’s blue 

butterfly must be closely managed and monitored to maintain prairie 

quality and ensure the welfare of the butterfly population on site. Light 

grazing may be compatible with management for Fender’s blue butterfly, 

and if properly managed, it may even be beneficial. No definitive data yet 

exist and this must be verified through active monitoring of the 

population. Effective grazing management may include the construction 

and maintenance of fencing, allowing for rest years, and revising grazing 

rotation schedules and stock levels to maintain high quality prairie habitats 

with a diversity of native nectar species for Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Grazing should be evaluated as a tool to maintain prairie structure and the 

risk of trampling of Fender’s blue butterfly eggs and larvae by livestock 

(e.g., horses, cattle, goats, and sheep) should be assessed. 

1.1.4.4 Evaluate and reduce impacts of wild herbivores, especially deer and 

voles.

There may be a connection between high thatch levels and vole 

abundance. Prairie management practices that reduce thatch appear to 

control vole populations, but this link should be investigated. Fencing of 

some sites may be required if grazing by deer poses a significant threat to 

prairie quality for the Fender’s blue butterfly. 
 

IV-49

1.1.4.5 Address threat from collection. 

The rarity of Fender’s blue butterfly makes it appealing for butterfly 

collectors, although take of this endangered species is prohibited under 

section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and other law enforcement agencies are responsible for 

investigating suspected violations of the take prohibition, whether by 

collection or other means. The preferred method for addressing collection 

is by preventing its occurrence, through outreach and education to inform 

potential collectors of the magnitude of the negative impact of collecting 

on the species, and to discourage any such actions. Informing potential 

collectors of the legal ramifications of any such action is a less preferred 

method of discouragement. 

1.1.5 Coordinate with recovery efforts for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. 

This plan also addresses recovery actions for the primary larval host plant of the 

Fender’s blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. For those areas where 

both Fender’s blue butterfly and L. sulphureus ssp. kincaidii occur, recovery 

actions should be closely coordinated to simultaneously provide benefits for 

Fender’s blue butterfly as actions are taken to enhance or restore populations of 

the lupine whenever practicable or appropriate. Lupine patches should be spaced 

more closely together in areas where Fender’s blue butterfly may also occur, or 

where they may be intended for reintroduction.

1.1.6 Reintroduce and augment populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to 

meet recovery goals. 

The establishment of additional populations will require the identification and 

preparation of appropriate reintroduction sites within each of the recovery zones, 

as necessary, and the successful reintroduction of butterflies. In addition, some of 

the existing populations of Fender’s blue butterfly are so small that population 

augmentation may be required to prevent further declines and to accelerate 

dispersal and colonization into adjacent suitable or restored habitats. 

1.1.6.1 Develop reintroduction protocol. 

A protocol should be developed to guide reintroduction of Fender’s blue 

butterfly. 
 

IV-50

1.1.6.1.1 Develop a translocation protocol for establishing new 

populations or augment existing populations using 

individuals from existing populations.

Translocation (i.e., moving individuals from an existing wild 

population to another site) may be used as a tool to achieve 

population size or genetic goals. If translocation is considered, a 

protocol is needed to address issues that will likely affect the 

success of the translocation and the potential effect to the donor 

populations. Issues to be considered include: minimum size of 

donor population, minimum number of individuals to be 

translocated, genetic considerations, and a monitoring strategy. 

1.1.6.2 Identify reintroduction and augmentation sites and establish 

connectivity among populations to create functioning networks and 

meet viability goals. 

Sites identified for potential reintroductions should meet certain minimum 

criteria for habitat quality, quantity, connectivity, and long-term 

management and protection. A protocol detailing the assessment of these 

minimum criteria should be developed to ensure that sites are suitable 

before actions are taken. The conditions necessary for ensuring the 

viability of the population should be assessed, and the factors that led to 

the extirpation of the native population remedied prior to any 

reintroduction effort. The sites must be evaluated for their potential 

contribution to recovery within the functioning network structure. 

Surveys to determine site suitability should focus on areas close to 

existing or recent observations of Fender’s blue butterflies because 

undocumented occupied habitat patches may exist nearby. New 

populations should be reintroduced to suitable habitat patches within 

dispersal distance of other populations to further strengthen the 

functioning network structure and to provide the potential for future 

population expansion. In accordance with metapopulation theory, we do 

not expect all restored habitat patches to be continuously occupied by 

Fender’s blue butterfly, but such patches are nonetheless considered 

essential to the long-term functioning of the population network by 
 

IV-51

allowing for future dispersal and colonization events, and by providing 

alternative resources in response to environmental variation. 

1.1.6.3 Manage and monitor reintroduced and augmented populations. 

Detailed management and monitoring protocols should be developed for 

reintroduced populations, designed to provide useful data generated by 

hypothesis testing to further refine and improve reintroduction and 

management protocols. Monitoring must be frequent enough to provide 

timely feedback and allow for adaptive management actions, as 

appropriate, should any problems be detected. 

1.1.7 Monitor population abundance at all functioning network and independent 

population sites.

Monitor all populations using a standardized protocol (see Recovery 

Action 1.1.1.1). The goal of population monitoring should be to 

determine if the minimum population size in the recovery criteria has been 

met. 

1.1.8 Monitor prairie quality at all functioning network and independent 

population sites. 

All population sites for Fender’s blue butterfly must be managed to 

achieve the recovery goals for prairie quality and diversity, as well as to 

provide the appropriate larval host plants and an adequate nectar base for 

adult butterflies. Regular monitoring is essential to provide feedback for 

management. See Appendix D for suggested prairie quality targets. 

1.2 Preserve, restore, and manage populations and habitat for Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana. 

1.2.1 Evaluate the status of extant populations. 

The current status of many of the populations of Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 

Sidalcea nelsoniana are not well documented. The data recorded are varied in 

terms of collection methods and frequency (e.g., some records provide the total 

number of plants, some the number of flowering plants, and some merely the 
 

IV-52

presence or absence of the species), and offer little in the way of standardized 

counts by which to evaluate the overall status of the species or their constituent 

populations. Furthermore, we have scant knowledge of the status of populations 

that occur on private lands where we do not have permission to access the 

property for monitoring. An accurate assessment of population size and structure 

is required to provide the current baseline information and to determine when the 

populations have achieved the size and structure stipulated by the recovery 

criteria, thereby allowing for consideration of downlisting or delisting. This 

information is also necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the management program 

and allow for adaptive management, as necessary, of individual populations to 

guide the species toward their recovery goals. A standardized monitoring 

protocol, or at least a standard set of plant features to be monitored, should be 

developed for each of the four species (see Recovery Action 1.2.5.1). This will 

allow for comparability of data among sites and years and evaluation of 

population trends. If populations are known to occur on private lands, landowners 

should be approached for permission to conduct surveys (see Recovery Action 3).

1.2.2 Survey extirpated sites and suitable habitat near these sites to determine if 

any of these populations may still persist. 

Areas of potential habitat or areas that formerly supported populations of 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus 

ssp. kincaidii, or Sidalcea nelsoniana that have not been surveyed recently should 

be revisited (with appropriate landowner permission) to determine whether 

additional populations of the species may exist. If the populations no longer exist, 

the sites should be assessed for potential suitability for reintroduction of the 

species (see Recovery Action 1.2.4).

1.2.3 Select, protect, and manage population sites. 

1.2.3.1 Select populations on which to focus recovery actions. 

The populations with the greatest potential for achieving the recovery 

goals should be targeted for protection and active management to make 

the best use of limited resources. These populations will serve as the core 

of the population framework for recovery across the recovery zones. 

Populations will be selected based on factors including, but not limited to, 

land ownership, current population size, evidence of reproduction, habitat 
 

IV-53

quality, presence of nonlisted species of conservation concern, 

surrounding land uses, site management needs, feasibility of providing 

needed management treatments, security of sites from vandalism and 

disturbance, and availability of adequate contiguous habitat to provide for 

population expansion, natural recruitment, and possible augmentation of 

the population. 

1.2.3.2 Evaluate protected status of populations. 

In order to provide for the recovery and long-term viability of Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus 

ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana, populations must have long-term 

protection to the extent possible. Some populations are currently 

protected to some degree. See the conservation measures section under 

each species in section II of this Recovery Plan and Appendix C for 

information on extant populations and status. 

1.2.3.3 Secure conservation or management agreements for populations that 

are not yet protected. 

Many of the extant populations of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, 

Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana occur on private lands and are without any formal protection. 

Populations may be protected through a variety of means, including 

conservation agreements or easements, habitat conservation plans, 

acquisition from willing sellers, or other legally binding agreements. The 

success of this recovery plan will depend upon the participation of 

landowners where populations occur, whether public or private. 

Landowners of population sites that are not yet protected should be 

contacted and invited to participate in the recovery program, informed as 

to the various conservation tools available to them (see Recovery Action 

3.2), and offered assistance with management, restoration, and monitoring 

of the prairie habitat on their property.

1.2.3.4 Develop site-specific management plans. 

Restoration of prairie ecosystem function and recovery of the associated 

listed species and nonlisted species addressed in this recovery plan will 

require active management. Physical and biological characteristics, 
 

IV-54

current management activities, and threats will vary from site-to-site, 

necessitating management plans tailored to the individual areas and land 

managers. Management plans should include provisions for the protection 

of the sites with the best potential for providing long-term stable habitat 

conditions and maintenance of currently unoccupied potential habitat in 

suitable condition, since such areas represent sites for future colonization 

and population growth. Site-specific management plans must explicitly 

address the threats discussed in section III (Threats Assessment) above. 

Private landowners should be provided with assistance in developing such 

management plans (see Recovery Action 3.2). Public agencies or land 

trust organizations managing prairie lands within the subject area should 

be encouraged to develop and implement site-specific management plans 

aimed at achieving recovery of the listed species as well, in coordination 

with the Service and other organizations (see Recovery Action 4).

1.2.3.5 Manage populations to address threats and increase populations. 

Prairie habitats require ongoing management to approximate natural 

disturbance regimes and set back succession. The greatest threats to 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana are habitat degradation 

due to the invasion of non-native plant species or woody plant 

encroachment, fragmentation and isolation, and small population sizes 

(which increase susceptibility to inbreeding depression and extinction). 

These threats must be eliminated or sufficiently controlled to achieve the 

recovery of the species. 

1.2.3.5.1 Manage population sites to set back woody plant invasion 

and reduce competition from non-native plants. 

Active management is required to maintain suitable habitat for 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana. 

Management strategies to maintain grassland habitat and reduce 

the threat of competition from non-native plants include periodic 

prescribed burning, mowing, manual removal of woody 

vegetation, and application of herbicides under carefully 

controlled conditions. Optimal intensity, timing, and frequency 
 

IV-55

of these treatments may vary on a site-by-site basis, and will 

need to be refined through future research and management 

experience. 

1.2.3.5.1.1 Prescribed fire. 

Prescribed burning is a common method for 

maintaining prairie habitats. Burning should be 

conducted in the late summer and early fall (September 

or October), after native plants have set seed and 

senesced. Due to air quality concerns and other social 

issues, controlled burns are not an option in all areas. 

Prescribed burning requires careful site preparation, 

permitting, and post-burn weed monitoring and control, 

and should be performed only by qualified personnel 

with careful consideration to public safety in mind. 

1.2.3.5.1.2 Mowing. 

Mowing can be used to set back the succession of 

woody plants in prairie habitats. As with other 

management techniques, the use of mowing for the 

benefit of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, 

Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana will need to be 

evaluated on a site-by-site basis. Land managers will 

need to assess the quantity and identity of non-native 

plants at the site that may respond positively to this 

technique. Mowing should generally be done in late 

summer (August or September), after the listed plants 

have become dormant. The most appropriate timing 

and methods of mowing, however, should be 

determined on a site-by-site basis. 

1.2.3.5.1.3 Remove woody plants. 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium 

bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 

Sidalcea nelsoniana generally require open, unshaded 
 

IV-56

habitat; therefore trees and shrubs that are not 

eliminated by burning or mowing should be manually 

removed. The exception is Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii where it occurs in dry forested habitats, 

particularly in Douglas County. If feasible, following 

cutting, burning, or mowing, stumps should be treated 

with herbicide to prevent resprouting the following 

year. 

1.2.3.5.1.4 Eliminate non-native plants to extent practicable 

and restore native prairie species. 

Although the total elimination of invasive non-native 

plants is unlikely, these alien species can be controlled 

through the careful and appropriate application of 

herbicides or mechanical control methods (e.g., rotary 

line trimmers, pruners, or hand-pulling). Some useful 

resources are available for guidance on the elimination 

of non-native plants and restoration of native prairie 

species in the Willamette Valley (see Appendix E). 

Herbicides should be applied when native plants are 

dormant, although research into carefully controlled 

application of herbicides (e.g., hand-wicking) during 

the growing season should be conducted. Each site 

must first be carefully assessed so that the appropriate 

mode of herbicide application can be determined, 

depending on the relative number of native plant 

species versus non-natives. Ground disturbing 

activities encourage the growth of non-native weedy 

species from a persistent seed bank and, if applied, 

should be judiciously used (e.g., no tilling unless 

followed by herbicide application). Sites should be 

replanted with common native prairie species. 

1.2.3.5.1.5 Work to discourage introduction of transgenic 

herbicide-resistant grasses in the region. 
 

IV-57

Glyphosate-resistant strains of Agrostis stolonifera have 

a high potential for invading prairie habitats, and would 

be very difficult to control effectively if they became 

established. Moreover, pollen of transgenic Agrostis

has the potential to move tens of kilometers and can 

transfer herbicide resistance to wild populations of 

Agrostis. Use of such strains in golf courses or grass 

seed farms in the Willamette and Umpqua Valleys and 

southwestern Washington should be discouraged. 

1.2.3.5.2 Restore connectivity among populations. 

Within each of the identified recovery zones for the species, 

subpopulations making up larger, connected populations should 

be within pollinator flight distance of another subpopulation. 

The interim recommendation is 3 kilometers (2 miles) between 

subpopulations. Restoring connectivity may be achieved by 

increasing the geographic extent of existing populations through 

appropriate habitat management and population augmentation, or 

may require the reintroduction of intervening populations 

between two more remote existing populations (see Recovery 

Action 1.2.4). 

1.2.3.5.3 Augment populations, as necessary. 

Augmentation (i.e., increasing the size of existing populations by 

planting seeds or propagules) may be required to achieve 

population targets. 

1.2.3.5.3.1 Develop outplanting protocols for cultivated 

seedlings. 

An outplanting protocol for each of the four species 

should be developed that defines parameters such as the 

site conditions required before outplanting commences, 

number of plants needed to establish a new population, 

time of year for outplanting, the spacing between 
 

IV-58

individuals, and when or if repeated plantings will be 

completed. 

1.2.3.5.3.2 Develop protocols for site preparation and planting 

from seeds in situ. 

Evaluate site conditions and preparation requirements 

that could favor augmenting populations from seed. A 

seed planting protocol should be developed that defines 

parameters such as the site conditions required before 

seeding commences, number of seeds needed to 

establish a new population, time of year for seeding, 

and when or if repeated seedings will be needed. 

1.2.3.5.3.3 Implement population augmentation.

Each site must be individually evaluated to determine 

whether augmentation is needed, the appropriate 

method to be used, and the source of seeds or 

propagules. In general, seed or propagules should come 

from within the same recovery zone, unless none are 

available, in which case the source should be the next 

nearest recovery zone with a similar habitat type. The 

exception would be when concerns regarding 

inbreeding lead project planners to select plant 

materials from a more distant population. Follow-up 

monitoring will indicate whether repeated augmentation 

is needed. 

1.2.4 Reintroduce populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to meet recovery 

goals. 

Achieving recovery goals for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium 

bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana will likely 

require reestablishing populations in suitable prairie habitats. Although some 

additional populations may potentially become established through appropriate 

habitat management and natural recruitment from nearby populations, the 

restoration of populations through reintroduction within the historical range of the 

species may be necessary. The establishment of additional populations will 
 

IV-59

require the identification and preparation of appropriate reintroduction sites 

within each of the recovery zones, as necessary, and the successful reintroduction 

of the plant through either outplanting or seeding followed by monitoring and 

management. 

1.2.4.1 Identify reintroduction sites. 

The status of extant populations of each of the four listed plant species 

within each recovery zone must be evaluated and the gap between current 

and desired conditions assessed to determine where reintroduction of the 

species may be both feasible and desirable to achieve recovery goals. 

Consideration of sites within the historical range of the species should 

include factors such as the extent and quality of any remaining prairie 

habitat or the potential for restoration to high quality prairie; 

landownership and potential for long-term protection; proximity to other 

populations of the species for potential gene flow and connectivity within 

a population structure; environmental buffering, size of the property, and 

potential for population expansion; and cost and ease of managing the site 

for maintenance of the appropriate ecological conditions. 

1.2.4.2 Conduct reintroductions. 

Using the protocols discussed above (Recovery Actions 1.2.3.5.3.1 and 

1.2.3.5.3.2), conduct reintroductions at suitable sites. 

1.2.5 Monitor populations.

1.2.5.1 Develop a standardized monitoring protocol to monitor population 

abundance and evaluate population trends at all population sites. 

Past inventory and monitoring methods for Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 

Sidalcea nelsoniana have varied widely, hampering our ability to 

understand the current status of the species and rendering it impossible to 

accurately interpret and compare population data between sites. A 

standardized monitoring protocol designed to count individuals and that is 

consistently applied throughout the range of the species is a high priority 

need to assess population trends. All populations should be monitored on 
 

IV-60

a consistent basis to allow for the adjustment of management strategies, as 

necessary, and to assess progress toward recovery goals. 

1.2.5.2 Monitor populations and trends, evaluate effectiveness of 

management actions and apply adaptive management practices, as 

appropriate. 

Monitor all populations as needed to track progress towards recovery 

goals and to evaluate the effect of habitat management actions. Until a 

final monitoring protocol is available for each species (see Recovery 

Action 1.2.5.1), sites should be monitored at least one year prior to 

management action, each year after treatment for at least 2 years, and then 

every 3-5 years. Monitoring reports should be provided to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and include GIS coordinates or other precise location 

data. 

1.2.6 Monitor prairie quality at all population sites. 

In addition to monitoring the status of the listed species at each population site, 

the sites must be managed to achieve the recovery goals for prairie quality. The 

attainment of high quality prairie habitats will serve as an indicator that 

management actions are successfully restoring and maintaining the ecological 

functions of the prairie ecosystem, will provide the appropriate environmental 

conditions for the continued expansion of the listed species, and will support 

populations of associated nonlisted prairie species of conservation concern. See 

Appendix D for guidance on assessment of prairie quality. 

1.2.7 Collect and bank seeds. 

Seed banks should be established to assist in augmentation and reintroduction 

efforts, and to serve as insurance against the possibility of extinction of Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana. Collection of seeds should be distributed 

evenly among as many individuals within populations as possible to maximize the 

genetic representation of the source population and the resulting genetic diversity 

in the population undergoing augmentation or reintroduction. In addition, priority 

should be given to seed collection from sites that are currently unprotected and 

therefore more vulnerable to extirpation. Seed should be stored at a Center for 

Plant Conservation member institution, such as the Berry Botanic Garden in 
 

IV-61

Portland, Oregon. Use the collection protocol and schedule suggested by the 

target bank. A permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act is 

required for seed collection on Federal lands. 

1.3 Further research needed for the conservation of the species. 

Although much important research has been completed on Fender’s blue butterfly,

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana, further studies are essential to achieving more 

focused and cost-effective conservation efforts. 

1.3.1 Determine the effect of herbicides on different life stages of Fender’s 

blue butterfly.

Restoration of prairie habitat often requires the use of herbicides to control 

non-native species. Little is known about the effect of these herbicides on 

Fender’s blue butterfly. The effects of commonly used herbicides on 

Fender’s blue butterflies may be assessed using a surrogate species if 

appropriate. This is a high priority action; a better understanding of the 

effect of common herbicides on different life stages of Fender’s blue 

butterfly could allow more liberal use of herbicides, often a very costeffective option, in the management of prairie habitats. 

1.3.2 Develop guidelines for protection of Fender’s blue butterfly and its 

habitat from pesticides. 

Populations of Fender’s blue butterfly are often found in or near areas that 

are subject to treatment by insecticides or herbicides, with potentially 

detrimental or even lethal effects on the butterfly. Such areas include 

roadsides, agricultural fields, urban areas sprayed for mosquito control, or 

forest edges where spraying for control of gypsy moths may occur. In 

addition, Fender’s blue butterfly habitat may be intentionally targeted for 

herbicide treatment to reduce or eliminate undesirable invasive plants. 

Guidelines should be developed to protect the butterfly and the essential 

components of its habitat (e.g., lupine and nectar plants) from 

incompatible usage of pesticides. Pesticide protection guidelines should 

be incorporated into permits, management plans, habitat conservation 

plans, and safe harbor agreements. 
 

IV-62

1.3.3 Evaluate the dispersal ability of Fender’s blue butterfly in various 

habitat types across the species’ range. 

Conservation of Fender’s blue butterfly will require restoration and 

management of networks of habitat that maintain functioning 

metapopulations. Previous investigations of the butterfly’s behavior and 

population dynamics (Schultz 1998, Crone and Schultz 2003, Schultz and 

Crone 2005) have suggested that understanding the butterfly’s dispersal 

behavior across different habitat types and habitat boundaries is essential 

for predicting how the butterflies move across the landscape, and that 

maintenance of a functioning metapopulation requires a network of 

patches of sufficient size and connectivity to promote population growth 

within the patches and exchange of butterflies among the patches. To 

date, investigations of butterfly dispersal behavior have focused on 

Fender’s blue populations around Eugene, Oregon, an area that is 

generally flat and open. In contrast, several areas that are critical to 

recovery of the species are within relatively hilly and wooded landscapes. 

Thus, a key need is to conduct dispersal studies within appropriate habitat 

to determine to what degree findings from earlier studies are valid in hilly, 

wooded landscapes and to understand how woodlands influence the 

dispersal behavior of the butterfly. Data from these studies can then be 

used to adapt models developed for the West Eugene area to develop 

conservation strategies in other parts of the species’ range. 

1.3.4 Evaluate other models to predict the viability and persistence of 

Fender’s blue butterfly populations based on new population 

locations and monitoring data.

All of the current viability models for Fender’s blue butterfly are based on 

data gathered from small populations, since only small populations 

remain. Because small populations behave differently than larger 

populations, new data gathered as populations are restored to larger sizes 

will enable us to more accurately model the probability of persistence of 

these populations in the face of various uncertainties. As models are 

refined, the recovery criteria should be revised to reflect any new 

information, if necessary. 
 

IV-63

1.3.5 Investigate the role of pollinators in supporting forb species needed 

for nectar species diversity

The health of prairie habitats depends on preserving the native community 

of plants and animals, as well as the natural processes that maintain the 

system. We need a better understanding of the native pollinators and their 

habitat requirements to guide management of prairie habitats. 

1.3.6 Evaluate the effectiveness of different prairie management techniques. 

Controlled experiments should be done to compare the response of 

Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium 

bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea nelsoniana to 

different vegetation management techniques (e.g., burning, mowing, and 

manual removal of woody vegetation) and to determine which methods 

most benefit the species. These studies should also evaluate the optimal 

frequencies, intensities, timing, and possible combinations of these 

methods. 

1.3.7 Identify pollinators and determine habitat needs of pollinators.

Little is known about the specific pollinators of Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 

Sidalcea nelsoniana, or of the important nectar species for Fender’s blue 

butterfly. Identification of the most frequent pollinators and their habitat 

requirements (including important nectar plants and nesting substrate) is 

essential to managing prairie habitats to sustain populations of the listed 

species in this recovery plan. 

1.3.8 Evaluate genetic variability within and among populations of the 

listed plant species.

Many of the existing populations of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens,

Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana occur in small, fragmented patches of habitat that are isolated 

from one another. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, in particular, is 

exhibiting symptoms of inbreeding depression, such as reduced seed set 

and fitness (Severns 2003, Wilson et al. 2003). The levels of genetic 

distinctiveness within and among populations of the listed plant should be 

evaluated to direct the transfer of genetic material between populations in 
 

IV-64

augmentation efforts and identify the appropriate source populations for 

reintroductions. If preliminary research indicates there is little genetic 

variability between populations of a species (i.e., few or no unique 

alleles), managers may consider bypassing further costly and timeconsuming genetic studies and capturing most of the existing genetic 

variation within the population by collecting seed from a large sample of 

the remaining individuals (Schemske et al. 1994). Under these 

circumstances, the vigor of the plants may be improved by the 

reintroduction of genetic variability that had been lost through population 

fragmentation and the interruption of gene flow. 

1.3.8.1 Elucidate genetic differences between populations of Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens in wet prairie habitats and drier 

prairie habitats. 

The few existing populations of Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens occur in small, fragmented patches of habitat that are 

isolated from one another; the limited reproductive capacity of the 

plants may be a sign that the species is exhibiting the effects of 

inbreeding depression (Jackson 1996, Clark 2000). The levels of 

genetic distinctiveness within and between populations should be 

evaluated in order to direct the transfer of genetic material among 

populations in augmentation efforts and identify the appropriate 

source populations for reintroductions. Particular attention is 

needed to determine if Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

populations at wetter sites differ genetically from populations at 

drier sites. 

1.3.8.2 Evaluate incidence of hybridization and develop strategies to 

minimize potential hybridization. 

Hybridization with closely related species has been identified as 

a potential threat to Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and 

Sidalcea nelsoniana. The current data should be reviewed and 

studies conducted as necessary to evaluate the current incidence 

of hybridization in these two species. If hybridization is found to 

be occurring, management strategies should be developed to 

minimize the potential for further hybridization. 
 

IV-65

1.3.9 Research the role of vegetative versus sexual reproduction in Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens. 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens is capable of vegetative 

reproduction, forming clumps of genetically identical individuals or 

ramets. However, sexual reproduction, as facilitated by insect pollination, 

is important in the long-term survival of the species (Jackson 1996). 

Further studies are needed to elucidate the relative roles of vegetative and 

sexual reproduction in this species. If sexual reproduction is most 

important for population recruitment, then management should focus on 

strategies that promote flowering and seed production, as well as 

connectivity and gene flow among local populations (Clark 2000). If 

vegetative reproduction is important, then management would focus on 

activities that promote ramet production. 

1.3.10 Evaluate the importance of mycorrhizae and other below-ground 

micro-organisms on plant performance. 

 Mycorrhizae and other organisms in the soil can have substantial impacts 

on plant growth, competitive ability and overall fitness. The role of these 

soil organisms should be evaluated to improve restoration, reintroduction 

and augmentation practices. 

1.3.11 Assess the use of mowing as a tool to control vole populations. 

Prairie management practices that reduce thatch are generally effective for 

controlling vole populations. The effectiveness of mowing as a tool to 

reduce thatch build-up and control vole numbers should be evaluated. 

Studies to assess the effect of vole control on plant success and prairie 

quality should also be conducted. 

1.3.12 Evaluate interactions between listed species and non-native plants. 

Studies should be identified and conducted to determine the mechanisms 

by which non-native and invasive organisms affect the listed species. 

1.3.13 Evaluate the use of livestock grazing as a tool to manage prairie 

habitat. 
 

IV-66

Studies should be conducted to determine the efficacy of using controlled 

livestock grazing to manage prairie structure and quality, evaluating the 

effect of time of year and different livestock species (cattle, sheep, goats, 

etc.). 

1.3.14 Investigate innovative weeding and vegetation sampling techniques.

Current methods of prairie management and monitoring are time-intensive 

and costly. New weeding and monitoring methods that could reduce the 

costs associated with carrying out essential tasks for species recovery 

should be identified and evaluated. 

1.3.15 Evaluate the threat of seed predation by weevils, and develop 

management strategies to control weevil damage, if needed.

Seed predation by weevils has been identified as a significant threat to 

Sidalcea nelsoniana. Better information is needed on the effect of weevils 

on the reproductive success of S. nelsoniana, with the goal of reducing the 

adverse effects, if warranted. Further studies on weevil control strategies 

should be initiated if seed predation by weevils is found to reduce the 

reproductive success of S. nelsoniana, and control is considered to be 

essential to restoring populations of the species. If pesticide application is 

evaluated, the studies should also consider the effects of any such 

applications on the insect pollinators of S. nelsoniana. Biological control 

methods should also be investigated as an alternative method of 

controlling levels of seed predation by weevils. 

1.3.16 Identify factors that limit the expansion of populations of listed 

prairie plants. 

Determine whether seed set is insufficient or if seed availability is limiting 

the recovery of listed plant species. 

1.3.17 Investigate the impacts of global climate change on habitats and 

species in the area covered by this recovery plan. Adapt management 

strategies as necessary.

The threat of climate change casts substantial uncertainty over the fate of 

the prairies of western Oregon and southwestern Washington. Studies of 

the effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest should be 
 

IV-67

considered when determining habitat restoration and management goals 

and actions, to develop adaptive management strategies in preparation for 

changes in the distribution and viability of prairie habitats. 

1.3.17.1 Convene an expert panel to advise the recovery program on 

measures needed to respond or adapt to impending climate 

change effects to the listed species addressed in this 

recovery plan.

Convene an expert panel to review the most current scientific 

information for climate change projections to the prairie 

regions covered by this recovery plan. Seek consensus on 

likely changes to be expected and identify potential adaptations 

to climate-related stressors. Develop a monitoring approach 

and adaptive management responses. 

1.3.17.2 Evaluate the role of habitat heterogeneity in buffering 

populations from the effects of changing climate patterns in 

the region.

Management for high habitat heterogeneity (e.g., a variety of 

habitat types, slopes, aspects and elevational gradients) may be 

an important step in buffering the effects of changing climate 

conditions on listed prairie species. Conduct research to assess 

the value of habitat heterogeneity across a range of sites and 

weather years. 

1.4 Reintroduce Castilleja levisecta to the Willamette Valley. 

Castilleja levisecta occurred historically within the area covered by this recovery plan in 

the SW Washington, Portland, Salem East and Corvallis East recovery zones. The 

species has its own current recovery plan, which states that reintroductions of populations 

throughout the species’ historic range will be necessary to achieve recovery (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2000b). The Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead for recovery of Castilleja levisecta; the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office, which has the lead for the other listed species addressed by this 

draft recovery plan, will coordinate with the Western Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Office on the recovery efforts for Castilleja levisecta within the geographic range of this 

plan. 
 

IV-68

1.4.1 Evaluate protected sites established for other listed prairie species in this 

plan as potential reintroduction sites for Castilleja levisecta. 

Potential reintroduction sites for Castilleja levisecta should be considered in the 

SW Washington, Portland, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis East, Corvallis 

West, Eugene East, and Eugene West recovery zones; priority should be given to 

reestablishing populations in zones for which there are historical records 

(Southwest Washington, Portland, Salem East, Corvallis East). Reintroductions 

should be guided by the recovery plan for the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2000b), the reintroduction plan (Caplow 2004), and the specific 

recommendations for Willamette Valley reintroductions (Lawrence 2005). An 

essential part of site evaluation prior to reintroduction is an intensive survey (or 

reference to a recently completed survey) of the immediate area for possible 

remnant native populations of Castilleja levisecta; this step should ensure that 

any unique genetic stock native to the Willamette Valley is found and preserved if 

any still persists. Experimental reintroductions have shown that Castilleja 

levisecta does best at sites that are dominated by native perennial species and are 

managed to control high levels of herbivory by deer or voles. 

1.4.2 Reintroduce Castilleja levisecta to restored prairie sites. 

Reintroductions should follow the detailed protocol described in Caplow (2004). 

Recent research has shown that the most successful experimental populations 

used seed from Whidbey Island populations (Lawrence 2005). 

1.4.3 Manage and monitor reintroduced populations of Castilleja levisecta. 

Active site management should be implemented to restore prairie structure, 

quality, and native species composition, with an emphasis on limiting the 

abundance of non-native species, reducing the accumulation of thatch and litter, 

and managing herbivores. Management actions will likely include prescribed 

burning, mowing, herbicide use, and seeding with native species. Monitoring 

should follow the fate of reintroduced populations and determine trends over time. 

1.4.4 Monitor effectiveness of management actions for Castilleja levisecta and 

apply adaptive management practices, as appropriate. 
 

IV-69

This task can be accomplished in concert with management monitoring and 

adaptive management for the other listed prairie species addressed by this 

recovery plan. 

1.4.5 Evaluate the use of livestock grazing as a tool to manage populations of 

Castilleja levisecta. 

One of the largest populations of C. levisecta in Washington occurs in a pasture 

that is grazed by horses, which suggests that grazing may create favorable 

conditions for the species. Conduct research to determine if some level of 

livestock grazing is beneficial to the species. 

2. Coordinate recovery actions to benefit other listed species and nonlisted prairie species 

of conservation concern. 

The extensive loss of both wet and upland prairie habitats throughout the geographic region 

addressed by this draft recovery plan has resulted in the concurrent declines of many of the 

native plants and animals associated with these ecosystems. In this plan we have attempted 

to focus not only on the recovery of the listed prairie species, but to extend these recovery 

efforts to the ecosystems upon which they depend. The recommended actions for restoring 

and reconnecting prairie habitats in western Oregon and southwestern Washington are 

intended to extend benefits beyond the threatened or endangered species addressed in the 

plan to all of the native prairie species in these regions, including nonlisted prairie species 

that are recognized as in decline. Proactive efforts to restore prairie systems should 

contribute to the arrest or reversal of these declines, thereby preventing the need to list these 

species in the future. Particularly on sites where listed species co-occur with nonlisted 

species of conservation concern, landowners or managers should be made aware so as to 

tailor management actions to avoid inadvertent negative impacts on any such species. 

Coordination with other agencies, private landowners, or other interested parties will help 

ensure that the recovery actions outlined in this plan benefit the habitat and populations of 

other native prairie species. 

2.1 Determine current status of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, Delphinium 

leucophaeum, Delphinium oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta

ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus, and Sisyrinchium hitchcockii in the area covered 

by the recovery plan.
 

IV-70

2.2 Protect and manage populations and habitats to ensure long-term survival, with an 

emphasis on sites managed for other listed prairie species addressed in this recovery 

plan.

To the extent possible, recovery actions for listed species should be combined with 

actions designed to protect and enhance the nonlisted prairie species addressed in this 

recovery plan. 

2.2.1 Protect private lands through conservation easements, land acquisition, or 

other means. 

See Recovery Action 3 below for recommended approaches to working with 

private landowners to protect species and habitats on private lands. 

2.3 Collect and bank seeds of Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium oreganum, 

Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus, and 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii. 

Seed banks should be established to assist in augmentation and reintroduction efforts. 

Collection of seeds should be distributed evenly among as many individuals within 

populations as possible to maximize the genetic representation of the source population 

and the resulting genetic diversity in the population undergoing augmentation or 

reintroduction. In addition, priority should be given to seed collection from sites that are 

currently unprotected and therefore more vulnerable to extirpation. Seed should be 

stored at a Center for Plant Conservation member institution, such as the Berry Botanic 

Garden in Portland, Oregon. Use the collection protocol and schedule suggested by the 

target bank. 

 

3. Promote protection of listed species and prairie restoration on private lands. 

More than 90 percent of the land in the Willamette Valley is in private ownership. The 

restoration of prairie systems and their native plant and animal communities can therefore 

only be successful with the participation of private landowners. Without active management, 

populations of both listed and nonlisted species endemic to prairie habitats are almost certain 

to experience further declines. Working with private landowners and providing incentives to 

participate in the recovery effort for these species are critical elements of the recovery 

strategy. 

3.1 Develop an active program to engage private landowners in the conservation of 

listed and nonlisted prairie species and prairie habitat restoration. 
 

IV-71

The species addressed by this recovery plan are insects and plants – groups that do not 

typically attract high levels of public interest. A critical first step in working with the 

region’s private landowners is to increase their awareness of the rare species in the area 

and their understanding of the vital role private lands can play in restoring native prairies. 

Better information on the species, their conservation needs, and the range of programs 

available to help private landowners coexist with listed species is needed. Informational 

materials should be developed that assist members of the public in recognizing the 

species of interest and the features of native prairie habitats. Permission should be sought 

from interested landowners to conduct surveys for species of interest. Landowners with 

only listed plant species on their properties may be less hesitant to come forward with 

location information if they understand that listed plants carry minimal regulatory 

burdens with regard to the Endangered Species Act, and that conservation efforts on their 

part are purely voluntary.

3.2 Provide information about the species of interest, incentive programs for voluntary 

conservation efforts, and restoration and monitoring resources available to 

landowners. 

Private landowners should be invited to participate in recovery efforts for the species 

covered in this plan. Landowners with remnants of native prairie on their properties or 

with lands that have good restoration potential have many resources available to help 

them. There are many Federal and State programs that offer financial assistance and 

technical expertise to private landowners, including the Service’s Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program and several other grant programs that support conservation of 

endangered species; the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service’s Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program and Wetland Reserve Program; the Farm 

Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program; and the State of 

Oregon’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program. There are awards 

available from private organizations as well, such as Sustainable Agriculture Research 

and Education (SARE). Numerous additional sources of prairie restoration expertise are 

available, such as the Willamette Valley Prairie Research Group at Oregon State 

University and many other organizations identified in Appendix E. Interested private 

landowners who wish to restore native prairie habitats on their lands should be assisted in 

the development of site-specific management plans to achieve results consistent with the 

recovery goals in this plan. 
 

IV-72

3.3 Develop Safe Harbor Agreements for landowners interested in restoring prairie 

habitats for the Fender’s blue butterfly or Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. 

A Safe Harbor Agreement provides assurances against restrictions for the landowner, 

should the Fender’s blue butterfly colonize their property in the future as a result of 

conservation efforts. Landowners with Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii or other species 

of Lupinus may be particularly interested in developing such an agreement with the 

Service, as may private parties who own parcels adjacent to lands where prairie 

restoration work is planned. Although there are no take prohibitions for listed plants on 

private lands, inclusion of listed plants in a Safe Harbor Agreement will ensure an 

ecosystem approach to management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office has developed a streamlined approach to Safe Harbor Agreements 

that can provide coverage for restoration activities on private lands throughout the 

Willamette Valley; this program encourages restoration of prairie habitats by providing 

regulatory assurances to private landowners that managing for habitat values that could 

attract listed species will not foreclose future options for the use of those lands. 

4. Cultivate partnerships with both public and private agencies and organizations to 

promote the conservation of prairie ecosystems and listed prairie species. 

A diverse group of agencies and organizations are involved in recovery activities for the 

native prairies in western Oregon and southwestern Washington, including, but not limited 

to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Oregon Department of Transportation, City of Eugene, 

The Nature Conservancy, Oregon State University, Institute for Applied Ecology, Greenbelt 

Land Trust, McKenzie River Land Trust, Oregon Oak Communities Working Group, 

Washington Native Plant Society, Oregon Native Plant Society, Heritage Seedlings, and 

Berry Botanic Garden. Information regarding the recovery efforts for the prairie species 

should be shared with city and county planning, parks, and natural resource departments 

throughout the region covered by this recovery plan. City and county governments are the 

primary agencies that determine future land uses, and their participation is important for the 

recovery and restoration of the prairies and their associated listed species. Some local 

agencies are already making significant contributions toward prairie restoration; the West 

Eugene Wetlands are an excellent example of a significant conservation accomplishment 

achieved through a partnership of federal and local governments and private 

landowners/organizations. Plans, data, and information pertinent to the recovery of the 
 

IV-73

prairie species must be synthesized and shared effectively between all agencies, groups, and 

individuals to leverage collective conservation efforts and achieve recovery. 

4.1 Establish technical working groups to review the effectiveness of management plans 

and recovery actions, monitor the status of the species, and coordinate conservation 

efforts. 

A group of representatives from the agencies and organizations involved in recovery 

efforts for each species should be formed and meet periodically to review the status and 

effectiveness of recovery actions, coordinate efforts to maximize efficiency where 

possible, and recommend changes in recovery strategies or management actions, when 

necessary. 

4.2 Educate the public about native prairies and the rare species that depend on them.

A public education campaign using a variety of media should be developed to inform 

residents of the region about the value and rarity of native prairie species. Engage the 

public in conservation efforts, and encourage responsible recreation in and appreciation 

of these rare habitats. 

5. Revise and update recovery plan as needed. 

Based on the results of the recommended research and monitoring efforts and the evaluation 

of the relative success or failure of different management techniques, the recovery plan 

should be revised periodically as needed to reflect this increased knowledge and improve the 

efficacy of future recovery actions. The scientific validity of the recovery criteria should also 

be reviewed and refined, if necessary, as more accurate species-specific data become 

available to assist with refining recovery criteria. 

6. Develop post-delisting monitoring plans for each listed species prior to delisting. 

To ensure the continuing recovery of the listed species and adequacy of management actions 

to maintain the species at viable levels into the foreseeable future, a post-delisting monitoring 

plan must be developed and ready for implementation prior to delisting of any threatened or 

endangered species. Such a monitoring plan must be designed to be continued for a 

minimum of 5 years following the delisting action.
 

V-1

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

The Implementation Schedule that follows outlines the recommended recovery actions and 

estimated time and costs of the recovery program for Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Sidalcea 

nelsoniana and Castilleja levisecta as set forth in this recovery plan. It is a guide for meeting the 

recovery goals outlined in this plan. The Implementation Schedule includes the following 

elements: 

A. ACTION PRIORITIES 

The actions identified in the Implementation Schedule are those that, in our opinion, are 

necessary to bring about the recovery of these species. However, the actions are subject to 

modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of 

recovery actions. The priority for each action is given in the first column of the Implementation 

Schedule, and is assigned as follows: 

Priority 1 — An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the species from 

declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

Priority 2 — An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in the species’ 

population or habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact short of 

extinction. 

Priority 3 — All other actions necessary to meet the recovery objectives. 

B. ACTION NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION 

The action number and action description are extracted from the stepdown narrative of recovery 

actions found in Section IV.C of this plan. Please refer back to this narrative for a more detailed 

description of each action. 
 

V-2

C. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 

In this table, we have identified agencies and other parties that we believe are primary 

stakeholders in the recovery process for these prairie species. Stakeholders are those agencies, 

organizations, or private individuals who may voluntarily participate in any aspect of 

implementation of particular actions listed within this recovery plan. Stakeholders may willingly 

participate in project planning, funding, provide technical assistance, staff time, or any other 

means of implementation. The list of potential stakeholders is not limited to the list below; other 

stakeholders are invited to participate. 

The listing of an entity in the Implementation Schedule does not require, nor imply an 

agreement, that the identified agency implement that action or secure funding for implementing 

the action. However, agencies willing to participate may benefit by being able to show in their 

own budgets that their funding request is for a recovery action identified in an approved recovery 

plan and is therefore considered a necessary action for the overall coordinated effort to recover 

these listed species. Also, section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) directs all Federal 

agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have the statutory responsibility for implementing this 

recovery plan. Only Federal agencies are mandated to take part in the effort. Recovery actions 

identified in this plan imply no legal obligations of the State and local government agencies or 

private landowners. However, the recovery of these listed prairie species will require the 

involvement and cooperation of Federal, State, local, and private interests. 

D. ACTION DURATION 

The action duration column indicates the number of years estimated to complete the action if it is 

a discrete action, or whether it is a continual, ongoing, or intermittent action. Occasionally it is 

not possible to provide a reasonable estimate of either the time or cost to complete an action; 

these cases are denoted as To Be Determined (TBD). Continual and ongoing actions are defined 

as follows: 

Continual — An action that will be implemented on a routine basis once begun. 
 

V-3

Ongoing — An action that is currently being implemented and will continue until the 

action is no longer necessary. 

Intermittent — An action that will be implemented on a routine basis once begun, but 

on an intermittent (e.g., every 3 years, or every 5 years) rather than annual 

basis. 

E. COST ESTIMATES 

The Implementation Schedule provides the estimated costs of implementing recovery actions for 

the first 5 years after the release of the recovery plan, the years 2010 through 2014. Continual 

and ongoing costs, as well as the estimated total cost, are based on the projected timeframes to 

recovery and delisting of each species. Recovery of the Fender’s blue butterfly is projected to 

take 25 years, with delisting estimated to occur in the year 2035. Recovery of the listed plants 

(Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawi, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 

and Sidalcea nelsoniana) is projected to take about 20 years, with delisting estimated to occur in 

2030, although recovery and delisting of Sidalcea nelsoniana could occur sooner. 

Annual cost estimates are as follows: 

 2010 = $2,285,000 

 2011 = $1,602,000 

 2012 = $1,252,000 

 2013 = $1,029,000 

 2014 = $660,000 

The total estimated cost to implement this plan for years 2010 through 2014 is $6,828,000. The 

total estimated cost to implement this plan through the year 2035, the estimated recovery date of 

Fender’s blue butterfly, is $16,590,000. 

It should be noted that because many of the recovery actions identified for particular species will 

also benefit other listed species, the total cost of recovery may be overestimated. 
 

V-4

Key to Responsible Parties: 

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Berry Berry Botanic Garden 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

NGO Non-governmental agency 

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

RT Recovery Team 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

Tribe Grand Ronde Tribe 

University Higher education institutions 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline 

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources 
V-5

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

 1 

Preserve, restore, and manage populations and habitat for the listed prairie species covered by this plan 

 1.1 

Preserve, restore, and manage populations and habitat for Fender’s blue butterfly 

 1.1.1 

Evaluate the status of extant populations 

1 1.1.1.1 Develop a standardized 

population monitoring protocol Ongoing FWS, NGO, University 3 3 

1 1.1.1.2 

Survey existing populations and surrounding suitable habitats to determine geographic extent of populations 

5 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

100 20 20 20 20 

1 1.1.1.3 

Attempt to locate additional populations of Fender’s blue butterfly by surveying suitable habitats in areas not currently known to support populations 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 65 5 5 5 

 1.1.2 

Identify and protect sites within potential functioning networks and at independent populations 

1 1.1.2.1 

Identify and evaluate sites and populations for inclusion in the development of potential functioning networks and independent populations 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 77 5 3 3 3 
V-6

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

2 1.1.2.2 

Evaluate protected status of populations and sites identified for inclusion in all functioning networks and independent populations and ensure longterm protection of those not yet secured 

Continuous 

FWS 

53 5 2 2 2 

2 1.1.3 

Develop and implement management plans for each functioning network and independent population Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

520 80 80 80 20 

 1.1.4 

Manage all functioning networks and independent populations to reduce threats and expand and increase populations 

 1.1.4.1 

Set back succession and reduce competition from non-native plants. 

2 1.1.4.1.1 

Prescribed fire 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

900 100 10

2 1.1.4.1.2 

Mowing 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

780 60 60 60 

2 1.1.4.1.3 

Manual removal of woody plants Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

350 50 50 20 
V-7

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

3 1.1.4.1.4 

Habitat management using other methods as appropriate, pending results of ongoing and planned research 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

260 20 20 

 1.1.4.2 

Restore native prairie species, with an emphasis on larval host plants and adult nectaring sources. 

1 1.1.4.2.1 

Restore and enhance populations of larval host plants Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

210 40 40 20 

1 1.1.4.2.2 

Restore and enhance populations of nectar sources Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

360 50 50 40 

3 1.1.4.3 

Evaluate and reduce grazing impacts from domestic stock, and assess the use of livestock grazing as a habitat management tool 

5 

FWS, USGS, University, NGO 65 20 20 10 10 

3 1.1.4.4 

Evaluate and reduce impacts of wild herbivores, especially deer and voles 

3 

FWS, USGS, University, NGO 

40 20 10 10 

3 1.1.4.5 

Address threat from collection 

Continuous 

FWS 

17 5 1 

2 1.1.5 

Coordinate with recovery efforts for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidi. 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

61 10 5 2 2 

 1.1.6 

Reintroduce and augment populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to meet recovery goals 
V-8

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

 1.1.6.1 Develop reintroduction protocol 

1 1.1.6.1.1 

Develop a translocation protocol for establishing new populations using individuals from existing populations 

1 

FWS, RT 

3 3 

2 1.1.6.1.2 Design a captive propagation 

and release program 

1 FWS, NGO, 

Oregon Zoo 

25 25 

2 1.1.6.2 

Identify reintroduction and augmentation sites and establish connectivity between populations to create functioning networks and meet viability goals 

Continuous 

FWS, RT 

38 10 10 2 2 

3 1.1.6.3 

Manage and monitor reintroduced and augmented populations 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

500 20 20 20 20 

3 1.1.7 

Monitor population abundance and trend at all functioning network and independent population sites 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

750 30 30 30 30 

3 1.1.8 

Monitor prairie quality at all functioning network and independent population sites 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

190 40 40 10 

 1.2 

Preserve, restore, and manage populations and habitat for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureusssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea 

nelsoniana
V-9

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

1 1.2.1 

Evaluate the status of extant populations 

5 

FWS, ACOE, USFS, BLM, ODA, ODOT, WDNR, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

1,200 100 100 100 

3 1.2.2 

Survey extirpated sites and suitable habitat near these sites to determine if any of these populations may still persist 

1 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, TNC, NGO 

60 60 

 1.2.3 Select, protect, and manage 

population sites 

1 1.2.3.1 Select populations on which to 

focus recovery actions 

1 FWS, ODA, 

WDNR 

5 5 

2 1.2.3.2 Evaluate protected status of 

populations 

1 

FWS 

20 20 

2 1.2.3.3 

Secure conservation or management agreements for populations that are not yet protected 

Continuous 

FWS 

600 80 80 80 80 

2 1.2.3.4 

Develop site-specific management plans 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

925 100 100 100 10

 1.2.3.5 Manage populations to address 

threats and increase populations 

 1.2.3.5.1 

Manage population sites to set back woody plant invasion and reduce competition from nonnative plants 
V-10

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

2 1.2.3.5.1.1 

Prescribed fire 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

1,470 210 21

2 1.2.3.5.1.2 

Mowing 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

825 75 75 

2 1.2.3.5.1.3 

Remove woody plants 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

180 40 40 40 

2 1.2.3.5.1.4 

Eliminate non-native plants to extent practicable and restore native prairie species Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

225 35 35 35 

1 1.2.3.5.1.5 

Work to discourage introduction of transgenic herbicide-resistant grasses in the region. 

FWS 

TBD 

2 1.2.3.5.2 

Restore connectivity among populations Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

230 20 20 20 10 

 1.2.3.5.3 Augment populations, as 

necessary 
V-11

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

1 1.2.3.5.3.1 Develop outplanting protocols 

for cultivated seedlings 

1 FWS, ODA, 

WDNR, NGO 

4 4 

1 1.2.3.5.3.2 

Develop protocols for site preparation and planting from seeds in situ

1 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO 8 8 

2 1.2.3.5.3.3 Implement population 

augmentation 

Intermittent FWS, ODA, 

WDNR, NGO 

TBD 

 1.2.4 

Reintroduce populations and restore habitat, as necessary, to meet recovery goals 

1 1.2.4.1 Identify reintroduction sites Intermittent FWS, RT 40 10 2 1.2.4.2 

Conduct reintroductions. 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, TNC, NGO 

825 80 80 80 80 

 1.2.5 Monitor populations 

1 1.2.5.1 

Develop a standardized monitoring protocol to monitor population abundance and evaluate population trends at all population sites 

1 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO 

12 12 

2 1.2.5.2 

Monitor populations and trends, evaluate effectiveness of management actions and apply adaptive management practices, as appropriate 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

800 40 40 40 40 
V-12

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

3 1.2.6 

Monitor prairie quality at all population sites 

Intermittent 

FWS, ACOE, BLM, ODA, WDNR, ODOT, Tribe, TNC, NGO 

480 60 60 40 

3 1.2.7 

Collect and bank seeds 

3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, ACOE, BLM, NGO, Berry Botanical 

60 20 20 20 

 1.3 

Further research needed for the conservation of the species 

1 1.3.1 

Determine the effect of herbicides on different lifestages of Fender’s blue butterfly 

Ongoing 

FWS, University 30 20 10 

2 1.3.2 

Develop guidelines for protection of Fender’s blue butterfly and its habitat from pesticides 

1 

FWS, University 10 10 

1 1.3.3 

Evaluate the dispersal ability of Fender’s blue butterfly in various habitat types across the species’ range 

Ongoing 

FWS, University 

200 

3 1.3.4 

Evaluate other models to predict the viability and persistence of Fender’s blue butterfly populations based on new population locations and monitoring data 

Once every 

5 years 

FWS, University, NGO 

20 20 
V-13

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

3 1.3.5 

Investigate the role of pollinators in supporting forb species needed for nectar species diversity 

3 

FWS, University, NGO 

80 30 30 20 

2 1.3.6 

Evaluate the effectiveness of different prairie management techniques 

5 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, ACOE, BLM, NGO, University 

100 30 30 20 10 

3 1.3.7 

Identify pollinators and determine habitat needs of pollinators 

3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

90 40 40 10 

 1.3.8 

Evaluate genetic variability within and among populations of the listed plant species 

3 1.3.8.1 

Elucidate genetic differences between populations of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens in 

wet prairie habitats and drier prairie habitats 

3 

FWS, ODA, NGO, University 70 30 20 20 

3 1.3.8.2 

Evaluate incidence of hybridization and develop strategies to minimize potential hybridization 

3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 130 50 50 30 

3 1.3.9 

Research the role of vegetative versus sexual reproduction in Erigeron decumbens var.

decumbens

3 

FWS, ODA, NGO, University 

50 20 20 10 
V-14

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

3 1.3.10 

Evaluate the importance of mycorrhizae and other belowground micro-organisms on plant performance 

4 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

180 50 50 40 40 

3 1.3.11 

Assess the use of mowing as a tool to control vole populations 3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

50 20 20 10 

3 1.3.12 

Evaluate interactions between listed species and non-native plants 

5 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

TBD 

2 1.3.13 

Evaluate the use of livestock grazing as a tool to manage prairie habitat 

3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

50 20 20 10 

2 1.3.14 

Investigate innovative weeding and vegetation sampling techniques 

4 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

100 25 25 25 25 

3 1.3.15 

Evaluate the threat of seed predation by weevils, and develop management strategies to control weevil damage, if needed 

2 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 20 10 10 

2 1.3.16 

Identify factors that limit the expansion of populations of listed prairie plants 

3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

45 15 15 15 

 1.3.17 

Investigate the impacts of global climate change on habitats and species in the area covered by this recovery plan. Adapt management strategies as necessary 
V-15

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

2 1.3.17.1 

Convene an expert panel to advise the recovery program on measures needed to respond or adapt to impending climate change effects to the listed species addressed in this recovery plan 

5 

FWS, USGS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 15 15 

2 1.3.17.2 

Evaluate the role of habitat heterogeneity in buffering populations from the effects of changing climate patterns in the region 

5 

FWS, USGS, ODA, WDNR, NGO, University 

TBD 

 1.4 

Reintroduce Castilleja levisectato the Willamette Valley 

2 1.4.1 

Evaluate protected sites established for other listed prairie species in this plan as potential reintroduction sites for Castilleja levisecta

2 

FWS, ODA, WDNR 

20 10 10 

2 1.4.2 

Reintroduce Castilleja levisecta

to restored prairie sites 5 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, BLM, NGO 

100 20 20 20 20 

2 1.4.3 

Manage and monitor reintroduced populations Intermittent 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, BLM, NGO 

220 20 20 20 

3 1.4.4 

Monitor effectiveness of management actions and apply adaptive management practices, as appropriate 

Intermittent 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, BLM, NGO 

180 30 30 20 
V-16

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

3 1.4.5 

Evaluate the use of livestock grazing as a tool to manage populations of Castilleja levisecta

3 

FWS, ODA, WDNR, BLM, NGO 

40 20 10 10 

 2 

Coordinate recovery actions to benefit other listed species and nonlisted prairie species of conservation concern 

 2.1 

Determine current status of Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus and

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii in the 

area covered by the recovery plan 

 2.2 

Protect and manage populations and habitats to ensure long-term survival, with an emphasis on sites managed for other listed prairie species addressed in this recovery plan 

 2.2.1 

Protect private lands through conservation easements, land acquisition, or other means 
V-17

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

 2.3 

Collect and bank seeds of Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus rigidus and

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii 

 3 

Promote protection of listed species and prairie restoration on private lands 

1 3.1 

Develop an active program to engage private landowners in the conservation of listed and nonlisted prairie species and prairie habitat restoration 

Continuous 

FWS 

220 20 20 10 10 

2 3.2 

Provide information about the species of interest, incentive programs for voluntary conservation efforts, and restoration and monitoring resources available to landowners 

Continuous 

FWS, ACOE, ODA, WDNR, BLM, NGO 

400 60 60 60 10 

2 3.3 

Develop Safe Harbor Agreements for landowners interested in restoring prairie habitats for the Fender’s blue butterfly and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 

Continuous 

FWS 

630 60 60 60 30 
V-18

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) Priority 

Number 

Action 

Number Action Description 

Action 

Duration 

Responsible 

Parties Total 

Costs 

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY

 4 

Cultivate partnerships with both public and private agencies and organizations to promote the conservation of prairie ecosystems and listed prairie species 

3 4.1 

Establish a technical working group to review the effectiveness of management plans and recovery actions, monitor the status of the species, and coordinate conservation efforts 

Intermittent 

FWS, RT 

50 10 

2 4.2 

Educate the public about native prairies and the rare species that depend on them 

3 

FWS, ACOE, ODA, WDNR, BLM, NGO 

54 30 12 12 

3 5 Revise and update recovery plan 

as needed 

TBD FWS, RT TBD 

3 6 

Develop post-delisting monitoring plans for each listed species prior to delisting 

5 

FWS 

100 

Total 16,590 2,285 1,602 1,252 1,0
 VI-1

VI. REFERENCES 

A. LITERATURE CITED 

Altman, B., M. Hayes, S. Janes, and R. Forbes. 2001. Wildlife of westside grassland and 

chaparral habitats. Pages 261-291 in: D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, Managing 

Directors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis. 736 pp. 

Alverson, E. R. 1990. Use of a county soil survey to locate remnants of native grassland 

in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. New York State Museum Bulletin 471:107-112. 

Alverson, E. R. 1991. New localities for Aster curtus in western Oregon. Madrono 

38:202-203. 

Ballmer, G. R, and G. F. Pratt. 1988. A survey of the last instar larvae of the Lycaenidae 

(Lepidoptera). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 27:1-81. 

Barnes, M. 2004. Habitat variation and experimental management of Kincaid’s lupine. 

Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon 37(9):95-103. 

Barry, J. W., P. J. Skyler, M. E. Teske, J. A. Rafferty, and B. S. Grim. 1993. Predicting 

and measuring drift of Bacillus thuringiensis sprays. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry. 12:1977-1989. 

Bartels, M. R., and M. V. Wilson. 2001. Fire and mowing as management tools for 

conserving a threatened perennial and its habitat in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. 

Proceedings of the 17th North American Prairie Conference. Seeds for the Future; 

Roots of the Past. Neil P. Bernstein and Laura J. Ostrander (eds.). North Iowa 

Area Community College, Mason City, Iowa. 

Benton County. 2009. Revised draft Benton County prairie species habitat conservation 

plan. Prepared by Institute for Applied Ecology for Benton County Natural Areas 

and Parks Department, Corvallis, Oregon. 
 VI-2

Berry Botanic Garden. 2005. The Seed Bank: what’s in the collection? 

<http://www.berrybot.org/cons/cons_seed_bank_list.html > Accessed September 

29, 2005. 

Bigger, D. S. 1999. Consequences of patch size and isolation for a rare plant: Pollen 

limitation and seed predation. Natural Areas Journal 19:239-244. 

Black, S. H., K. Hitt and M. Vaughan. 2002. Petition to list the Mardon skipper butterfly 

(Polites mardon) as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

Unpublished report prepared by the Xerces Society and others, submitted to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pp. 

Boag, P. G. 1992. Environment and experience: Settlement culture in nineteenth-century 

Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Bonneville Power Administration. 2005. Right-of-Way Specialized Management Plan for 

the Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly – Santiam Toledo 230 kV Transmission Line 

Corridor (located on Cardwell Hill, near Corvallis, OR, between wood pole 

structures mile/structure 38/3 to 40/6). Unpublished report prepared by BPA, 

Eugene Region. 16 pp. 

Boyd, R. 1986. Strategies of Indian burning in the Willamette Valley. Canadian Journal 

of Anthropology 5:65-86. 

Boyer, L. L. 1999. A systematic study of the rare Oregon endemic Delphinium oreganum

and related taxa. M.S. Thesis, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. 104 pp. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Distribution and condition of Sidalcea nelsoniana

Piper: a report to the Fish and Wildlife Service for status determination. 

Unpublished report prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, Salem District. 

14 pp. + appendices. 

Caplow, F. 2004. Reintroduction plan for golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). 

Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 44 pp. + appendices. 
 VI-3

Caplow, F., and J. Miller. 2004. Southwestern Washington prairies: using GIS to find 

rare plant habitat in historic prairies. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources, Natural Heritage Report 2004 - 02. 18 pp. + map. 

Caswell, H., and T. N. Kaye. 2001. Stochastic demography and conservation of an 

endangered perennial plant (Lomatium bradshawii) in a dynamic fire regime. 

Advances in Ecological Research 32:1-51. 

Center for Plant Conservation. 2005. CPC National Collection Plant Profile: Castilleja 

levisecta. http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp? 

CPCNum=824. Accessed June 14, 2005. 

CH2MHill. 1986. Studies of Sidalcea nelsoniana. Unpublished annual research report and 

technical memorandum prepared for McMinnville Water and Light. 232 pp. + 

appendices. 

CH2MHill. 1997. Technical memorandum: Sidalcea nelsoniana monitoring 1997. 

Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 pp. 

Chambers, K. L. 2000. Oregon delphiniums – Part II. Oregon Flora Newsletter 6(3):18-

19. 

Chappell, C. B. and J. Kagan. 2001. Westside oak and dry Douglas-fir forest and 

woodlands. Pages 26-28 in: D. H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, Managing Directors. 

Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis. 736 pp. 

Chappell, C. B., M. S. Mohn Gee, B. Stephens, R. Crawford, and S. Farone. 2001. 

Distribution and decline of native grasslands and oak woodlands in the Puget 

Lowland and Willamette Valley ecoregions, Washington. Pages 124-139 in: 

Reichard, S. H., P. W. Dunwiddie, J. G. Gamon, A. R. Kruckeberg, and D. L. 

Salstrom, eds. Conservation of Washington's native plants and ecosystems. 

Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, Wash. 223 pp. 

Clark, D. L. 2000. Demographic analysis of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, an 

endangered plant species of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. 1999 field studies. 
 VI-4

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Oregon National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. 16 pp. 

Clark, D. L., K. K. Finley, and C. A. Ingersoll. 1993. Status report for Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens. Report to Conservation Biology Program, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture. 

Clark, D. L., K. K. Finley, and C. A. Ingersoll. 1995. Regeneration biology of Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens, an endangered plant of the Willamette Valley. Report 

for Oregon Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Biology Program, 

Salem, OR. 

Clark, D. L., C. A. Ingersoll, and K. K. Finley. 1997. Regeneration of Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens (Asteraceae), the Willamette daisy. Pages 41-47 in: T. 

N. Kaye, A. Liston, R. N. Love, D. L. Luoma, R. J. Meinke and M. V. Wilson, 

editors. Conservation and management of native plants and fungi. Native Plant 

Society of Oregon, Corvallis. 

Clark, D.L., M. V. Wilson, and J. Goodridge. 2001. Increasing the abundance of rare 

native wetland prairie species. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

Climate Leadership Initiative and National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. 

2009. Preparing for Climate Change in the Upper Willamette River Basin of 

Western Oregon: Co-Beneficial Planning for Communities and Ecosystems. 

Unpublished report. 47+ pp. Available on-line at 

http://www.nccsp.org/files/climate-change/Upper Willamette Basin Report 3-24-09 

FINAL.pdf. 

Crone, E. E., and C. B. Schultz. 2003. Movement behavior and minimum patch size for 

butterfly population persistence. Pages 561-576 in: C. Boggs, W. Watt, and P. 

Ehrlich (eds). Butterflies: Ecology and evolution taking flight. University of 

Chicago Press. 

Cronquist, A. 1947. Revision of the North American species of Erigeron, north of 

Mexico. Brittonia 6:121–302. 
 VI-5

Cronquist, A. 1955. Compositae. Pages 1–343 in: C. L. Hitchcock, A. Cronquist, M. 

Owenby and J. W. Thompson, editors. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. 

Part 5. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Darr, D. J. 1980. Status report for Peacock larkspur. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 15 pp. 

Dennis, B., P. L. Munholland, and J. M. Scott. 1991. Estimation of growth and extinction 

parameters for endangered species. Ecological Monographs 61:115-143. 

Dornfield, E. J. 1980. The butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. 

276 pp. 

Downey, J.C. 1975. Genus Plebejus Kluk. Pages 337-350 in: Howe, W.H. (editor). The 

butterflies of North America. xiii + 833 pp. + 97 pls. 

Drew, A. D. 2000. Effects of livestock grazing and small mammal populations on 

endangered Bradshaw’s desert parsley (Lomatium bradshawii) at Oak Creek, 

Willamette Valley, Oregon. M.S. Thesis. University of Oregon, Eugene. 65 pp. 

Dunn, D. B. and J. M. Gillett. 1966. The lupines of Canada and Alaska. Canada 

Department of Agriculture Monograph No. 2. Queen's Printer, Ottawa. 

Dunwiddie, P. W., R. Davenport, and P. Speaks. 2001. Effects of burning on Castilleja 

levisecta at Rocky Prairie Natural Area Preserve, Washington: a summary of three 

long-term studies. Pages 161-172 in: S. H. Reichard, P. W. Dunwiddie, J. G. 

Gamon, A. R. Kruckeberg, and D. L. Salstrom, eds. Conservation of Washington’s 

native plants and ecosystems. Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, WA. 

Eastman, D.C. 1990. Rare and endangered plants of Oregon. Beautiful America 

Publishing Company, Wilsonville, Oregon. 194 pp. 

Evans, S., R. Schuller, and E. Augenstein. 1984. A report on Castilleja levisecta Greenm. 

at Rocky Prairie, Thurston County, Washington. Unpublished report to The Nature 

Conservancy, Washington Field Office, Seattle, Wash. 56 pp. 
 VI-6

Ewan, J. 1945. A synopsis of the North American species of Delphinium. University of 

Colorado Studies, Series D. 2:55-244. 

Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation 

Biology 8:50-59. 

Finley, K. K. 1995. Hydrology and related soil features of three Willamette Valley 

wetland prairies. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Fitzpatrick, G. 2005. 2004 status of the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides 

fenderi) in Lane County, Oregon: population estimates and site evaluations and 

Effects of mowing on the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi): 

implications for conservation management. Unpublished report to Oregon Natural 

Heritage Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 44pp. 

Fitzpatrick, G. 2009. Comparing three Fender’s blue butterfly monitoring protocols in the 

Willamette Valley, Oregon. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. 17 pp. 

Fitzpatrick, G. S., and C. Elias. 2007. 2006 status of the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi) (at six locations) in Lane County, Oregon: population estimates 

and site evaluations. and 2006 Coburg Hills Survey: the search for new 

populations of Fender’s blue butterfly and host lupine. A report to Oregon Natural 

Heritage Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 46 pp. 

Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 452 pp. 

Freckleton, R.P. and A.R. Watkinson. 2002. Large-scale spatial dynamics of plants: 

metapopulations, regional ensembles and patchy populations. Journal of Ecology 

(90):419-434. 

Gamon, J. 1995. Report on the status of Castilleja levisecta Greenman. Unpublished 

report, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Dept. of Natural Resources, 

Olympia, Wash. 57 pp. 
 VI-7

Gamon, J., and D. Salstrom. 1992. Report on the status of Aster curtus Cronquist. 

Unpublished report (an update of previous report by Alverson in 1983) prepared by 

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 

Gamon, J., P. W. Dunwiddie, T. Thomas, and T. Rush. 2001. Assessing the viability of 

golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). Pages 52-59 in: S.H. Reichard, P.W. 

Dunwiddie, J.G. Gamon, A.R. Kruckeberg and D.L. Salstrom, eds. Conservation 

of Washington’s native plants and ecosystems. Washington Native Plant Society, 

Seattle, WA. 

Giblin, D. E., and C. W. Hamilton. 1999. The relationship of reproductive biology to the 

rarity of endemic Aster curtus (Asteraceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 77:140-

149 

Gisler, S. D. 2003. Reproductive isolation and interspecific hybridization in the threatened 

species, Sidalcea nelsoniana. Unpublished master’s thesis, Oregon State University 

Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. 173 pp. 

Gisler, S. D. 2004. Developing biogeographically based population introduction protocols 

for at-risk Willamette Valley plant species. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Oregon. Native Plant Conservation Program, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon. 230 pp. 

Gisler, S. D., and R. Meinke. 1998. Reproductive ecology and conservation of Nelson’s 

checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana). Part I: Pre-dispersal seed predation. Part 

II: Pollination ecology. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Oregon State Office. 28 pages. 

Gisler, S. D., and R. Meinke. 2001. Predator control to enhance seed yields in threatened 

species, Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana). Unpublished report to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon State Office. 29 pages. 

Gitzendanner, M. A. 2000. Genetic diversity in rare and widespread plant species. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Washington State University. 149 pp. 
 VI-8

Glad, J. B., R. R. Halse, and R. Mishaga. 1994. Observations on distribution, abundance 

and habitats of Sidalcea nelsoniana Piper (Malvaceae) in Oregon. Phytologia 

76(4):307-323. 

Glad, J. B., R. Mishaga, and R. R. Halse. 1987. Habitat characteristics of Sidalcea 

nelsoniana Piper (Malvaceae) at Walker Flat, Yamhill County, Oregon. Northwest 

Science 61(4):257-263. 

Goodrich, G.O. 1983. Rare and common species of Delphinium in Western Oregon and 

Washington: a systematic and ecological study. M.S. thesis, University of Oregon, 

Eugene, OR. 

Greenlee, J., and T. N. Kaye. 1995. Lomatium bradshawii: Interim report on population 

monitoring at Buford Park William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge JacksonFrazier Wetland. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, Oregon. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon. 

Greenman, J. M. 1898. Some new and other noteworthy plants of the Pacific Northwest. 

Botanical Gazette. 25:261-269. 

Habeck, J. R. 1961. The original vegetation of the mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon. 

Northwest Science 35:65-77. 

Halpin, P.N. 1997. Global Climate Change and Natural-Area Protection: Management 

Responses And Research Directions. Ecological Applications 7(3):828-843. 

Halse, R. R., B. A. Rottink, and R. Mishaga. 1989. Studies in Sidalcea taxonomy. 

Northwest Science 63(4):154-161. 

Hammond, P. C. 1994. 1993 study of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides 

fenderi). Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 56pp. 

Hammond, P. C. 1996. 1995 study of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icariodes 

fenderi) in Benton, Polk, and Yamhill Counties. Report to the Oregon Natural 

Heritage Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 pages. 
 VI-9

Hammond, P. C., and M. V. Wilson. 1992. Fender's blue butterfly populations: habitat 

descriptions and threats to survival. Report to Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 

Hammond, P. C., and M. V. Wilson. 1993. Status of the Fender's blue butterfly. 

Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 66 pages. 

Hamrick, J. L., M. J. W. Godt, D. A. Murawski, and M. D. Loveless. 1991. Correlations 

between species traits and allozyme diversity: Implications for conservation 

biology. Pages 75-86 in: D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger, eds. Genetics and 

conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 

Henderson, D. M. 1976. A biosystematic study of Pacific Northwestern blue-eyed grasses 

(Sisyrinchium, Iridaceae). Brittonia 28:149-176. 

Hitchcock, C. L. 1957. A study of the perennial species of Sidalcea. University of 

Washington Publications in Biology. 18:1-79. 

Hitchcock, C. L. 1961. Lupinus. Pages 297-333 in: C. L. Hitchcock, A. Cronquist, M. 

Ownbey, and J. W. Thompson, eds. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest, vol. 

3. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: an illustrated 

manual. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 730 pp. 

Hitchcock, C. L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J. W. Thompson. 1955. Vascular plants 

of the Pacific Northwest, Part 5L: Compositae. University of Washington Press, 

Seattle. 

Hitchcock, C. L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J. W. Thompson. 1959. Vascular plants 

of the Pacific Northwest, Part 4: Ericaceae through Campanulaceae. University of 

Washington Press, Seattle, Wash. 510 pp. 

Hitchcock, C. L., A Cronquist, M. Ownbey and J. W. Thompson. 1961. Vascular plants of 

the Pacific Northwest, Part 3. University of Washington Press, Seattle. P. 546. 

Hooker, W. J. 1829. Horkelia congesta. Tufted-flower horkelia. Curtis’s Botanical 

Magazine 3: pi. 2880. 
 VI-10

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: 

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden 

and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22. 

Jackson, S. A. 1996. Reproductive aspects of Lomatium bradshawii and Erigeron 

decumbens of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Master’s thesis. University of 

Oregon, Eugene. 107 pp. 

Johannessen, C. L., W. A. Davenport, A. Millet, and S. McWilliams. 1971. The 

vegetation of the Willamette Valley. Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers. 61:286-302. 

Kagan, J. S. 1980. The biology of Lomatium bradshawii (Apiaceae), a rare plant of 

Oregon. M.S. Thesis. University of Oregon, Eugene. 71 pp. 

Kagan, J. S., and S. Yamamoto. 1987. Status report for Erigeron decumbens subsp. 

decumbens. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Kaye, T. N. 1992. Bradshaw's desert parsley: population monitoring and pollination 

biology. Kalmiopsis 2:1-4. 

Kaye, T. N. 2000. Notes on the geographic distribution and taxonomy of Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Fabaceae): Watch for it in your neighborhood. Botanical 

Electronic News No. 243. Available on the web at: http://www.ou.edu/cas/botanymicro/ben/ben243.html. 

Kaye, T. N. 2001. Restoration research for golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), a 

threatened species. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 10 pp. 

Kaye, T. N. 2002. Population monitoring for Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta at the Long 

Tom Area of Critical Environmental Concern: 2002 Progress Report. Institute for 

Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 
 VI-11

Kaye, T. N., and C. Benfield. 2005a. Kincaid’s lupine and Fender’s blue butterfly studies 

in the West Eugene Wetlands: monitoring, mowing, pig effects, and evaluating 

foliar cover as a measure of abundance. Unpublished report to the Eugene District 

BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Kaye, T. N., and C. Benfield. 2005b. Population monitoring for experimental habitat 

manipulation of Willamette daisy at the Oxbow west site, west Eugene. 

Unpublished report to the Eugene District BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

Kaye, T. N., and A. Brandt. 2005. Seeding and transplanting rare Willamette Valley 

prairie plants for population restoration. Unpublished report to the Eugene District 

BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Kaye, T. N., and J. Cramer. 2003. Population monitoring for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii, Fir Butte and Oxbow West Sites, West Eugene: 2002 progress report. 

Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon and Eugene District, BLM, 

Eugene, Oregon. 23 pp. 

Kaye, T. N., J. Cramer and B.A. Lawrence. 2003a. Population monitoring for 

experimental habitat manipulation of Willamette daisy, Oxbow west site, West 

Eugene: 2003 progress report. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon 

and Eugene District, BLM, Eugene, Oregon. 24 pp. 

Kaye, T. N., J. Cramer and A. Brandt. 2003b. Seeding and transplanting rare Willamette 

Valley plants for population restoration: third year (2002) report. Institute for 

Applied Ecology, Corvallis, OR. 49 pp. 

Kaye, T. N., and M. Kirkland. 1994. Population biology of Lomatium bradshawii II. 

Insect interactions, phenology, and breeding system. Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, Salem, Oregon and Eugene District, BLM, Eugene, Oregon. 13 pp. 

Kaye, T. N., and K. Kuykendall. 1993. Status Report for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Oregon. 71 pp. 
 VI-12

Kaye, T. N., and K. Kuykendall. 2001a. Effects of scarification and cold stratification on 

germination of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. Seed Science and Technology 

29:663-668. 

Kaye, T. N., and K. Kuykendall. 2001b. Germination and propagation techniques for 

restoring rare Pacific Northwest prairie plants. In: Reichard, S. H., P. W. 

Dunwiddie, J. G. Gamon, A. R. Kruckeberg, D. L. Salstrom, editors. Conservation 

of Washington’s Native Plants and Ecosystems. Washington Native Plant Society, 

Seattle, Washington. 223 pp. 

Kaye, T.N., and B. A. Lawrence. 2003. Fitness effects of inbreeding and outbreeding on 

golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta): Implications for recovery and 

reintroduction. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon, and Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 

Kaye, T. N., and R. J. Meinke. 1996. Breeding system and insect interactions of an 

endangered species, Lomatium bradshawii (Apiaceae). Scandinavian Association 

for Pollination Ecology, "Ecology and Evolution of Plant Reproduction." UmeD, 

Sweden. 

Kaye, T. N., K. L. Pendergrass, K. Finley, and J. B. Kauffman. 2001. The effect of fire on 

the population viability of an endangered prairie plant. Ecological Applications 

11:1366-1380. 

Kaye, T. N., and A. S. Thorpe. 2006. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine) 

and Icaricia icarioides fenderi (Fender’s blue butterfly) in the West Eugene 

Wetlands: population monitoring, reintroduction success, and an evaluation of 

experimental treatments: 2006 progress report. Institute for Applied Ecology, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 29 pp. 

Kuykendall, K., and T. N. Kaye. 1993. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii survey and 

reproduction studies. BLM Roseburg District, Roseburg, Oregon, and Oregon 

Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon. 44 pp. 

Lawrence, B. A. 2005. Studies to facilitate reintroduction of golden paintbrush (Castilleja 

levisecta) to the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis. 113 pp. 
 VI-13

Leininger, S. 2001. Promoting and restoring Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii) and Willamette daisy (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens) at Baskett 

Slough NWR. Honors Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Leonard, M. R., R. E. Cook, and J. C. Semple. 2005. A multivariate morphometric study 

of the aster genus Sericocarpus (Asteraceae: Astereae). BRIT Sida 21(3):1471-

1505. 

Liston, A., K. St. Hilaire, and M. V. Wilson. 1995. Genetic diversity in populations of 

Kincaid's lupine, host plant of Fender's blue butterfly. Madrono 42:309-322. 

Macy, R.W. 1931. A new Oregon butterfly (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Entomological 

News 42:1-3. 

McIntire, E. J. B., C. B. Schultz, and E. E. Crone. 2007. Designing a network for butterfly 

habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 44(4):725-736. 

McKernan, B. 2004. The influence of prescribed fire on the rare endemic plant 

Delphinium pavonaceum (Peacock larkspur). Unpublished master’s thesis, Oregon 

State University Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. 90 pp. 

Meinke, R.J. 1982. Threatened and endangered vascular plants of Oregon: an illustrated 

guide. Unpublished report by the Oregon Department of Agriculture for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 352 pp. 

Menges, E.S. 1991. The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. 

Pages 45-61 in: D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger, eds. Genetics and conservation of 

rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 

Menke, C., and T. N. Kaye. 2003. Population monitoring and survey for Lupinus 

sulphureus ssp. kincaidii on the BLM Roseburg District. 2003 Progress Report. 

Roseburg BLM internal report, Roseburg, Oregon. 

Miller, L. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981. A catalogue checklist of the butterflies of America 

north of Mexico. The Lepidopterists’ Society Memoir 2:1-280. 
 VI-14

Mills, J. N. and J. Kummerow. 1988. Root parasitism in Indian paintbrush. Fremontia 

16:12-14. 

Neel, M. C., and M. P. Cummings. 2003. Effectiveness of conservation targets in 

capturing genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 17:219-229. 

Nesom, G. L. 1989. Infragenic taxonomy of the New World Erigeron (Compositae: 

Astereae). Phytologia 67:67-93. 

Newman, D., and D. A. Tallmon. 2001. Experimental evidence for beneficial fitness 

effects of gene flow in recently isolated populations. Conservation Biology 

15:1054-1063. 

Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United 

States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. National Biological 

Service, Biological Report 28. 95 pp. 

Nunney, L., and K. A. Campbell. 1993. Assessing minimum viable population size: 

demography meets population genetics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:234-

239. 

Nuttall, T. 1840. Descriptions of new species and genera of plants in the natural order of 

the Compositae, etc. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society II. 7:309. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 1995. Sidalcea nelsoniana: Preliminary report of 

Oregon Department of Agriculture research results (1994) and examination of 

previous MWL-sponsored research. Unpublished report by Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, Plant Conservation Biology Program. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2006. Gypsy moth eradication program. 

<http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/ippm_control_gm.shtml> Accessed May 

30, 2006. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2008. Oregon listed plants. ODA Plant Division, 

Plant Conservation. 
 VI-15

<http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/CONSERVATION/statelist.shtml > 

Updated August 1, 2008. Accessed August 19, 2008. 

Oregon Department of Human Services. 2003. Mosquito control chemical guide: 2003 

West Nile Virus response plan. Unpublished report by the Acute and 

Communicable Disease Prevention program. 9 pp. 

Oregon Department of Human Services. 2006. Acute and communicable disease 

prevention: West Nile Virus. 

<http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/acd/diseases/wnile/wnvprevent.shtml> Accessed 31 

May 2006. 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1983. Survey of Willamette Valley 1981-1983. Report 

to the Mason Trust. 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2007. Rare, threatened and endangered 

species of Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Oregon State 

University. Portland, Oregon. 100 pp. 

Oregon State University. 2005. Willamette Basin Explorer: Habitats – a place for nature. 

<http://willametteexplorer.info/issues/habitats/prairies/php.> Accessed November 

22, 2005. 

Peck, M. E. 1961. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. Second edition. Oregon State 

University Press, Portland. 936 pp. 

Pendergrass, K. L., P. M. Miller, J. B. Kauffman, and T. N. Kaye. 1999. The role of 

prescribed burning and maintenance of an endangered plant species, Lomatium 

bradshawii. Ecological Applications 9:1420-1429. 

Phillips, L. L. 1955. A revision of the perennial species of Lupinus of North America 

exclusive of southwestern United States and Mexico. Research Studies of the State 

College of Washington 23:161-201. 

Piper, C. V. 1906. Flora of the State of Washington. Contrib. U.S. National Herbarium 

vol. 11; Bulletin (U.S. National Museum). Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. 

Office. 637 pp. 
 VI-16

Piper, C. V. 1919. New Pacific Coast plants. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington 32:41. 

Pyle, R. M. 2002. The butterflies of Cascadia: a field guide to all the species of 

Washington, Oregon, and surrounding territories. Seattle Audubon Society, 

Washington. 157 pp. 

Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: 1988 national 

summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (24). 

Reichman, J. R., L. S. Watrud, E. H. Lee, C. A. Burdick, M. A. Bollman, M. J. Storm, G. 

A. King, and C. Mallory-Smith. 2006. Establishment of transgenic herbicideresistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) in non-agronomic habitats. 

Molecular Ecology 15:4243-4255. 

Robinson, A., and R. Parenti. 1990. Unpublished status report for Sidalcea nelsoniana. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 26 pp. + appendices. 

Roseburg Bureau of Land Management, Umpqua National Forest and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2006. Programmatic conservation agreement for Kincaid’s 

lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) in Douglas County. Bureau of Land 

Management, Roseburg, Oregon. 12 pp. 

Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and J. 

G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and 

endangered plants. Ecology 75:584-606. 

Schultz, C. B. 1996. Status of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in 

Lane County, Oregon: population ups and downs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Portland, Oregon. 

Schultz, C. B. 1997. Planting butterfly seeds: An experiment in restoring habitat for the 

Fender's blue butterfly. Pp. 88-98 in: T. N. Kaye, A. Liston, R. M. Love, D. L. 

Luoma, R. J. Meinke, and M. V. Wilson, eds. Conservation and management of 

native plants and fungi. Native Plant Society of Oregon, Corvallis, OR. 
 VI-17

Schultz, C. B. 1998. Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design for a rare 

Oregon butterfly. Conservation Biology 12: 284-292. 

Schultz., C. B. 2001. Restoring resources for an endangered butterfly. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 38:1007-1019. 

Schultz, C. B., and E. E. Crone. 1998. Burning prairie to restore butterfly habitat: a 

modeling approach to management tradeoffs for the Fender’s blue. Restoration 

Ecology 6(3):244-252. 

Schultz, C. B., and E. E. Crone. 2005. Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly 

habitat restoration. Conservation Biology 19:887-896. 

Schultz, C. B., and K. Dlugosch. 1999. Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of 

an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia 119:231-238. 

Schultz, C.B., J. Dzurisin and C. Russell. 2009. Captive rearing of Puget blue butterflies, 

Icaricia icarioides blackmorei, and implications for conservation. Journal of Insect 

Conservation 13:309-315. 

Schultz, C. B., and P. C. Hammond. 2003. Using population viability analysis to develop 

recovery criteria for endangered insects: case study of the Fender’s blue butterfly. 

Conservation Biology 17:1372-1385. 

Schultz, C. B., P. C. Hammond and M. V. Wilson. 2003. Biology of the Fender's blue 

butterfly (Icaricia icariodes fenderi Macy), an endangered species of western 

Oregon native prairies. Natural Areas Journal 23:61-71. 

Severns, P. M. 2003. Inbreeding and small population size reduce seed set in a threatened 

and fragmented plant species Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Fabaceae). 

Biological Conservation 110:221-229. 

Severns, P.M. 2008. Exotic grass invasion impacts fitness of an endangered prairie 

butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi. Journal of Insect Conservation 12(6):651-661. 

Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 

31:131-134. 
 VI-18

Sheehan, M., and N. Sprague. 1984. Report on the status of Castilleja levisecta. 

Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 82 pp. 

Siddall, J. L., and K. L. Chambers. 1978. Status report for Erigeron decumbens. 

Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 11pp. 

Simberloff, D. 1988. The contribution of population and community biology to 

conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 19:473-511. 

Simberloff, D. S., and L. G. Abele. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: 

Effects of fragmentation. American Naturalist 120:41-50. 

Soulé, M. E., and D. Simberloff. 1986. What do genetics and ecology tell us about the 

design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation 35:19-40. 

Strother, J. L. and W. J. Ferlatte. 1988. Review of Erigeron eatonii and allied taxa 

(Compositae: Astereae). Madrono 35:77-91. 

Thorpe, A.S. and T.N. Kaye. 2007. Erigeron decumbens spp. decumbens (Willamette 

daisy): Population monitoring and evaluation of mowing and burning at Oxbow 

West (West Eugene Wetlands). 2007 Progress Report. Bureau of Land 

Management, Eugene District and Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 

24 pp. 

Towle, J. C. 1982. Changing geography of Willamette Valley woodlands. Oregon 

Historical Quarterly 83:66-87. 

Traill, L.W., B.W. Brook, R.R. Frankham and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2010). Pragmatic 

population viability targets in a rapidly changing world. Biological Conservation 

143:28-34. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

Final endangered status for Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw’s lomatium). Federal 

Register 53:38448-38451. September 30, 1988. 
 VI-19

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Bradshaw's lomatium Recovery Plan. Portland, 

Oregon. 52 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Determination of threatened status for the plant 

“Sidalcea nelsoniana” (Nelson’s checker-mallow). Federal Register 58:8235-8243. 

February 12, 1993. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Determination of threatened status for Castilleja 

levisecta (golden paintbrush). Federal Register 62:31740-31748. June 11, 1997. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the threatened Nelson’s checkermallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana). Portland, Oregon. 71 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

Endangered status for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) and 

Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) and threatened status for 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine). Federal Register 65:3875-

3890. January 25, 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Recovery Plan for the Golden Paintbrush 

(Castilleja levisecta) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 51 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

Review of plant and animal species that are candidates or proposed for listing as 

threatened or endangered, annual notice of findings on recycled petitions, and 

annual description of progress on listing actions. Federal Register 66:54807-54832. 

October 30, 2001. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final rule to remove the Douglas County distinct 

population segment of Columbian white-tailed deer from the Federal list of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register 68:43647-43659. July 24, 

2003. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

Designation of critical habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides 

fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron 
 VI-20

decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy); final rule. Federal Register 

71:63862-63977. October 31, 2006. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Recovery Outline for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 23 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Federally listed, proposed, candidate, delisted 

species, and species of concern under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service which may occur within Oregon. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 

Portland, Oregon. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/Documents/OregonStateSpeciesList.P

DF. Updated August 16, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Species assessment and listing priority assignment 

form: Euphydryas editha taylori (Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly). 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r1/I0T6_I01.pdf>. Accessed April 1, 

2010. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Biological opinion on Bonneville Power 

Administration’s proposed transmission line rebuild for the Albany-Burnt Woods 

and Santiam-Toledo transmission lines (TAILS#13420-2009-F-0064). Prepared by 

the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. Dated August 31, 2009. 58 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009c. Rising to the Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change. Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

Vaughan, M., and S. H. Black. 2002. Petition to emergency list Taylor’s checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) as an endangered species under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act. Report submitted to The Xerces Society, Center for 

Biological diversity, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Friends of San Juan, and 

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance. 26 pp. 

Wang, J. 2004. Application of the one-migrant-per-generation rule to conservation and 

management. Conservation Biology 18:332-343. 
 VI-21

Warnock, M. J. 1995. A taxonomic conspectus of North American Delphinium. 

Phytologia 78:73-101 

Waser, N. M., and M. V. Price. 1985. Reciprocal transplant experiments with Delphinium 

nelsonii (Ranunculaceae): evidence for local adaptation. American Journal of 

Botany 72:1726-1732. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2008. List of vascular plants tracked by the 

Washington Natural Heritage Program. Last updated February 2008. 

<http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html >. Accessed August 19, 

2008. 

Watrud, L. S., E. H. Lee, A. Fairbrother, C. Burdick, J. R. Reichman, M. Bollman, M. 

Storm, G. King, and P. K. Van de Water. 2004. Evidence for landscape-level, 

pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 

EPSPS as a marker. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 

101:14533-14538. 

Wentworth, J. B. 1994. The demography and population dynamics of Castilleja levisecta, 

an endangered perennial. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Washington. 

53 pp. 

Wilson, M.V. 2004. The analysis of management strategies to restore and enhance 

Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) habitat at William L. Finley 

National Wildlife Refuge: Response to two years of restoration techniques in an 

existing Sidalcea nelsoniana habitat. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

30 pages. 

Wilson, M. V. and D. L. Clark. 1997. Effects of fire, mowing, and mowing with herbicide 

on native prairie of Baskett Butte, Baskett Slough NWR. Prepared for U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Western Oregon Refuges. 

Wilson, M. V., T. Erhart, P. C. Hammond, T. N. Kaye, K. Kuykendall, A. Liston, A. F. 

Robinson, Jr., C. B. Schultz, and P. M. Severns. 2003. Biology of Kincaid's lupine 

(Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii [Smith] Phillips), a threatened species of 

western Oregon native prairies, USA. Natural Areas Journal 23(1):72-83. 
 VI-22

Wilson, M. V., P. C. Hammond, and C. B. Schultz. 1997. The interdependence of native 

plants and Fender's blue butterfly. Pages 83-87 in T. N. Kaye, A. Liston, R. M. 

Love, D. L. Luoma, R. J. Meinke, and M. V. Wilson, eds. Conservation and 

management of native plants and fungi. Native Plant Society of Oregon. Corvallis. 

Wilson, M. V., S. Leininger, and D. L. Clark. 2001. Promoting and restoring Kincaid’s 

lupine and Willamette daisy. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Wise, C., and T. N. Kaye. 2006. Minimum population size for reproduction in Willamette 

daisy, Eugene District BLM, Oregon. Unpublished report to the Eugene District 

BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. 

York, M. M. 2002. Relationship between plant and butterfly community composition on 

upland prairies of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State 

University, Corvallis. 107 pp. 

Zapiola, M. L., C. K. Campbell, M. D. Butler, and C. A. Mallory-Smith. 2008. Escape 

and establishment of transgenic glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass Agrostis 

stolonifera in Oregon, USA: a 4-year study. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:486-

494. 

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 

Beall, Jock. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corvallis, Oregon. E-mail to Jeff 

Dillon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 24 January 2008 

(subject: Re: Lomatium bradshawii questions). 

Friedman, Sam. 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg, Oregon. E-mails to Cat 

Brown , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 2 December 2004 

(subject: Re: draft recovery plan introduction for your review) and 15 December 

2004 (subject: More Umpqua Valley info). 

Kaye, Tom. 2009. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon. E-mail to Cat 

Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 15 October 2009. 

(subject: Re: golden paintbrush at the refuge?). 
 VI-23

Norman, Kate. 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. E-mail to Cat 

Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 2 December 2009 

(subject: Presence of AGST at Lomatium sites). 

Norman, Kate. 2010a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. E-mail to Cat 

Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 21 April 2010 

(subject: Buford Park LOBR). 

Norman, Kate. 2010b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. E-mail to Cat 

Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 20 April 2010 

(subject: GTCBG). 

Schultz, Cheryl. 2009. E-mail to Cat Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon, dated 14 October 2009 (subject: RE: a little additional modeling for fbb 

delisting criteria?). 

Thomas, Ted. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. E-mail to Cat 

Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, dated 17 January 2006 

(subject: Re: question about Kincaid’s lupine in WA). 

C. IN LITT. CITATIONS 

Arnett, Joe. 2008. Comments on September 2008 Draft of “Recovery Plan for the Prairie 

Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington.” Letter to Field 

Supervisor, USFWS-Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Dated December 22, 2008. 

Karoly, Keith. 2006. Comments on July 2006 Draft of “Recovery Plan for the Prairie 

Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington.” Letter to U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Dated August 24, 2006. 

Taylor, Trevor. 2008. Comments on September 2008 Draft of “Recovery Plan for the 

Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington.” Letter to Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Dated December 19, 2008. 
 

 

A-1 

Appendix A. Glossary of Scientific and Botanical Terms 

Achene A dry fruit that remains closed at maturity. 

Acute Sharply pointed. 

Allele Any of the different forms of a gene occupying the same locus on a 

chromosome. 

Allopatric Occupying different geographical regions. 

Alluvial Consisting of sediments deposited by flowing water. 

Annual A plant that germinates, flowers and seeds in a single season. 

Anther The pollen bearing portion of the stamen. 

Anthropogenic Caused by human activities. 

Banner An enlarged upper petal. 

Basal Forming the bottom. 

Bidentate Having two teeth. 

Bract A specialized leaf from the axil of which a flower arises. 

Calyx All the sepals of a flower, collectively. 

Capillary With the form of a hair. 

Capitate Headlike. 

Capsule A dry fruit, which opens at maturity, consisting of more than one 

carpel. 
 

 

A-2 

Carpel The female reproductive part of a flower, which encloses the 

fertilized ovules. 

Caudex The persistent and often woody base of a herbaceous perennial. 

Cauline Pertaining to the stem. 

Cespitose Growing in tufts. 

Chartaceous Papery in texture. 

Clone A group of plants derived by vegetative propagation from a single 

parent individual, to which it is genetically identical. 

Congener An organism that belongs to the same genus as another. 

Congested Crowded together. 

Cyme An inflorescence in which the terminal flower blooms first. 

Demographic Relating to populations, especially age structure and growth rates. 

Diapause A period during which the metabolism of an animal slows down, 

temporarily suspending development and growth. 

Disk flower The tubular flowers in central part of a flower in the family 

Asteraceae. 

Endemic Native to, and restricted to, a particular geographical region. 

Exogenous Originating from outside the system. 

Facultative Not obligatory, but capable of adapting to different conditions. 

Filiform Slender, threadlike. 
 

 

A-3 

Follicle A dry fruit, composed of one carpel, which at maturity opens along 

the seed bearing suture.

Forb A broad-leaved, non-grassy herb. 

Geitonogamy Fertilization between different flowers on the same plant. 

Genotypic Related to the genetic or hereditary constitution of an individual. 

Germination Growing from a seed into a new individual. 

Glabrous Smooth, without hairs or glands. 

Glandular Producing a sticky substance. 

Glacio-lacustrine Pertaining to a lake formed by a glacier. 

Globose Spherical. 

Graminoid Grass-like. 

Hemi-parasitic Used of a plant species that can photosynthesize and survive without 

a host plant, but which may derive some part of its nutrition by 

parasitizing other plants. 

Herbaceous Not woody, dying back to the ground at the end of the season. 

Hermaphroditic Of a plant that has both male and female reproductive organs. 

Herpetofauna Reptiles and amphibians. 

Heterogeneous Having a non-uniform structure or composition. 

Hirsute Hairy. 

Hybridization Combination of the genes of two different species or subspecies. 

Imbricate Arranged in a tight spiral. 
 

 

A-4 

Inbreeding 

depression 

Reduction of fitness and vigor caused by the crossing of closely 

related individuals. 

Indeterminate Blooming from the bottom or outside towards the top or center. 

Inflorescence The arrangement of flowers on the axil. 

Instar In the life cycle of an insect, the stage between two successive molts. 

Involucre A set of bracts subtending a flower or flower cluster. 

Keel The two partly united lower petals of many legumes. 

Larva An immature, wingless form of an insect. 

Leaflet The ultimate unit of a compound leaf. 

Lepidopteran Of butterflies and moths. 

Microhabitat An environment that has a unique set of conditions within a larger 

habitat.

Oblanceolate Lance-shaped, with the broadest part towards the apex. 

Outcross Mating between individuals that are less closely related than average 

pairs in the population. 

Oviposition The act of laying eggs. 

Palmate Lobed from a common point, like the fingers of a hand. 

Pappus The modified calyx crowning the ovary of Asteraceae flowers. 

Parapatric Used of populations whose geographic ranges are contiguous but not 

overlapping, so that gene flow between them is possible. 

Perennial A plant that lives more than two years. 
 

 

A-5 

Perfect Having both male and female reproductive parts on the same flower. 

Petiole A leaf stalk. 

Phenology The relationship between a recurring biological phenomenon and the 

environmental factors that influence it. 

Phytophagous Feeding on plants; herbivorous. 

Pinnate Having two rows of appendages on either side of an axil, similar to a 

feather. 

Polyploidy Having more than two sets of homologous chromosomes. 

Population A group of individuals of one species, occupying a defined area, and 

usually isolated to some degree from other similar groups. 

Population 

growth rate 

The finite rate of increase of the population in one time step (usually 

1 year), denoted as 8 (lambda). When 8 = 1, the population is stable; 

if 8 < 1, the population is declining and if 8 > 1, the population is 

growing. 

Prairie Open native grasslands or the grassland understories of savanna 

habitats. 

Prostrate Flat on the ground. 

Protandry Maturation of male flowers before female flowers on a single plant. 

Protogyny Maturation of female flowers before male flowers on a single plant. 

Pubescent Hairy. 

Pupal Pertaining to an insect at the stage between a larva and an adult. 

Raceme An inflorescence in which the flowers are borne on short stalks along 

a long main stem. 
 

 

A-6 

Ramet A member of a clone. 

Ray flower The ligulate (strap-shaped) flower at the edge of a flowering head in 

the family Asteraceae. 

Reticulate In the form of a network.

Rhizome A creeping underground stem. 

Ruderal Barren or weedy early-successional habitat. 

Savanna A biological community that is dominated by scattered trees and large 

areas of grasses and other forbs. 

Scarification Breaking the outer cover of hard seeds; often assists germination. 

Senesce To decline with age. 

Selfing Self fertilizing or self-pollinating. 

Selfincompatible Not capable of self-pollination. 

Sepal A modified leaf that encloses the petals and other parts of a flower. 

Sessile Permanently attached at the base. 

Stamen The male reproductive organ of a flower, consisting of an anther and 

filament. 

Stochastic Random. 

Style The usually narrowed portion of the pistil connecting the stigma to 

the ovary. 

Succession The gradual and predictable process of progressive community 
 

 

A-7 

change (e.g., gradual replacement of prairie habitat by trees and 

shrubs). 

Sympatric Populations, species or taxa occurring in the same geographical area; 

literally growing near each other. 

Taproot A large main root. 

Taxon Any taxonomic entity of whatever rank. 

Tepal A member or segment of a flower perianth in which the parts are not 

differentiated into distinct sepals and petals. 

Type specimen The designated individual that is the type of a species or subspecies. 

Umbel A flat-topped or convex inflorescence with the pedicels arising from a 

common point. 

Umbellet An ultimate umbellate cluster of a compound umbel. 

Vagility The tendency of an organism or population to change its location or 

distribution with time. 

Variance A statistical term which provides a measure of dispersion of values 

around the mean. 

Vegetative Pertaining to somatic, rather than reproductive, plant material. 

Vesiculararbuscular 

mycorrhizae 

Structures formed by mutualistic associations between plant roots and 

fungi which assist in inorganic nutrient uptake by the plant. 

Viable, Viability Maintaining the ability to persist into the future. 
 

 

B-1 

Appendix B. Plant Population Sites and Area Summaries 

Given the very large number of plant locations across the range of this recovery plan, we 

have, at best, inconsistent data on plant population sizes. Lacking this information, we 

present cover area as a surrogate for number of plants at a site. Note that “sites” are 

determined by landownership, and are not necessarily equivalent to a plant population (i.e., 

a single population may extend across several different ownerships). 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Coast Range Brown's Camp East SINE 1 to 5 1.55 0.63

Coast Range Brown's Camp West SINE 1 to 5 1.33 0.54

Coast Range Meadow Lake SINE >100 111.98 45.32

Coast Range Nestucca River SINE 1 to 5 3.56 1.44

Coast Range North Fork - Tillamook Burn SINE < 1 0.18 0.07

Coast Range Second Growth - Barney Reservoir SINE < 1 0.64 0.26

Coast Range Tillamook Burn 1 SINE >5 to 20 5.60 2.27

Coast Range Tillamook Burn 2 SINE < 1 0.83 0.33

Coast Range Walker Flat SINE >5 to 20 10.98 4.44

Coast Range Wood Point Quad SINE < 1 0.93 0.38

Corvallis East (Private landowner name suppressed) ERDED < 1 0.02 0.01

Corvallis East Oak Creek (NWR) LOBR >5 to 20 12.48 5.05

Corvallis East Sweet Home quad LOBR >20 to 100 52.66 21.31

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) ERDED 1 to 5 1.88 0.76

Corvallis West Bald Hill ERDED >5 to 20 7.70 3.12

Corvallis West Finley NWR, North ERDED < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LOBR >5 to 20 16.95 6.86

Corvallis West Corvallis/Conifer Blvd LOBR 1 to 5 1.46 0.59

Corvallis West E4 LOBR < 1 0.05 0.02

Corvallis West Finley NWR LOBR 1 to 5 4.85 1.96

Corvallis West Finley NWR, North LOBR >5 to 20 12.53 5.07

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LOBR < 1 0.08 0.03

Corvallis West Jackson Frazier Wetland LOBR >20 to 100 22.39 9.06

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LOBR < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Beazell Memorial Forest LUSU < 1 0.15 0.06

Corvallis West Benton Bowmen LUSU < 1 0.03 0.01

Corvallis West Blakesley Creek LUSU < 1 0.01 <0.01
 

 

B-2 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Corvallis West Blakesley Creek LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Blakesly Creek Road LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK 1 to 5 4.44 1.80

Corvallis West Bruce Rd. I LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

Corvallis West Butterfly Meadows LUSUK >20 to 100 52.94 21.42

Corvallis West Camp Adair LUSUK >20 to 100 28.99 11.73

Corvallis West Cardwell Hill Roadside LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Champion LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Cherry Ck Rd LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Cherry Creek Road LUSUK 1 to 5 2.42 0.98

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK >5 to 20 11.09 4.49

Corvallis West Corvallis Elks Club Rifle Range LUSUK < 1 0.09 0.03

Corvallis West Corvallis Elks' Club Rifle Range LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK >5 to 20 14.77 5.98

Corvallis West Diamond A Farms LLC LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West 

E.E. Wilson Wildlife Management 

Area, North LUSUK 1 to 5 3.22 1.30

Corvallis West 

E.E. Wilson Wildlife Management 

Area, South LUSUK < 1 0.05 0.02

Corvallis West E4 LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Easterling road LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.18 0.07

Corvallis West Finley NWR LUSUK 1 to 5 4.90 1.98

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.03 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.03 0.01

Corvallis West Henkle Way Hwy 34 LUSUK < 1 0.12 0.05

Corvallis West Herbert LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.23 0.09

Corvallis West Hwy 34 LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.69 0.28
 

 

B-3 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Corvallis West Jackson Frazier Wetland LUSUK < 1 0.07 0.03

Corvallis West Kings Valley LUSUK 1 to 5 3.09 1.25

Corvallis West Kings Valley Labare Road LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.02

Corvallis West LaBare Rd County ROW LUSUK < 1 0.05 0.02

Corvallis West LaBare Road LUSUK < 1 0.05 0.02

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.07 0.03

Corvallis West Lillian Corner LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Lupine Meadows (West Hills) LUSUK >5 to 20 8.35 3.38

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.05 0.02

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.02

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.32 0.13

Corvallis West Oak Creek Road LUSUK 1 to 5 2.13 0.86

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK 1 to 5 2.45 0.99

Corvallis West Picht LUSUK < 1 0.24 0.10

Corvallis West Price Creek LUSUK < 1 0.07 0.03

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.02

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Soap Creek Ranch LUSUK 1 to 5 1.68 0.68

Corvallis West Soap Creek Riparian LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West TNC Wren Preserve LUSUK >5 to 20 15.05 6.09

Corvallis West TNC easement-Weyerhaeuser LUSUK < 1 0.03 0.01

Corvallis West Tanager LUSUK 1 to 5 3.30 1.33

Corvallis West W & V Phillips LLC LUSUK < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Ward Rd. LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE 1 to 5 1.03 0.42

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE 1 to 5 2.52 1.02

Corvallis West Ashbrook SINE < 1 0.03 0.01

Corvallis West Bellfountain Road SINE 1 to 5 4.29 1.74

Corvallis West Bald Hill SINE < 1 0.41 0.17

Corvallis West Bellfountain at junction with Bruce SINE < 1 0.32 0.13

Corvallis West Chapel Rd. SINE < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Decker Road SINE 1 to 5 1.62 0.65
 

 

B-4 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Corvallis West Dunawi Creek SINE >20 to 100 30.55 12.36

Corvallis West 

E.E. Wilson Wildlife Management 

Area, North SINE < 1 0.27 0.11

Corvallis West E4 SINE < 1 0.16 0.07

Corvallis West Fern Rd. SINE < 1 0.11 0.04

Corvallis West Finley NWR SINE >20 to 100 59.73 24.17

Corvallis West Finley NWR, North SINE >20 to 100 51.39 20.80

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 0.43 0.17

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01

Corvallis West Holiday Tree Farms SINE 1 to 5 1.82 0.74

Corvallis West Jackson Frazier Wetland SINE 1 to 5 1.91 0.77

Corvallis West Lewisburg SINE 1 to 5 3.20 1.30

Corvallis West Llewellyn Rd. ROW SINE < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Lupine Meadows (West Hills) SINE < 1 0.34 0.14

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Martin Luther King Jr. Park SINE < 1 0.09 0.04

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 0.01 0.01

Corvallis West OSU Horse Barn SINE >20 to 100 35.35 14.31

Corvallis West OSU Poultry SINE 1 to 5 4.58 1.86

Corvallis West Owens Farm SINE 1 to 5 4.57 1.85

Corvallis West Philomath Blvd. SINE < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Philomath Blvd. property SINE < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Philomath Blvd. property-SINE SINE < 1 0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 0.01 0.01

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Soap Creek Riparian SINE < 1 0.04 0.02

Corvallis West Tampico & Soap Creek Road SINE 1 to 5 1.35 0.55

Corvallis West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Walnut Park SINE 1 to 5 4.77 1.93

Corvallis West WBP-1-SINE SINE < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Corvallis West Wren SINE >5 to 20 9.24 3.74

Corvallis West Holiday Tree Farms/Philomath SINE < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Douglas County Callahan Meadows LUSUK < 1 0.40 0.16

Douglas County Callahan Ridge LUSUK < 1 0.14 0.06
 

 

B-5 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Douglas County Callahan Ridge, Forest Service LUSUK < 1 0.14 0.06

Douglas County China Ditch LUSUK 1 to 5 2.58 1.04

Douglas County Corner Brass Cap LUSUK < 1 0.93 0.37

Douglas County Dahl population, along Ollala Road. LUSUK < 1 0.18 0.07

Douglas County Dickerson LUSUK < 1 0.06 0.03

Douglas County Dickerson Heights LUSUK < 1 0.06 0.03

Douglas County Doe Creek LUSUK < 1 0.77 0.31

Douglas County Drain Hills LUSUK < 1 0.01 <0.01

Douglas County Letitia Creek LUSUK 1 to 5 2.16 0.88

Douglas County Letitia Creek LUSUK < 1 0.41 0.16

Douglas County Letitia Creek LUSUK >5 to 20 7.23 2.93

Douglas County Milo Population LUSUK < 1 0.47 0.19

Douglas County North Catching & Russel Creeks LUSUK 1 to 5 1.69 0.68

Douglas County Ollala Creek LUSUK < 1 0.59 0.24

Douglas County Riser LUSUK 1 to 5 2.92 1.18

Douglas County Slide Creek (Riser Creek) LUSUK < 1 0.38 0.15

Douglas County South Catching & Russell Creeks LUSUK 1 to 5 4.58 1.85

Douglas County Stouts LUSUK 1 to 5 3.55 1.43

Douglas County Stouts Creek LUSUK 1 to 5 2.03 0.82

Douglas County Tenmile LUSUK < 1 0.03 0.01

Douglas County Tiller Quad LUSUK 1 to 5 2.04 0.83

Eugene East Belts Road ERDED 1 to 5 2.63 1.06

Eugene East McKenzie View Drive ERDED 1 to 5 1.46 0.59

Eugene East Aster Street Prairie LOBR < 1 0.02 0.01

Eugene East Buford Park LOBR 1 to 5 1.76 0.71

Eugene East Buford Recreation Area LOBR < 1 0.17 0.07

Eugene East (Private landowner name suppressed) LOBR < 1 0.14 0.06

Eugene East 

(Private landowner name suppressed)

LOBR >20 to 100 56.66 22.93

Eugene East Springfield quad LOBR 1 to 5 1.64 0.66

Eugene East Buford Recreation Area LUSUK < 1 0.11 0.05

Eugene East Coburg North LUSUK 1 to 5 2.47 1.00

Eugene East Coburg South Slope (Baldy) LUSUK < 1 0.23 0.09

Eugene East Eagle's Rest LUSUK < 1 0.76 0.31

Eugene East Oak Basin LUSUK < 1 0.71 0.29

Eugene East Walterville Canal LUSUK 1 to 5 1.59 0.64

Eugene West Balboa ERDED >5 to 20 5.51 2.23
 

 

B-6 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Eugene West East Coyote ERDED >5 to 20 6.65 2.69

Eugene West Fisher Butte ERDED >20 to 100 42.26 17.10

Eugene West Fisher Butte Dike ERDED >5 to 20 5.95 2.41

Eugene West Hazel ERDED < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Eugene West Lanel Substation ERDED 1 to 5 1.45 0.59

Eugene West North Greenhill ERDED 1 to 5 3.04 1.23

Eugene West Oxbow West ERDED >5 to 20 11.83 4.79

Eugene West Sanford Road ERDED 1 to 5 1.68 0.68

Eugene West Speedway ERDED >5 to 20 12.84 5.20

Eugene West Speedway East ERDED >5 to 20 7.54 3.05

Eugene West Spencer Creek ERDED 1 to 5 1.08 0.44

Eugene West Spencer Creek Northwest ERDED < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Eugene West Spencer Creek West ERDED < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Eugene West Vinci ERDED >20 to 100 33.77 13.66

Eugene West Wallis Street ERDED 1 to 5 2.49 1.01

Eugene West West 11 ERDED >5 to 20 8.51 3.44

Eugene West Willow Creek Bailey Hill ERDED 1 to 5 3.77 1.53

Eugene West Willow Creek Daisy ERDED >5 to 20 13.99 5.66

Eugene West Willow Creek North ERDED < 1 0.48 0.19

Eugene West Willow Creek Preserve ERDED >5 to 20 15.09 6.11

Eugene West 1250 Bertelsen Rd LOBR 1 to 5 1.93 0.78

Eugene West Acorn Park LOBR < 1 0.02 0.01

Eugene West Amazon Park Site LOBR 1 to 5 3.83 1.55

Eugene West Balboa LOBR < 1 0.28 0.12

Eugene West Camas Swale LOBR < 1 0.02 0.01

Eugene West Cheshire quad LOBR < 1 0.48 0.20

Eugene West Dragon Fly Bend LOBR 1 to 5 1.93 0.78

Eugene West East Coyote LOBR >5 to 20 5.17 2.09

Eugene West Eugene East quad LOBR 1 to 5 1.93 0.78

Eugene West Eugene West quad LOBR 1 to 5 3.88 1.57

Eugene West Fern Ridge Dam LOBR 1 to 5 1.93 0.78

Eugene West Fern Ridge Reservoir - Amazon LOBR >20 to 100 51.00 20.64

Eugene West 

Fern Ridge Reservoir - Amazon Dike 

#2 LOBR 1 to 5 3.42 1.38

Eugene West 

Fern Ridge Reservoir - East Coyote 

Dikes LOBR >5 to 20 8.25 3.34

Eugene West Fern Ridge Reservoir - Kirk Pond LOBR < 1 0.09 0.03
 

 

B-7 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Eugene West Fern Ridge Reservoir - Wildrose Lane LOBR >5 to 20 19.34 7.83

Eugene West Fisher Butte LOBR >20 to 100 30.88 12.50

Eugene West Fisher Butte West LOBR >5 to 20 13.37 5.41

Eugene West Fox Hollow quad LOBR 1 to 5 3.86 1.56

Eugene West Junction City LOBR < 1 0.33 0.14

Eugene West Long Tom River LOBR >5 to 20 7.18 2.91

Eugene West Lanel Substation LOBR 1 to 5 1.18 0.48

Eugene West Long Tom ACEC LOBR < 1 0.38 0.16

Eugene West Nielsen Road LOBR 1 to 5 4.84 1.96

Eugene West North Fisher Butte LOBR >5 to 20 10.13 4.10

Eugene West North Greenhill LOBR < 1 0.75 0.30

Eugene West North Taylor LOBR < 1 0.04 0.02

Eugene West Oxbow West LOBR 1 to 5 3.86 1.56

Eugene West Rosy LOBR < 1 0.28 0.11

Eugene West Royal Amazon LOBR >5 to 20 11.66 4.72

Eugene West Short Mountain Landfill LOBR 1 to 5 2.51 1.01

Eugene West South Eugene High School LOBR < 1 0.01 <0.01

Eugene West South Eugene High School LOBR < 1 0.11 0.05

Eugene West South Green Oaks LOBR >5 to 20 6.02 2.44

Eugene West Speedway LOBR 1 to 5 4.30 1.74

Eugene West Speedway East LOBR 1 to 5 2.71 1.10

Eugene West Veneta LOBR 1 to 5 2.79 1.13

Eugene West Veneta LOBR >5 to 20 13.46 5.45

Eugene West Veneta quad LOBR 1 to 5 1.93 0.78

Eugene West Vinci LOBR 1 to 5 1.66 0.67

Eugene West 

West Eugene Wetland Site B-3, in 

part LOBR 1 to 5 1.93 0.78

Eugene West Wallis Street LOBR < 1 0.28 0.11

Eugene West Willow Creek Daisy LOBR < 1 0.94 0.38

Eugene West Willow Creek Preserve LOBR >20 to 100 32.94 13.33

Eugene West Big Spires LUSUK 1 to 5 1.04 0.42

Eugene West Dragon Fly Bend LUSUK 1 to 5 2.15 0.87

Eugene West East Shore LUSUK < 1 0.90 0.36

Eugene West East Spires LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.02

Eugene West Fern Ridge Unit H Site 1 LUSUK 1 to 5 2.00 0.81

Eugene West Fir Butte LUSUK >20 to 100 22.00 8.90
 

 

B-8 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Eugene West Fir Butte Rd LUSUK 1 to 5 3.47 1.41

Eugene West Fir Butte Road Royal Ave LUSUK 1 to 5 1.68 0.68

Eugene West Hillaire Road LUSUK >5 to 20 17.23 6.97

Eugene West Horkelia Prairie LUSUK < 1 0.01 0.01

Eugene West Isabelle LUSUK < 1 0.44 0.18

Eugene West Nielsen Road LUSUK >5 to 20 13.67 5.53

Eugene West North Eaton LUSUK 1 to 5 2.42 0.98

Eugene West North Fisher Butte LUSUK < 1 0.45 0.18

Eugene West North Green Oaks LUSUK >5 to 20 9.09 3.68

Eugene West North Greenhill LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.02

Eugene West Oxbow West LUSUK 1 to 5 1.58 0.64

Eugene West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK 1 to 5 2.11 0.85

Eugene West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK 1 to 5 3.12 1.26

Eugene West Royal Amazon LUSUK < 1 0.06 0.02

Eugene West Schultz Experimental Site 2 LUSUK 1 to 5 1.19 0.48

Eugene West 

Schultz Fitzpatrick Experimental 

Sites LUSUK 1 to 5 2.09 0.85

Eugene West South Eaton LUSUK 1 to 5 2.45 0.99

Eugene West South Green Oaks LUSUK >5 to 20 5.51 2.23

Eugene West Turtle Swale LUSUK 1 to 5 1.50 0.61

Eugene West West Lawn Cemetery LUSUK >5 to 20 8.63 3.49

Eugene West West Shore LUSUK < 1 0.94 0.38

Eugene West West Spires LUSUK 1 to 5 1.81 0.73

Eugene West Willow Creek Bailey Hill LUSUK >5 to 20 5.90 2.39

Eugene West Willow Creek Fir Grove LUSUK 1 to 5 1.81 0.73

Eugene West Willow Creek Main LUSUK >5 to 20 9.88 4.00

Eugene West Willow Creek North LUSUK 1 to 5 2.31 0.94

Salem East Heritage ERDED < 1 0.12 0.05

Salem East Kingston Meadows Preserve ERDED >5 to 20 12.95 5.24

Salem East Lone Fir Cemetery ERDED 1 to 5 2.49 1.01

Salem East Shelburne Drive ERDED < 1 0.16 0.07

Salem East Starlight Road ERDED 1 to 5 3.91 1.58

Salem East Sublimity Grasslands ERDED 1 to 5 2.13 0.86

Salem East Kingston Meadows Preserve LOBR >5 to 20 5.83 2.36

Salem East Sublimity Grasslands LOBR 1 to 5 3.90 1.58

Salem East Aumsville Ponds SINE 1 to 5 2.08 0.84

Salem East Burkland Lumber (At Turner) SINE >5 to 20 6.35 2.57
 

 

B-9 

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Salem East Fletcher Road SINE 1 to 5 1.72 0.69

Salem East Hess Road SINE >20 to 100 22.29 9.02

Salem East Ridge Drive SINE >5 to 20 7.35 2.97

Salem East Salem Airport; Turner Road SINE >100 234.37 94.85

Salem East Santiam Interchange SINE >5 to 20 8.18 3.31

Salem East Salem Airport SINE 1 to 5 1.13 0.46

Salem East Salem Fletcher Road SINE < 1 0.11 0.04

Salem East Salem Santiam Interchange SINE 1 to 5 2.19 0.89

Salem East Walker Road SINE 1 to 5 3.43 1.39

Salem East Wipper Road (Battle Creek) SINE < 1 0.06 0.02

Salem West Baskett Butte North ERDED < 1 0.78 0.31

Salem West Baskett Butte South ERDED 1 to 5 4.39 1.77

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) ERDED < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Salem West Grande Ronde ERDED >5 to 20 12.97 5.25

Salem West Grand Ronde ERDED 1 to 5 1.47 0.59

Salem West Mill Creek ERDED < 1 0.04 0.02

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.10 0.04

Salem West ODOT LUSUK < 1 0.79 0.32

Salem West Lee Road LUSUK >5 to 20 7.72 3.12

Salem West Baskett Butte North LUSUK >20 to 100 62.26 25.19

Salem West Baskett Butte South LUSUK >100 130.65 52.87

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.31 0.12

Salem West Carlton LUSUK 1 to 5 3.34 1.35

Salem West Cooper Hollow LUSUK < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Salem West Cove Orchard LUSUK < 1 0.57 0.23

Salem West Dallas LUSUK >5 to 20 7.01 2.84

Salem West Deer Creek Park LUSUK < 1 0.17 0.07

Salem West Elkins Road LUSUK < 1 0.45 0.18

Salem West Fern Creek LUSUK < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK 1 to 5 3.17 1.28

Salem West Gopher Valley Dupee Road LUSUK >5 to 20 10.48 4.24

Salem West Hacker Road LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.02

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK >5 to 20 5.09 2.06

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK >5 to 20 5.08 2.06

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.43 0.17

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK 1 to 5 3.67 1.49

Salem West McTimmonds Valley Shady Lane LUSUK >5 to 20 6.17 2.50
 

 

B-10

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Salem West Mill Creek LUSUK 1 to 5 3.53 1.43

Salem West Muddy Valley LUSUK < 1 0.43 0.17

Salem West ODOT, Hwy 22 LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

Salem West ODOT, Hwy 99, MP 33 LUSUK 1 to 5 1.59 0.64

Salem West ODOT, Loop Road LUSUK < 1 0.42 0.17

Salem West ODOT, Sheridan LUSUK 1 to 5 1.52 0.62

Salem West Oak Ridge North LUSUK >5 to 20 6.01 2.43

Salem West Oak Ridge South LUSUK < 1 <0.01 <0.01

Salem West Old Moores Valley Road LUSUK < 1 0.07 0.03

Salem West Parker Road LUSUK < 1 0.01 0.01

Salem West Puddy Gulch Road LUSUK < 1 0.04 0.01

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK >5 to 20 9.41 3.81

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) LUSUK < 1 0.70 0.29

Salem West Zena Property LUSUK >5 to 20 7.12 2.88

Salem West Baskett Slough SINE 1 to 5 3.07 1.24

Salem West Baskett Slough - Coville Road SINE < 1 0.63 0.26

Salem West Baskett Slough - Livermore Road SINE < 1 0.92 0.37

Salem West Baskett Slough - Morgan Prairie SINE 1 to 5 1.94 0.79

Salem West Dallas South SINE >5 to 20 9.54 3.86

Salem West Dyck Road SINE 1 to 5 1.12 0.45

Salem West Dyck Road SINE < 1 0.10 0.04

Salem West Fairdale - Flying M SINE >100 187.64 75.93

Salem West Fall City SINE >5 to 20 8.50 3.44

Salem West Fern Creek SINE < 1 0.16 0.07

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE 1 to 5 1.89 0.76

Salem West Grand Ronde SINE >20 to 100 47.46 19.21

Salem West Garh Farm SINE >5 to 20 12.40 5.02

Salem West Grand Ronde SINE >5 to 20 7.64 3.09

Salem West Greenwood Road SINE < 1 0.18 0.07

Salem West Highway 99W and Baskett Slough SINE < 1 0.51 0.21

Salem West Johansen WRP SINE < 1 0.02 0.01

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE 1 to 5 1.46 0.59

Salem West McTimmonds Valley SINE >20 to 100 48.85 19.77

Salem West McTimmonds Valley Hwy 223 SINE >5 to 20 18.34 7.42

Salem West Meyers Road SINE < 1 0.50 0.20

Salem West Salt Creek SINE 1 to 5 2.58 1.04

Salem West SR18 (HWY 18) SINE >20 to 100 20.68 8.37
 

 

B-11

Table B-1. Plant population sites and cover area. (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 

data). 

Recovery Zone Site Name 

Species 

Code*

Acres 

Class Acres Hectares 

Salem West SR22 (HWY 22) SINE >20 to 100 58.50 23.68

Salem West SR99W SINE 1 to 5 1.16 0.47

Salem West (Private landowner name suppressed) SINE < 1 0.49 0.20

Salem West VanWell Road SINE >5 to 20 13.30 5.38

SW Washington Camas Meadows LOBR >100 274.31 111.01

SW Washington Green Mountain LOBR >5 to 20 9.96 4.03

SW Washington Boistfort LUSUK < 1 0.54 0.22

SW Washington Drew Prairie LUSUK < 1 <0.01 <0.01

SW Washington Lacamas Prairie LUSUK < 1 0.02 0.01

SW Washington Boistfort Park SINE >100 146.13 59.14

SW Washington Coal Creek Road SINE >20 to 100 33.75 13.66

* Species Codes: 

ERDE = Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

LOBR = Lomatium bradshawii

LUSU = Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 

SINE = Sidalcea nelsoniana
 

 

B-12

Table B-2. Summary of total known acreage for listed plant species (over all recovery 

zones and within each recovery zone). 

Species and Recovery Zone Plant Cover 

Sum of Acres Number of Sites 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 233.03 39

Corvallis East 0.02 1

Corvallis West 9.58 3

Eugene East 4.09 2

Eugene West 177.93 21

Salem East 21.76 6

Salem West 19.64 6

Lomatium bradshawii 741.68 64

Corvallis East 65.15 2

Corvallis West 58.31 8

Eugene East 60.39 6

Eugene West 263.84 44

Salem East 9.73 2

SW Washington 284.27 2

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 608.02 164

Corvallis West 161.69 65

Douglas County 34.00 23

Eugene East 5.86 6

Eugene West 127.55 32

Salem West 278.36 35

SW Washington 0.56 3

Sidalcea nelsoniana 1276.50 90

Coast Range 137.58 10

Corvallis West 220.19 39

Salem East 289.25 12

Salem West 449.59 27

SW Washington 179.88 2

Grand Total 2859.23 357
 

 

C-1

Appendix C. Species Occurrence on Protected Sites

Fender’s blue butterfly, Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana occur at many small, remnant 

prairie sites across the range of this recovery plan. Table C-1 and Figures C-1 through C-9 

show the known locations of these species at sites that have some type of protective 

management, in 9 of the 10 recovery zones established for the listed plant species. One 

recovery zone (SW Washington) does not have any populations in protective management. 

If nonlisted plant species of conservation concern (Delphinium leucophaeum, Delphinium 

oreganum, Delphinium pavonaceum, Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta, Sericocarpus 

rigidus or Sisyrinchium hitchcockii) occur at the managed sites, their presence is also 

noted. The purpose of this appendix is to show where protected populations of the target 

species occur, as these sites may form the foundations for populations necessary to achieve 

recovery. 

The site numbers shown in Table C-1 refer to the numbers on maps C-1 through C-9. 

Each species is identified by a 3-4 letter code. 

Key to Species Codes in Table C-1: 

CALE Castilleja levisecta 

DELE Delphinium leucophaeum

DEOR Delphinium oreganum

DEPA Delphinium pavonaceum

ERDE Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

FBB Fender’s blue butterfly 

HOCO Horkelia congesta var. congesta

LOBR Lomatium bradshawii

LUSU Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 

SERI Sericocarpus rigidus 

SINE Sidalcea nelsoniana 

SIHI Sisyrinchium hitchcockii 

TCB Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly 
 

 

C-2

Table C-1. Known locations of listed and nonlisted prairie species at sites with protective management. 

Recovery Zone Site # Site Name Ownership Species 

Coast Range 1 Walker Flat BLM, Private SINE 

1 Oak Creek USFWS LOBR 

Corvallis East 

2 Cogswell Foster Preserve TNC LUSU 

1 

E.E. Wilson Wildlife 

Management Area ODFW LUSU, SINE 

2 Butterfly Meadows OSU, Private LUSU, FBB 

3 Jackson Frazier Wetlands Benton Co. LOBR, LUSU, SINE 

4 Wren Prairie BLM, TNC 

LUSU, SINE, FBB, 

TCB 

Corvallis West 

5 

William L. Finley National 

WIldlife Refuge USFWS 

DEPA, ERDE, 

LOBR, LUSU, SINE 

1 China Ditch BLM LUSU 

2 Dickerson BLM LUSU 

3 Letitia Creek BLM LUSU 

4 Corner Brass Cap BLM LUSU 

5 Callahan Meadows USFS, BLM LUSU 

Douglas County 

6 Catching & Russel Creeks BLM LUSU 

1 Coburg Ridge South TNC LUSU, FBB 

Eugene East 2 Eagle's Rest BLM LUSU 

3 Buford Park City of Eugene LOBR 

1 Long Tom ACEC BLM HOCO, LOBR 

2 

Fern Ridge Reservoir Kirk Park 

Unit D ACOE LOBR, SERI 

3 

Fern Ridge Reservoir - Kirk 

Pond ACOE LOBR, SERI 

4 

Fern Ridge Reservoir Shore 

Lane Unit G ACOE, Private LUSU, FBB 

5 East Spires ACOE FBB 

6 South Eaton ACOE FBB 

7 

Fern Ridge Reservoir - Amazon 

Dike #2 ACOE LOBR, SERI 

8 Green Oaks ACOE FBB 

9 Horkelia Prairie ACOE FBB, HOCO, SERI 

10 Fern Ridge Reservoir - Amazon ACOE LOBR, HOCO 

11 Fir Butte BLM LUSU, FBB, SERI 

12 

Fern Ridge Reservoir Royal 

Amazon ACOE 

LOBR, LUSU, FBB, 

SERI 

13 

Fern Ridge Reservoir Fisher 

Butte ACOE 

ERDE, LOBR, 

LUSU, FBB, SERI 

Eugene West 

14 Fern Ridge Reservoir Coyote ACOE DEOR, ERDE, 
 

 

C-3

Table C-1. Known locations of listed and nonlisted prairie species at sites with protective management. 

Recovery Zone Site # Site Name Ownership Species 

Unit LOBR 

15 Meadowlark Prairie 

BLM, City of 

Eugene 

LOBR, LUSU, FBB, 

SERI 

16 North Greenhill/Oak Hill BLM 

ERDE, HOCO, 

LOBR, LUSU, SERI 

17 Vinci BLM ERDE, HOCO, SERI 

18 Willamette Daisy Meadow 

BLM, City of 

Eugene, ODOT 

ERDE, HOCO, 

LOBR, LUSU, FBB, 

SERI 

19 West Lawn Cemetery Private 

ERDE, HOCO, 

LUSU, SERI 

20 Balboa BLM 

ERDE, LOBR, 

HOCO, SERI 

21 Rosy BLM LOBR, HOCO 

22 Isabelle BLM LUSU, FBB, SERI 

23 West Oak Patch City of Eugene LOBR 

24 Luk-wah Prairie (Speedway) BLM 

ERDE, LOBR, 

HOCO, SERI 

25 Willow Creek Natural Area 

TNC, City of 

Eugene 

ERDE, HOCO, 

LOBR, LUSU, FBB, 

SERI, SIHI 

26 Amazon Park City of Eugene LOBR 

27 East Amazon City of Eugene LOBR 

28 Camas Swale 

Oregon Dept of 

Fish & Wildlife LOBR 

29 Amazon Diversion Channel City of Eugene 

LOBR, HOCO, 

LUSU 

30 East Oak Patch City of Eugene LOBR 

31 Coyote Prairie City of Eugene LOBR 

32 Dragonfly Bend City of Eugene LUSU 

33 Private (Briggs) 

Private, TNC 

easement LUSU 

34 Taylor North BLM LOBR 

35 Willow Corner Annex BLM LOBR 

 

1 Willamette Narrows Metro DELE 

2 Cooper Mountain Nature Park Metro DELE 

3 Iron Mountain Park City of Lk Oswego DELE 

Portland 

4 Camassia Natural Area TNC DELE 

Salem East 

1 Kingston Meadows Preserve TNC 

ERDE, LOBR, SERI, 

DEOR 
 

 

C-4

Table C-1. Known locations of listed and nonlisted prairie species at sites with protective management. 

Recovery Zone Site # Site Name Ownership Species 

1 Grand Ronde Grand Ronde Tribe SINE 

Salem West 

2 Baskett Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge USFWS 

ERDE, LUSU, SINE, 

FBB 
C-5 
C-6 
C-7 
C-8 
C-9 
C-10 
C-11 
C-12 
C-13 
 

 

D-1

Appendix D. Guidelines for Assessment of Prairie Quality and 

Diversity 

1. Prairie Quality and Diversity 

Habitat quality is an important factor in the long-term viability of populations of the prairie 

species addressed in this recovery plan. Absent active management, prairie habitats may 

be overwhelmed by non-native vegetation and encroaching woody species. Management is 

therefore necessary to maintain high quality prairie habitats for the target species in this 

recovery plan. The criteria below may be used to evaluate prairie quality at sites managed 

for recovery of the listed species in the region. Attainment of these criteria would indicate 

that the subject site supports a diversity of native plants necessary to attract and maintain 

pollinator populations, and has a low level of invasion by non-native species. These 

criteria were developed with the prairies of the Willamette Valley in mind, and may not 

apply to the more wooded prairie and savanna habitats in Douglas County. 

The standards set in this appendix apply to managed degraded native prairies, but would 

not necessarily be applicable to restoration sites, which would likely have higher standards. 

Criteria in this appendix would not supersede other criteria established elsewhere for 

restoration or mitigation sites (often associated with mitigation banks or the ecosystem 

services market). The standards presented here not absolute criteria – they are suggested 

targets, but can be modified based on expert opinion and local conditions. 

a. Cover of native vegetation: Sites with populations of target species should 

have relative cover of natives of 50 percent or more. Relative cover is 

calculated by adding up the cover values for each of the individual native prairie 

species present and dividing by the total cover value for all of the species 

present added together at the site. 

b. Cover of woody vegetation: For each site, woody vegetation should make up 

no more than 15 percent of the absolute vegetative cover, and woody species of 

management concern will make up no more than five percent (unless the site is 

savanna habitat, in which case the upper limit would be about 25 percent woody 

vegetation). Woody species of management concern are identified below in 

Table D-1. 
 

 

D-2

c. Prairie diversity: For each population site, native prairie species richness must 

exceed 10 species (measured in 25-m2 plots), of which seven or more must be 

forbs and one must be a bunch grass. Native prairie species are defined as 

vascular plants that occur as a normal component of healthy prairie habitats. 

Managers should consult with a knowledgeable botanist or plant ecologist for 

appropriate species lists for the local area. 

d. Non-native vegetation: At each reserve, no single non-native plant will have 

more than 50 percent cover. Non-natives of particular concern, as identified in 

Table D-2, will have no greater than 5 percent cover. Non-native plants should 

never be planted or seeded in areas being managed for recovery of listed prairie 

species. 

Table D-1. Woody species of management concern. 

Scientific name Common name 

Crataegus monogyna Oneseed hawthorn 

Crataegus suksdorfii Suksdorf’s hawthorn

Cytisus spp. Non-native brooms (e.g., Scotch broom, Spanish 

broom, and others) 

Pyrus communis Feral common pear 

Rosa eglanteria Sweetbriar rose 

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose 

Rubus armeniacus Armenian blackberry 

Rubus laciniatus Cutleaf blackberry 

Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak 

Table D-2. Partial list of invasive non-native plant species. The presence of these or other invasive 

species would disqualify a site from contributing to recovery goals unless they are managed aggressively to 

maintain less than 5 percent cover.

Scientific name Common name 

Arrhenatherum elatius tall oatgrass 

Brachypodium sylvaticum false-brome 

Centaurea X pratensis meadow knapweed 

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass 

Pyrus communis feral common pear 

Rubus armeniacus Armenian blackberry 

Rubus vestitus European blackberry 
 

 

D-3

2. Additional habitat quality and diversity criteria for Fender’s blue butterfly 

Additional quality and diversity criteria are needed for habitats that support populations of 

Fender’s blue butterfly. These criteria focus on resources needed for adult and larval 

stages of the butterfly. High quality butterfly habitat requires not only overall quality and 

diversity of native species, but also abundance criteria for larval and adult resources, and 

resources for pollinators which are essential components of viable prairie habitats. Recent 

studies have shown that the density of Fender’s blue butterflies at a habitat patch is 

strongly correlated with host plant abundance (measured as the number of lupine leaves/m2

of habitat) and total nectar from native nectar flowers (measured as mg nectar sugar/m2 of 

habitat) (Schultz and Dlugosch 1999, Schultz 2001). Based on these studies, we 

recommend the following preliminary criteria for measuring habitat quality and diversity 

for Fender’s blue butterfly population sites. 

a. Nectar flower abundance and diversity: 

1. There should be sufficient abundance of flowers that provide nectar for 

Fender’s blue butterfly (Table D-3); the target abundance is a minimum 

of 20 mg nectar sugar/m2 of habitat, which may be achieved by planting 

species identified as abundant nectar producers in Table D-3; 

2. Each population site should have a minimum of five native nectar 

species. 

b. Lupine host plant abundance: Sites that provide breeding habitat for Fender’s 

blue butterfly should have a minimum of 30 lupine leaves/m2

 of habitat. 

c. Nectar plant availability: Nectar plants should be available at the habitat 

patch throughout the entire flight season of the pollinator species (March 

through September of each year) to ensure the continued viability of the 

pollinators and the species they pollinate. 
 

 

D-4

Table D-3. Partial list of plant species used as nectar sources by Fender’s blue butterfly. Plants known to 

produce high amounts of nectar (defined here as > 3.0 mg sugar per floral unit or > 0.1 mg sugar per individual 

flower) utilized by the butterflies are indicated as “abundant nectar producers.” On average, native plants produce 

greater quantities of nectar utilized by Fender’s blue butterfly than non-natives (Schultz and Dlugosch 1999).

Scientific Name Common Name 

Abundant 

Nectar 

Producer? 

Native Species? 

Allium amplectens Narrowleaf onion Yes Yes 

Anthemis arvensis Corn chamomile No No 

Bellis perennis Lawndaisy No No 

Calochortus tolmiei Tolmie star-tulip Yes Yes 

Camassia quamash Small camas Yes Yes 

Cryptantha intermedia Clearwater cryptantha No Yes 

Eriophyllum lanatum Common woolly sunflower Yes Yes 

Hypochaeris radicata Hairy cat’s-ear Yes No 

Lathyrus sphaericus Grass pea No No 

Leucanthemum vulgare (= 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) 

Oxeye daisy Yes No 

Linum angustifolium (= L. bienne) Pale flax No No 

Lupinus arbustus (= L. 

laxiflorus)* 

Longspur lupine* No Yes 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii* Kincaid’s lupine* Yes Yes 

Myosotis discolor Changing forget-me-not No No 

Sidalcea malviflora ssp. virgata Rose checker-mallow Yes Yes 

Vicia hirsuta Tiny vetch No No 

Vicia sativa Common vetch Yes No 

Vicia villosa Winter vetch Yes No 

* these species also serve as larval host plants. 
 

E-1

Appendix E. Prairie Restoration Resources 

The following resources are provided to assist landowners and land managers with prairie 

restoration within the geographic area of this plan. The listing of an agency or organization 

here does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor were any 

agencies or organizations intentionally omitted from this list. 

Section A includes people and organizations with knowledge of prairie restoration 

techniques, management tools and/or resources for accomplishing prairie restoration, and 

non-profit organizations that work for the preservation of prairie habitats within the 

geographic area of this plan. 

Section B provides a few of the written references that may serve as useful guidance for 

prairie restoration. The References section of this draft recovery plan should also be 

consulted for many highly relevant and more species-specific works. 

Section C is a guide to those agencies that may provide financial assistance to landowners 

for prairie restoration and habitat improvement projects. 

A. People and Organizations 

Greenbelt Land Trust 

P.O. Box 1721 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

541-752-9609 

www.greenbeltlandtrust.org 

Heritage Seedlings, Inc. 

4194 71st Ave. SE 

Salem, OR 97301 

503-585-9835 

www.heritageseedlings.com 
 

E-2

Institute for Applied Ecology 

563 SW Jefferson Avenue 

Corvallis, Oregon 97333 

541-753-3099 

www.appliedeco.org 

McKenzie River Trust 

359 Mill Street, Suite B 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

541-345-2799 

mrt@mckenzieriver.org 

www.mckenzieriver.org 

Native Seed Network 

Institute for Applied Ecology 

563 SW Jefferson Avenue 

Corvallis, Oregon 97333 

541-753-3099 

www.nativeseednetwork.org 

The Nature Conservancy 

821 SE 14th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97214 

503-802-8100 

Oregon@tnc.org 

The Nature Conservancy 

1917 First Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

206-343-4344 

Washington@tnc.org 

Oregon Oak Communities Working Group 

www.oregonoaks.org 
 

E-3

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Private Lands) Biologist 

Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

26208 Finley Refuge Road 

Corvallis, Oregon 97333 

541-757-7236 

Rare Plant Care and Conservation Program 

Center for Urban Horticulture 

University of Washington 

Box 354115 

Seattle, WA 98195-4115 

http://courses.washington.edu/rarecare/ 

Oregon State University 

Prairie Research Group 

Dr. Mark V. Wilson 

http://oregonstate.edu/~wilsomar/Index.htm 

City of Eugene 

West Eugene Wetlands Program 

City of Eugene, Public Parks and Open Space Division 

1820 Roosevelt Blvd. 

Eugene, OR 97402-4159 

Phone: 541-682-4888 

http://www.eugene-or.gov/ wetlands 

Bureau of Land Management 

West Eugene Wetlands Project 

West Eugene Project Manager 

Bureau of Land Management 

751 South Danebo 

Eugene, OR 97402 

541-520-2159 
 

E-4

Willamette Resources and Educational Network 

751 S. Danebo 

Eugene, OR 97402 

541-683-6494 

www.wewetlands.org 

B. Published or Web-based Resources 

Alverson, E. Preserving prairies and savannas in a sea of forest; a conservation challenge 

in the Pacific Northwest. Plant Talk No. 40, Available online at http://www.planttalk.org/stories/40forest.html 

Bonesteele Park Upland Prairie Restoration Plan. Marion County Department of Public 

Works. Available online at 

http://publicworks.co.marion.or.us/parks/bonesteele/restore.asp 

Boyer, L. Native Willamette Valley Oak Habitat and Prairie Restoration Site-Preparation 

and Seeding Information. Available online at 

http://www.heritageseedlings.com/PDF/PrairieRestInfo.pdf 

Campbell, B.H. Restoring rare native habitats in the Willamette Valley. Available online 

at http://www.biodiversitypartners.org/pubs/Campbell/01.shtml 

Darris, D.C. Considerations for establishing native grasses from seed for restoration, 

revegetation, and erosion control in western Washington and western Oregon. 

Fitzpatrick, G.S. 2004. Techniques for restoring native plant communities in upland and 

native prairies in the Midwest and west coast regions of North America. Available 

online at http://www.lcog.org/wewresearch/PDF/FitzpatrickLiteratureSearch.pdf. 

Kaye, T.N., J. Cramer and A. Brandt. 2003. Seeding and transplanting rare Willamette 

Valley prairie plants for population restoration. Third year (2002) report. Institute for 

Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon and USDI bureau of Land Management, Eugene 

District. Available online at http://222.appliedeco.org/reports.html#propagate 

Kaye, T.N., and K. Kuykendall. 2001. Germination and propagation techniques for 

restoring rare Pacific Northwest prairie plants. Pages 213-224 in S.H. Reichard, P.W. 
 

E-5

Dunwiddie, J.G. Gamon, A.R. Kruckeberg, and D.L.Salstrom (eds.), Conservation of 

Washington’s native plants and ecosystems. Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, 

Washington. Available online at http://www.appliedeco.org/reports.html#propagate 

C. Potential Grant Sources for Prairie Restoration and Enhancement 

Partnership Resource Center 

National Forest Foundation and USDA Forest Service 

www.partnershipresourcecenter.org 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

Western Region: 

Utah State University 

Ag Science 305 

Logan, UT 84322-4865 

435-797-2257 

www.sare.org 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=cep 

USDA National Resources Conservation Service 

Wetlands Reserve Program 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/wrp/ 

USDA National Resources Conservation Service 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/whip/ 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife and other grant opportunities for habitat restoration and 

threatened and endangered species conservation 

www.fws.gov/partnerships/partnership_links.html
 

F-1

Appendix F. Taxonomy and Description of Species Addressed in 

This Recovery Plan 

Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) 

This species belongs to the group of blue butterflies in the family Lycaenidae. Fender's 

blue butterfly is one of about a dozen subspecies of Boisduval's blue butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides), which is found only in western North America. Fender's blue butterfly is 

endemic to the Willamette Valley (Schultz et al. 2003), and was originally described by 

Macy as Plebejus maricopa fenderi based on specimens collected in Yamhill County, 

Oregon, by K.P. Fender (Macy 1931). The species maricopa is currently considered to be 

a synonym of the species icarioides, which has been determined to be within the genus 

Icaricia rather than Plebejus (Miller and Brown 1981). For a time, the subspecies fenderi

was considered to be a synonym of the pardalis blue butterfly (I. icarioides pardalis), an 

inhabitant of the central California Coast Range near San Francisco (Downey 1975, Miller 

and Brown 1981). More recently, however, Fender's blue butterfly has been considered a 

distinct taxon based on adult characteristics and geographic distribution (Dornfeld 1980, 

Hammond and Wilson 1993). 

Fender's blue butterfly is a small butterfly with a wingspan of approximately 2.5 

centimeters (1 inch). The upper wings of the males are brilliant iridescent blue and the 

borders and basal areas are black. The upper wings of the females are reddish-brown. The 

undersides of the wings of both sexes are creamish-tan with black spots surrounded with a 

fine white border or halo. 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette Daisy)

Thomas Nuttall (1840) described Erigeron decumbens based on a specimen he collected in 

the summer of 1835. The autonym E. decumbens var. decumbens was automatically 

established by Cronquist (1947) when he described E. decumbens var. robustior. Recent 

revisions of the Erigeron genus (Strother and Ferlatte 1988, Nesom 1989) treat the plant as 

a variety, E. decumbens var. decumbens. According to Strother and Ferlatte (1988), E. 

decumbens var. decumbens is geographically limited to the Willamette Valley and the 

morphologically similar E. decumbens var. robustior is restricted to Humboldt and western 

Trinity Counties, California. 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens is a taprooted perennial herb in the sunflower or 

daisy family (Asteraceae). It grows 15 to 60 centimeters (6 to 28 inches) tall, with erect to 
 

F-2

sometimes prostrate stems at the base. The basal leaves often wither prior to flowering 

and are mostly linear, 5 to 12 centimeters (2 to 5 inches) long and 3 to 4 millimeters (0.1 to 

0.2 inch) wide. Flowering stems produce two to five heads, each of which is daisy-like, 

with pinkish to pale blue ray flowers and yellow disk flowers. Ray flowers often fade to 

white with age (Siddall and Chambers 1978). The morphologically similar Erigeron 

eatonii (Eaton’s fleabane) occurs east of the Cascade Mountains, while the sympatric

species Symphotrichum hallii flowers later in the summer. In its vegetative state, E. 

decumbens var. decumbens can be confused with S. hallii, but close examination reveals 

the reddish stems of S. hallii in contrast to the green stems of E. decumbens var. decumbens

(Clark et al. 1993). As with many species in the family Asteraceae, E. decumbens var. 

decumbens produces large quantities of wind-dispersed seed. Flowering typically occurs in 

June and July with pollination carried out by syrphid flies and solitary bees. Seeds are 

released in July and August. Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens is capable of spreading 

vegetatively (Clark et al. 1993). 

Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw’s Lomatium)

Lomatium bradshawii is a member of the Apiaceae (Umbelliferae), the umbel or parsley 

family. The genus is a North American group with its center of distribution in the western 

United States. The genus is composed of taprooted or tuberous perennial herbs with large, 

winged fruits. Lomatium bradshawii was first collected by J.C. Nelson near Salem, 

Oregon in 1916. The type specimen was collected in 1921, in Eugene, by R.V. Bradshaw, 

for whom the species was named by Mildred Mathias in 1934. It was originally described 

as Leptotaenea bradshawii Mathias, and was renamed Lomatium bradshawii (Rose ex. 

Math.) Math. & Constance in their 1942 revision of the genus. 

Lomatium bradshawii is a low, erect perennial arising from a long slender taproot. Overall, 

the plant is glabrous and has leaves 10 to 30 centimeters (4 to 12 inches) long which are 

dissected into linear or filiform segments. Lomatium bradshawii has small light yellow 

flowers that occur in compound umbels composed of umbellets, which are rarely larger 

than 1 centimeter (0.4 inch) across. Generally, only 2 to 5 flowers in each umbel are 

actually fertile. The fruit is oblong, 0.6 to 1.2 centimeters (0.25 to 0.5 inch) long and 

glabrous with thickened, corky wings and inconspicuous dorsal ribs (Hitchcock et al.

1961). The plant’s blooming period peaks around the end of April and beginning of May, 

but flowers may be observed as early as the first week of April through the end of May 

(Kagan 1980). 
 

F-3

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s Lupine)

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii was first described in 1921 by A.A. Heller as Lupinus 

oreganus from a collection made in Eugene, Oregon (Wilson et al. 2003). In the 

intervening decades, Phillips (1955) described the plant as a subspecies, L. sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii. Hitchcock (1961) retained the position noted by Phillips (1955), but preferred 

the combination as a varietal rank, L. sulphureus var. kincaidii, although this is not 

accepted under the rules of botanical nomenclature (Wilson et al. 2003). Additional 

taxonomic work may be needed for this subspecies, and it is possible that the subspecies 

should be considered a distinct species, L. oreganus (Wilson et al. 2003). 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is an herbaceous perennial in the legume family 

(Fabaceae) that forms a branched crown, usually with numerous unbranched stems 40 to 

100 centimeters (16 to 39 inches) tall, with whitish or brownish stiff to silky pubescence. 

Basal leaves are usually persistent until after flowering, the lowermost petioles 3 to 5 times 

as long as the blades, the upper cauline leaves with petioles sometimes shorter than the 

blades. Leaflets usually number from 7 to 12, and are rather narrowly oblanceolate, 

usually acute, 2.5 to 5 centimeters (1 to 2 inches) long. The flowers are numerous but not 

crowded on the stem, and range in color from bluish or purple to yellowish or creamy 

white, fading to orange-brown. The banner is distinctively ruffled and not very reflexed, 

the upper calyx lip short, bidentate, and not concealed by the reflexed sides of the longclawed banner. The fruit pods are not hairy, are 3 to 4 centimeters (1 to 1.5 inches) long, 

with 1 to 6 pinkish-brown to black seeds. The species is distinguished from other relatives 

by its ruffled banner on light-colored flowers, its unbranched flowering stems, and its low 

growing habit (Hitchcock 1961, Kaye and Kuykendall 1993, Gisler 2004). 

Sidalcea nelsoniana (Nelson’s checker-mallow) 

Sidalcea nelsoniana was first collected by Elihu Hall in 1871 (Robinson and Parenti 1990). 

The plant was described by Charles Piper in 1919, based on material collected by J.C. 

Nelson near Salem, Oregon (Piper 1919). 

Sidalcea nelsoniana is an herbaceous perennial plant in the mallow family (Malvaceae). It 

produces numerous elongate, branched inflorescences 50 to 150 centimeters (20 to 60 

inches) tall, consisting of a vertical stem with 30 to 100 lavender to deep pink flowers 

clustered in spike-like racemes. Like many of the members of this genus, Sidalcea 

nelsoniana has a breeding system in which mature plants produce either exclusively female 
 

F-4

flowers or perfect flowers. Although the two types of plants exhibit no perceptible 

vegetative differences, female flowers are generally smaller than perfect flowers, and bear 

only vestigial, non-functional anthers. As is characteristic of the mallow family, Sidalcea 

nelsoniana stamens are fused at the base to form a tube around the style. Basal leaves are

palmately lobed, upper stem leaves are deeply divided, and stems are variably pubescent

with simple hairs. The ring-shaped fruits separate at maturity into 7 to 9 single-seeded, 

lightly reticulate, beaked carpels. Plants produce short, thick, twisted rhizomes, as well as 

a system of fine roots extending from a stout taproot (Hitchcock 1957, Peck 1961, 

Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973, Halse et al.1989). 

 

Four other native Sidalcea species are found within the geographic range of Sidalcea 

nelsoniana (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973, Gisler 2004). Sidalcea malviflora ssp. virgata

(rose checker-mallow) is typically shorter and begins flowering earlier than the other 

checker-mallows in the region, tends to occupy somewhat dryer, more upland sites, and has 

forked or branched stem hairs and distinctively deep pink to rose-colored flowers. Sidalcea

campestris (meadow checker-mallow) is the tallest checker-mallow in the region, and can 

be distinguished by its large, pale pink to white flowers. Sidalcea cusickii (Cusick’s 

checker-mallow) occurs only within the extreme southern portion of Sidalcea nelsoniana’s 

range, barely extending north of the city of Eugene, Oregon, and is discernable by 

generally forked stem hairs, broad calyx lobes, and prominently veined petals. Sidalcea

hirtipes (Bristly-stem checker-mallow) has a longer and fuzzier calyx, longer petals, and 

longer hair on the stem; its range overlaps that of Sidalcea nelsoniana in the Coast Range 

and Lewis County, Washington. Sidalcea hirtipes is itself considered endangered in 

Washington by the state’s Natural Heritage Program (Washington Natural Heritage 

Program 2008).

Castilleja levisecta (Golden Paintbrush)

Castilleja levisecta was first collected by Macoun in 1875, in Victoria, British Columbia. 

The specimen was labeled C. parviflora, but later annotated by Greenman (1898), who 

published a description of C. levisecta in that year. A collection by Howell in 1880 from 

Mill Plain (Clark County, Washington) was designated as the type specimen (Piper 1906, 

Sheehan and Sprague 1984). 

Castilleja levisecta is a perennial herb in the figwort or snapdragon family 

(Scrophulariaceae). Castilleja levisecta often has from 5 to 15 unbranched stems. The 

stems may be erect or spreading, in the latter case giving the appearance of being several 
 

F-5

plants, especially when in tall grass. Plants are up to 30 centimeters (12 inches) tall and are 

covered with soft, somewhat sticky hairs. The lower leaves are broader, with one to three 

pairs of short lateral lobes near the terminal third. The showy bracts are about the same 

width as the upper leaves, softly hairy and sticky, and are golden yellow. The 

bracts effectively hide the flowers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). 

Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylorii) 

Taylor’s checkerspots are medium-sized, colorfully checkered butterflies with a set of 

reduced brushy forelegs. They are orange with black and yellowish spot bands, giving a 

checkered appearance (Pyle 2002). 

Taylor’s checkerspot is a subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha). It is one 

of a small group of rare Pacific coastal subspecies, including the Bay checkerspot (E. e. 

bayensis) from the San Francisco bay area and the Quino checkerspot (E. e. quino) from 

the San Diego region, both of which are Federally listed as endangered. Three other 

subspecies are known to occur in Washington: E. e. beani in the north Cascades, E. e. 

edithana in the foothills of the Columbia Basin, and E. e. colonia in the southern Cascades 

and northeast Olympic Peninsula. 

Delphinium leucophaeum (Pale Larkspur)

Delphinium leucophaeum was first collected on open prairies in the Willamette Valley by 

Thomas Nuttall in 1834 (Goodrich 1983). At various times, it has been described as a 

subspecies of D. nuttallii (upland larkspur) or a hybrid of D. menziesii (Menzies’ larkspur)

(Meinke 1982). 

This slender perennial in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae) forms clusters of tubers and 

usually grows from 20 to 60 centimeters (8 to 24 inches) tall. The numerous leaves are 

evenly distributed on the stem and have long petioles with lobed leaf blades. The 

inflorescence is a raceme with 6 to 30 flowers. The sepals are white to cream, sometimes 

slightly greenish-blue on the back. Lower petals are white or faintly bluish tinged and the 

upper petals are bluish to lavender tipped. The fruit is a follicle 8 to 12 millimeters (0.3 to 

0.5 inch) long. Delphinium leucophaeum may be distinguished from Delphinium 

pavonaceum (peacock larkspur), the only other white larkspur west of the Cascades, by the 

orientation of the sepals (forward cupped for D. leucophaeum, reflexed for D. 
 

F-6

pavonaceum) and the hairiness of the lower petals (more and longer hairs for D. 

leucophaeum) (Chambers 2000). 

Delphinium oreganum (Willamette Valley Larkspur) 

Delphinium oreganum is a member of the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae). Thomas 

Howell collected the first specimen of D. oreganum in June 1882, in the Willamette Valley 

(Boyer 1999). The taxonomic status of D. oreganum is uncertain. D. oreganum is 

intermediate in its floral and inflorescence traits between D. nuttallii (Nuttall's larkspur) 

and D. menziesii (Menzies' larkspur). A recent taxonomic treatment (Warnock 1995) 

considers D. oreganum to be synonymous with D. menziesii ssp. menziesii. An earlier 

review ranked D. oreganum as synonymous with D. nuttallii (Hitchcock and Cronquist 

1973). One published key presents D. oreganum as a valid species (Peck 1961), and a 

graduate thesis “suggests it is a separate taxon warranting further study” (Goodrich 1983). 

Delphinium oreganum is a slender perennial arising from short, fleshy, tuber-like roots. 

The plant grows to 80 centimeters (31 inches) tall as a single stem. The few leaves are 

evenly distributed along the stem below a 6- to 30-flowered raceme. The flowers have 

inconspicuous petals with showy dark blue sepals. The lower petals are short with hairs 

distributed evenly over most of blade (broadly obovate) and the upper petals are bluishtipped. 

Delphinium pavonaceum (Peacock Larkspur)

First described by Ewan (1945) from collections by Gilbert in 1916 near Corvallis, 

Delphinium pavonaceum is known to hybridize with the closely related D. leucophaeum

and D. menziesii. Ewan (1945) suggests that Delphinium pavonaceum may represent a 

hybrid derivative of D. leucophaeum and D. menziesii. 

 

This tall perennial in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae) has showy cream and purple 

flowers. It rises from clusters of globose tubers, and grows from 30 to 90 centimeters (12 

to 35 inches) tall. Flowering stems are erect, with soft to hirsute pubescence. The leaves 

are palmate and deeply cleft. The inflorescence is a raceme with many flowers and has 

glandular hairs. Sepals are white or faintly yellowish tinged, upper petals dark blue 

distally, the lower only blue toward the base, and otherwise creamy white. The fruit is a 

follicle 16 to 20 millimeters (0.6 to 0.8 inch) long. 
 

F-7

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta (Shaggy Horkelia)

Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta was first collected by David Douglas and described by 

Hooker (1829). 

This perennial herb is a member of the rose family (Rosaceae). The plant arises from a 

multi-capital root caudex with 1 to 3 crowns and has erect flowering stems that are 10 to 

40 centimeters (4 to 16 inches) tall arising from few-leaved rosettes; the leaves are

pinnately dissected into 11 to 17 leaflets. The flowering heads are cymes, which are 

congested and capitate, terminating the mostly simple or sparingly branched stems. 

Flowers are made up of 5 creamy white petals that are 4 to 5 millimeters (0.16 to 0.2 inch) 

long. The fruit is an achene. 

Sericocarpus rigidus (White-topped Aster)

First collected by Scouler in the early 1800s along the Columbia River, Sericocarpus 

rigidus is known from collections in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia (Gamon 

and Salstrom 1992). The species was originally described as Seriocarpus rigidus Lindley, 

and was later placed in the genus Aster as Aster curtus by Cronquist in 1955 (Hitchcock et 

al. 1955, Gamon and Salstrom 1992). Recent genetic work has shown that the species 

belongs in the genus Sericocarpus, which is more closely related to the genus Solidago

than to the North American genus Aster, and the species has been reassigned as 

Sericocarpus rigidus (Leonard et al. 2005). 

Sericocarpus rigidus is a perennial herb in the sunflower or daisy family (Asteraceae), with 

slender creeping rhizomes and generally unbranched stems, topped by terminal clusters of 

flowering heads. Flowering stems are 10 to 30 centimeters (4 to 12 inches) tall; nonflowering stems are about half as tall. Leaves are alternate and evenly distributed along the 

stem, oblanceolate and tapering to an essentially sessile base, the lowermost leaves reduced 

and the largest leaves (2.5 to 3.5 centimeters [1 to 1.5 inches] long) occurring along the 

center third of the stem. Flowers are inconspicuous, occurring in compact clusters of 5 to 

20 small heads. Ray flowers are typically two, 1 to 3 millimeters (0.04 to 0.12 inch) long, 

and shorter than the pappus; disk flowers are pale yellow with purple anthers. Involucres

are 7 to 9 millimeters (0.3 to 0.4 inch) high, narrow, the bracts imbricate in several series, 

with a strong midrib or slight keel, chartaceous below and with spreading light green 

herbaceous tips (Hitchcock et al. 1955, Gamon and Salstrom 1992). 
 

F-8

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii (Hitchcock’s Blue-eyed Grass) 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii is in the iris family (Iridaceae). Henderson (1976) first described 

Sisyrinchium hitchcockii as a separate species during his study of Pacific Northwest blueeyed grasses. The species had previously been infrequently collected and categorized as 

either Sisyrinchium segetum (Idaho blue-eyed grass) or S. bellum (western blue-eyed 

grass). 

Genetically isolated from all other northwestern blue-eyed grasses, Sisyrinchium 

hitchcockii is the most striking and morphologically distinctive member of the genus in the 

western states. While S. hitchcockii has an elongate rhizome and usually with only one or 

two stems, the other Pacific Northwest blue-eyed grasses have very compact rhizomes 

producing single to numerous stems. Additionally, S. hitchcockii is the only Pacific 

Northwest blue-eyed grass that is self-incompatible (Henderson 1976). This species has 

the largest flowers (up to 20 millimeters [0.8 inch]) and the widest leaves and stems of the 

genus. The six tepals are approximately 1.2 centimeters (0.5 inch) long, reddish-purple in 

color with dark purple veins and sometimes yellow at the base. The plant ranges from 35 

to 45 centimeters (14 to 18 inches) tall and is usually erect or somewhat recumbent. The 

basal leaves, approximately 6 millimeters (0.25 inch) wide, are about two-thirds the height 

of the stem (Eastman 1990). 
 

G-1

Appendix G. Summary of Comments on the Draft Recovery Plan 

for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern 

Washington 

1. Background 

On September 22, 2008, we released the Draft Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of 

Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington (Draft Plan) for a 90-day review and 

comment period ending on December 22, 2008. Availability of the Draft Plan was 

announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 54603 and 73 FR 58975) and via a news release 

to stakeholders and media contacts throughout the range of the species. Over 160 people 

and 16 media contacts were notified of the availability of the Draft Plan for review. 

In accordance with Service policy, requests for peer review of the Draft Plan were sent to 

experts outside the Service. Four experts agreed to provide peer review of the Draft Plan: 

Dr. Patricia Muir, Dept. of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon 

Dr. Eric Seabloom, Dept. of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 

Dr. Gordon Pratt, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, 

California 

Diane Steeck, Parks and Open Space Department, City of Eugene, Oregon 

We received 14 comments during the official comment period. Affiliations of these 

commenters are shown below: 

Peer reviewers: 4 comments (affiliations shown above) 

Federal agencies: 1 comment (Bureau of Land Management) 

State agencies: 1 comment (Washington Natural Heritage Program) 

Local governments: 1 comment (City of Eugene) 

Universities: 1 comment (Washington State University, Vancouver) 

Conservation organizations: 2 comments (The Nature Conservancy, Greenbelt Land 

Trust) 

Private citizens: 4 comments 

Each comment letter contained one or more issues, and some letters raised similar issues. 

Many commenters provided specific advice on wording and clarity or offered suggestions 

for refining individual recovery tasks. Their comments were incorporated, as appropriate, 

into the final recovery plan and are not discussed further here. We convened a meeting of 

the Recovery Team to discuss several of the substantive comments received; those 

comments and our responses based on the team’s recommendations are summarized below. 

Information and comments not incorporated into the final recovery plan were considered 

and are also summarized below. 
 

G-2

All of the comments received on the Draft Recovery Plan are on file at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, 

Portland, Oregon, 97266. 

2. Issues 

Issue: Recovery Criteria for Fender’s Blue Butterfly 

Comment: The recovery criterion for Fender’s blue butterfly abundance should be 

expressed as a minimum number per network or independent population over a specific 

period of time; using a minimum number, rather than an average population size, would 

more closely relate to extinction risk. 

Response: We agreed to modify the criterion based on revised modeling done by Drs. 

Cheryl Schultz and Elizabeth Crone, which focuses on minimum population size needed 

for acceptable persistence probability. Revised criteria for downlisting and delisting are 

expressed in terms of persistence probability of 90 and 95 percent, respectively. 

This change from average to minimum population counts will also have some benefits for 

monitoring requirements. Monitoring to detect a minimum number in a population rather 

than annual complete counts of all populations will require less effort, which is important 

as the number of populations has grown to the point that it is now very difficult and 

expensive to attempt to conduct a complete count at all known populations each year. 

Comment: How far apart can subpopulations within a functioning network be when they 

are connected by stepping stones of small patches of lupines and nectar species? The 

recovery plan should specify a minimum number of Kincaid’s lupine plants, minimum 

patch size, and maximum number of stepping stones that would be acceptable. 

Response: We don’t have the data to set a limit on the number of stepping stones which 

could link disjunct subpopulations. The attributes of stepping stones will depend on the 

landscape context of each individual functioning network. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will be involved in reviewing management plans for functioning networks, and we 

will have an opportunity to review the reasonableness of the connectivity parameters. 

Lacking specific data on the subject, we choose to allow flexibility. 

 

Issue: Recovery Criteria for Plants 

Comment: Is the term “stable” appropriate or meaningful in the recovery criterion for 

population trend? 

Response: A “stable” population does not mean that the population size is static over time. 

The wording of the population trend criterion has been clarified to explain that over a 

period of X years, the number of individuals in the population may exhibit natural year-toyear variability, but the trend must not be declining (average growth rate equal to or greater 

than 1). 
 

G-3

Comment: The target numbers of plant populations for delisting (15 populations) seems 

low and should be increased. 

Response: We agree that a more conservative approach to recovery would be to require 12 

populations for downlisting to threatened and 20 populations for delisting. The recovery 

criteria have been modified accordingly. 

Comment: Is a single population per recovery zone adequate for plants? 

Response: Generally speaking, no, although the recovery zones are not equal in size, and a 

single population in a small zone may well be appropriate given historical information and 

current conservation opportunities. For each of the listed plant species, the Recovery Team 

agreed that most zones will require a minimum of two populations, to spread the risk of 

localized stochastic events. However, there are a very few zones that will have a target of 

just one population; this standard will apply in those cases where there are few historical 

records of the species and where there are limited opportunities for population creation 

within that zone. 

Comment: The target numbers of populations and individuals per zone are the same for 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, Lomatium bradshawii, Lupinus sulphureus ssp.

kincaidii and Sidalcea nelsoniana. Is this because not much is known about the individual 

species, or to be protective to the most sensitive species and the capacity to individualize 

them is limited by lack of knowledge? The plan also establishes a minimum population 

sizes but isn’t explicit about their basis. Where did these numbers come from? 

Response: Section IV.3(a) is explicit about the rationale for setting targets for number of 

populations and population size. The Recovery Team developed a simple model to relate 

number of populations to extinction risk, and determined that at least 14 populations of 

each listed plant, distributed across its historical range, would be sufficient to achieve an 

acceptable extinction risk; the Recovery Team settled on 20 populations of each plant 

species to build in an extra measure of security. The Recovery Team derived target 

population sizes for downlisting and delisting by consensus, drawing on their many years 

of professional experience and expertise with the plant species and prairie habitats in the 

region. 

Comment: Should we establish a minimum separation distance between plant populations? 

Response: Populations should be separated enough to be independent of localized 

stochastic threats. The Service will likely use the decision rules for separate element 

occurrences used by the state Heritage programs, but will not set an absolute separation 

distance. We want to maintain flexibility to reflect the variability and heterogeneity of the 

landscape. 

Comment: It would be useful if the recovery plan better described to what extent the 

recovery strategy for the plant species relies on population augmentation and the 

establishment of new populations versus protection of existing populations. 
 

G-4

Response: Establishing a focus on augmentation or new population establishment is best 

dealt with on an ad hoc basis by land managers and the appropriate species working group. 

These decisions will be driven by the current locations of rare species and conservation 

opportunities in each recovery zone. 

Issue: Recovery Zones 

Comment: What were the criteria for setting the boundaries of the 10 recovery zones? One 

commenter suggested that it would make sense to add a central zone along the Willamette 

River. 

Response: The Recovery Team examined many different alternatives for dividing the 

range of the listed species into ecologically relevant divisions for recovery, and felt that the 

10 zones adequately capture the range of landscape diversity across the region covered by 

the recovery plan. 

Issue: Seed Transfer Zones 

Comment: The draft recovery plan suggests that recovery zones should be considered as 

interim seed transfer zones, but this concept is not well supported. 

Response: The recovery plan will no longer use the term “seed transfer zones,” however, 

the plan will recommend that seeds should only be moved within recovery zones, unless 

there is better information to support a different decision. The recovery plan provides 

guidance to use: a) the closest population with b) the most similar habitat to the recipient 

population that c) has a sufficient population to support seed collection. 

Issue: Assessment of Prairie Quality and Diversity (Appendix C in the draft recovery 

plan, Appendix D in the final recovery plan) 

Comment: Comments from various land managers indicate that our criteria set standards 

that are both too low and too high. 

Response: The standards set in the Prairie Quality Appendix apply to managed degraded 

native prairies, but would not necessarily be applicable to restoration sites, which would 

likely have higher standards. Criteria in the Prairie Quality Appendix would not supersede 

other criteria established elsewhere for restoration or mitigation sites (often associated with 

mitigation banks or the ecosystem services market). The recovery plan includes a recovery 

task to continue to refine the prairie quality criteria, especially for prairie restoration or 

creation sites. The plan stresses that the criteria in Appendix D are not absolute criteria – 

they are suggested targets, but can be modified based on expert opinion and local 

conditions. 

Issue: Recovery Zones for Castilleja levisecta 

Comment: A few commenters disagreed about which recovery zones should have targets 

for populations of Castilleja levisecta. 
 

G-5

Response: The final recovery plan has been modified; the goal for Castilleja levisecta will 

be to establish 5 populations (each at least 1,000 flowering individuals) in at least 3 of the 

following recovery zones: SW Washington, Portland, Salem East, Salem West, Corvallis 

East, Corvallis West, Eugene East, Eugene West. Priority will be given to reestablishing 

populations in zones for which there are historical records (SW Washington, Portland, 

Salem East, Corvallis East). 

Comment: There are introduced populations of Castilleja levisecta at Baskett Slough and 

Finley National Wildlife Refuges. Shouldn’t these be acknowledged? 

Response: Yes. These two small populations resulted from transplant experiments, and 

whereas the small groups of plants may not constitute viable populations, the recovery plan 

will treat them as small, existing populations, although these sites will not necessarily be 

the foundation of new populations that will contribute towards recovery. 

Issue: Climate Change 

Comment: The draft recovery plan does not address the uncertain and changing threats 

posed by climate change. 

Response: The final recovery plan acknowledges that climate change is a definite threat, 

although we are uncertain at this time of the likely effects of changing climate on the 

species and habitats covered in this recovery plan. Recovery criteria stress planning for 

climate change by designing monitoring and adaptive management programs for managed 

populations. The recovery plan also recommends establishing populations of listed species 

at sites that span the natural elevation range of the species, as well as at sites with northern 

aspects or moister soils. The recovery plan now includes a recovery task to convene a 

panel to address potential threats of climate change to the prairies of the region, to identify 

potential solutions and to develop a monitoring approach and adaptive management 

responses to climate change in the recovery program for the listed prairie species. 

Other Issues 

Comment: Was Lathyrus holochlorus (thin-leaved peavine) considered during the 

preparation of the draft recovery plan as a possible species of concern? 

Response: Yes, Lathyrus holochlorus was originally included among the nonlisted species 

of conservation concern covered in the recovery plan, but there is so little published 

information about its ecology and locations that we decided we could not adequately 

address it in the recovery plan. 

Comment: Did the Recovery Team consider designating ecologically significant units? 

This could provide incentive to work on zones independently. 

Response: We assume the commenter may have been thinking of Recovery Units, which 

may be designated in a recovery plan. A Recovery Unit is a management sub-unit of the 

listed entity, geographically or otherwise identifiable, that is essential to the recovery of the 

entire listed entity; conserves genetic or demographic robustness, important life history 
 

G-6

stages, or other feature for long-term sustainability of the entire listed entity. Recovery 

units are optional, but, where used, should collectively encompass the entire listed entity. 

Recovery criteria for the listed entity should address each identified recovery unit, and 

every recovery unit must be recovered before the species can be delisted. The range of the 

species covered in this recovery plan is not very large, and we did not believe that a subset 

of the range of any species would be appropriate for consideration as a Recovery Unit. 

Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the estimated budgets for recovery 

actions, particularly those involving habitat acquisition or easements, were too low. 

Response: We have revised the budgets for many actions in the Implementation Schedule 

(section V). The purpose of the estimated budget in the recovery plan is to help decision 

makers understand the potential costs of implementing recovery actions, however, these 

figures are just estimates, and future implementation of recovery actions will be not be 

constrained to the figures in the Implementation Schedule. 

Comment: One commenter was concerned about the effect of the Endangered Species Act 

and publication of this recovery plan on private property rights and opined that we have 

created a disincentive for landowners to manage for listed species. 

Response: The prohibitions on take and trade of listed species are found in section 9 of the 

Endangered Species Act; it is beyond the scope of the recovery plan to change the Act. 

However, there are numerous programs implemented by the Service to assist private 

landowners who have listed species or habitat for listed species on their property (e.g., 

Partners for Wildlife, Safe Harbor Agreements and Habitat Conservation Planning 

programs). It is also important to note that most of the species addressed in this recovery 

plan are plants, which have no Federal protection on private lands, unless a Federal agency 

is involved (i.e., funds, authorizes or carries out an action).