i

DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be

required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery

teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any

necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints

affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities.

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or

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

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

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the

Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject

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

completion of recovery actions.

Literature citation of this document should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Recovery plan for Sidalcea oregana var.

calva (Wenatchee Mountains Checker-mallow). U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Portland, Oregon. x + 52 pp.

An electronic copy of this recovery plan will be made available at:

<http://pacific.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/default.htm> and also at

<http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html>.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The primary authors of this recovery plan are Florence Caplow, Botanist,

Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program; Ted

Thomas, Chief, Branch of Listing and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

Tim McCracken, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

David Wilderman, Plant Ecologist, Washington Department of Natural Resources

Natural Areas Program; and Lauri Malmquist, Botanist, U.S. Forest Service. We

gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their valuable contributions

to our knowledge of Sidalcea oregana var. calva, and to this recovery plan: Ron

Taylor (deceased), Professor of Botany, Western Washington University; Arthur

Kruckeberg, emeritus, Professor of Botany, University of Washington; John

Gamon, Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program

Manager; and Richy Harrod, Fire Ecologist, Wenatchee National Forest. We are

indebted to them for their long-term commitment to botanical conservation and

specifically their concerns regarding the taxonomy and decline of S. oregana var.

calva. We thank Tara Zimmerman (previously Goldsmith) for sharing the results

of her research on S. oregana var. calva in regard to pollination vectors, weevil

predation and response to fire. Tara’s work was done in the course of attaining

her Master of Science degree in Urban Horticulture from the College of Forest

Resources, University of Washington. Dr. Sarah Reichard of the University of

Washington was helpful in sharing the results of seed germination studies

conducted in her lab. We also acknowledge the contribution to our understanding

of the soil moisture requirements of this species summarized in a 2001 report by

Amy Bleckinger, as partial fulfillment of the requirements for her Master of

Science degree in Environmental Management, Nicholas School of the

Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University. The authors gratefully

acknowledge the thoughtful and thorough review and editing of this recovery plan

by Dr. Karolee Owens, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. The

content of this plan and policy decisions (such as recovery criteria) are the

responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The interest and support of agencies and organizations, including the U.S.

Forest Service, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and The Nature

Conservancy of Washington, are acknowledged for their contributions to our

knowledge of S. oregana var. calva and to this recovery plan.
iii

Support for the primary authors of this recovery plan was provided by

their respective agencies and through section 6 (of the Endangered Species Act)

funding to Washington State. Support for Florence Caplow’s contribution to the

plan was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington

Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. Ted Thomas’s

contributions were supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. David

Wilderman’s work was supported by the Washington Department of Natural

Resources, Natural Areas Program, and Lauri Malmquist’s efforts were supported

by the U.S. Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest.

We would like to especially thank Dinea Norrell for providing us with her

excellent illustration of S. oregana var. calva. Its use in this plan does not imply

any further right of reproduction without authorization from the artist.
iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status: Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains checkermallow), listed as endangered on December 22, 1999 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service [USFWS] 1999), is endemic to Chelan County in eastern Washington. 

The populations are generally small in terms of both the number of plants and the

amount of area covered by each population. Just five populations are known, and

four of these five populations number from only eight individuals to a few

hundred. The largest of the known populations with approximately 11,000

individuals is from a mixture of private, State, and Federal lands. Of the

remaining populations, one is from Federal lands, one is from State land, and two

are from private lands. Critical habitat was designated for this species on

September 6, 2001 (USFWS 2001).

Recovery Priority: This plant’s recovery priority number is 3 on a scale of 1 to

18 (USFWS 1983a,b) reflecting a high degree of threat, a high potential for

recovery, and the plant’s taxonomic status as a variety.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: S. oregana var. calva is

restricted to wetlands and moist meadows of the Wenatchee Mountains of central

Washington on the east side of the Cascades. This species is found at midelevations, ranging from 488 to 1,000 meters (1,600 to 3,300 feet). Populations

of S. oregana var. calva are generally concentrated in the wetter portions of open

forest-moist meadow habitats, in slight topographic depressions. The plant may

also be found in open conifer forests dominated by Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa

pine) and Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), on the perimeter of shrub and

hardwood thickets dominated by quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), along

permanent or intermittent streams in sparsely forested draws, and near seeps,

springs, or small drainages. The presence of surface water or saturated upper soil

profiles in the spring and early summer is the feature common to the variety of

habitats where the species is found.

The physical and biological habitat features essential to the conservation

of S. oregana var. calva include the persistence of surface water or saturated soils

well into early summer, a wetland plant community dominated by native grasses
v

and forbs, an environment generally free of woody shrubs and conifers that

produce shade and competition, and the preservation of the natural hydrologic

functions on which these areas depend. 

Key Threats: The primary threats to S. oregana var. calva include habitat

fragmentation, degradation, or loss due to conversion of native wetlands to

orchards and other agricultural uses and rural residential development; altered

hydrology; competition from native and nonnative plants; recreational impacts;

woody plant encroachment; seed predation by weevils; and some activities

associated with wildfire suppression. To a lesser extent the species is threatened

by road construction and timber harvest and their potential impacts, including

sedimentation and changes in hydrology. The species is highly vulnerable to

extirpation from demographic factors or random, naturally occurring events due

to the small size of most of the remaining populations.

Recovery Objective: The objective of this plan is to recover S. oregana var.

calva so that the species can be delisted. The interim objective is to stabilize the

existing populations and accomplish increases in population sizes and geographic

distribution across the known historical range of the species sufficient to consider

reclassification or downlisting of S. oregana var. calva to threatened status. 

Recovery Criteria: S. oregana var. calva will be considered for downlisting

when all of the following conditions have been met: 

1. There are at least four stable, self-sustaining populations in each of the 5th

field watersheds (Peshastin Creek and Icicle Creek) where the species

currently occurs. Alternatively, there could be three stable, self-sustaining

populations in each of these two watersheds and at least three stable, selfsustaining populations in another drainage if additional populations are

discovered in the future. Additional populations may be identified through

surveys or established through reintroductions. To be considered separate, each

population must be geographically and hydrologically separated, such that events

resulting in the extinction of one population are not likely to result in the

extinction of another population. To be considered stable and self-sustaining, a

population should maintain a 5-year average of at least 500 adult plants, show
vi

evidence of positive or neutral population growth over the same 5-year period,

and show evidence of natural reproduction and establishment.

2. All of the stable, self-sustaining populations are on protected sites secure

from threats. For a site to be considered protected, it must be owned or managed

by a government agency or private conservation organization that identifies

perpetual maintenance of the species as the primary management objective for the

site, or the site must be protected by a permanent conservation easement or

covenant that commits present and future landowners to the conservation of the

species. 

3. Genetic material is stored in a facility approved by the Center for Plant

Conservation. The stored genetic material in the form of seeds must adequately

represent the species’ geographic distribution and genetic diversity.

4. Adequate population and habitat monitoring has been established for all

of the known populations. Population monitoring must be statistically sound

and should be able to detect a 20 percent change in the population with a 90

percent degree of certainty. Habitat monitoring should include monitoring of

shrub and tree cover, nonnative species, and hydrology. 

5. Management plans have been developed and implemented for all State

and federally owned populations. Management plans will include provisions

for monitoring, research, and habitat maintenance and restoration, including

hydrologic restoration. These plans will also define actions designed to reduce or

control threats to the species. 

Criteria for delisting the species remain the same as those for downlisting, with

the following exceptions:

1. The populations that meet downlisting criterion #1 above will be naturally

reproducing, stable or increasing in number with a minimum of 500 adult

plants, secure from threats, and will have persisted an additional 5 years, for

a total of 10 years. All other details of criterion #1 remain unchanged.
vii

One additional criterion is added for delisting:

6. 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 and provide a means of assessing the continuing

effectiveness of management actions.

Recovery Strategy: The first step toward recovery of S. oregana var. calva is

to protect and manage the known populations. Maintenance of these populations

will require successful partnerships with public land managers and private

landowners. In addition, continuing survey efforts will focus on identifying any

populations that may exist but are currently unknown. Recovery may also require

increasing the area occupied by existing populations where space and habitat

allow, as well as establishing new populations within the historical range of the

species. The effective management and reintroduction of S. oregana var. calva

will require gaining further knowledge about the life history of the species and the

function of the wetland ecosystems on which it depends. Research and

monitoring will therefore be key components of the recovery strategy.

Actions Needed:

1. Maintain the current geographic distribution of the species.

2. Identify and map all populations and identify potential habitat for

reintroductions.

3. Conduct research and monitoring essential for the conservation of the

species, including how to successfully manage existing populations and

establish new populations. 

4. Develop and implement a reintroduction plan to establish new populations

within the confirmed historical range of the species.

5. Establish a technical working group.

6. Collect seed from all source populations to represent the range of genetic

diversity within the species’ range and store the seed in a facility approved

by the Center for Plant Conservation.
viii

7. Periodically review the status of the species and assess the effectiveness of

the management plans and other recovery actions; review and revise the

recovery plan as needed. 

8. Develop outreach materials to provide information about the species and

its habitat to local landowners.

Estimated Cost of Recovery: The estimated cost to recover S. oregana var.

calva is $896,000.

Estimated Date of Recovery: If all recovery criteria have been met, delisting

could be initiated by the year 2017.
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................1

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. TAXONOMY AND DESCRIPTION ........................2

C. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE .......................4

D. HABITAT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

E. CRITICAL HABITAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

F. LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

G. THREATS AND REASONS FOR LISTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment

of its habitat or range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3. Disease or predation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Other natural or manmade factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

H. CONSERVATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Protections under the Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2. Other Conservation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

I. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES,

AND SPECIES OF CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

J. RECOVERY STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

II. RECOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

A. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

B. RECOVERY CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

C. NARRATIVE OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 27

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
x

IV. LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Personal Communications and Personal Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

V. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix A. Summary of threats identified for Sidalcea oregana var.

calva and recommended recovery actions. . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix B. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix C. Summary of Agency and Public Comments on the Draft

Recovery Plan for Sidalcea oregana var. calva . . . . 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of known sites for Sidalcea oregana var. calva. . . . . . . . . . 6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map showing location of Chelan County within the State

of Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figure 2. Line drawing of Sidalcea oregana var. calva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 3. Map of historical and current occurrences of Sidalcea oregana var.

calva, showing its distribution in the Icicle and Peshastin drainages . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4. Areas designated as critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana

var. calva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
1

FIGURE 1. Map showing location of Chelan County, Washington.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW

Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains checker-mallow) is

an endemic plant found only in mid-elevation wetlands and moist meadows

within Chelan County in eastern Washington (Figure 1). This plant is currently

known from only five populations. The largest population has an estimated

11,000 plants, and the remaining 4 populations range in size from 8 to 300

individuals. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, listed S. oregana var. calva

as endangered under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 United States Code [USC] 1531 et seq.) on December 22, 1999

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1999). Critical habitat was designated

for this species on September 6, 2001 (USFWS 2001). S. oregana var. calva has

a recovery priority ranking of 3 on a scale from 1 to 18 (USFWS 1983a,b). This

priority ranking reflects a high degree of threat, a high potential for recovery, and

the plant’s taxonomic status as a variety. 
2

Much of the habitat where this species occurs is unprotected and suitable

for rural residential development and for modification by logging or agriculture. 

The small populations of this species are particularly vulnerable to extirpation

from random natural events. High intensity wildfires, which are a concern in this

east-side Cascade forest ecosystem, are the most likely random natural threat to S.

oregana var. calva. Recovery of S. oregana var. calva will require establishing

stable, self-sustaining populations on protected sites and managing or eliminating

threats to these populations. This recovery plan recommends actions necessary to

assure the recovery of S. oregana var. calva, including the protection and

enhancement of existing populations; the possible establishment of additional

populations in areas of suitable habitat within its known historical range;

research; monitoring; and outreach.

B. TAXONOMY AND DESCRIPTION 

S. oregana var. calva was first collected in 1893 by Sandberg and Leiburg

from the Icicle Creek area, near Leavenworth, and from wet meadows near

Peshastin, both in Chelan County, Washington (Washington Department of

Natural Resources 2002). The type specimen was collected by C.L. Hitchcock on

June 21, 1951, from Camas Land (now Camas Meadows) in Chelan County

(herbarium collection, stored in permanent collection at Washington State

University and the University of Oregon [Hitchcock #19,427]). The taxon was

first recognized as a distinct variety named S. oregana ssp. oregana var. calva by

Hitchcock and Kruckeberg (1957). Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) later

simplified the nomenclature by eliminating the subspecies oregana, and all

subordinate taxa of Sidalcea oregana became varieties of the species. No further

taxonomic revisions have been made.

S. oregana var. calva is a perennial herb in the mallow family

(Malvaceae) (Figure 2). The species has a stout taproot that branches at the rootcrown and gives rise to several stems that are 20 to 150 centimeters (8 to 60

inches) tall. Plant stems vary from glabrous (lacking hairs and glands) to

pubescent (hairy) or stellate (with star-shaped hairs) below and are finely stellate

above (Hitchcock et al. 1961). The leaves are somewhat thick and fleshy with

long petioles (leaf stalks). The leaves are dimorphic (have two forms) with the 
3

FIGURE 2. a) Inflorescence of Sidalcea oregana var. calva; b) flower of S. oregana var.

calva; c) stem leaf of S. oregana var. calva; d) basal leaf of S. oregana var.

calva; e) fruiting calyx of S. oregana var. calva. 

Illustration by Dinea Norrell, used with permission.
4

lower (basal) leaves having more shallow lobes. The flowers have light- to deeppink petals 1 to 2 centimeters (0.4 to 0.8 inch) long. The flowers are borne on

stalks ranging from 1 to 10 millimeters (0.04 to 0.4 inch) in length. The calyx

(outer whorl of floral parts) ranges from uniformly finely stellate to bristly with a

mixture of longer, simple to four-rayed, spreading hairs sometimes as long as 2.5

to 3 millimeters (0.1 to 0.12 inch) (Hitchcock et al. 1961; see Figure 2 for detail). 

The inflorescence (arrangement of the flowers) consists of one to several loosely

flowered racemes (stalked flowers arranged along a single stem) (Caplow 2002).

S. oregana var. calva is similar in appearance to S. oregana var. procera,

which occurs in the same geographic region. S. oregana var. calva can be

distinguished from var. procera by the presence of the hairs on the margins of the

calyx lobes and by its large, somewhat fleshy, basal leaves, which are smooth to

the touch on both surfaces (Washington Natural Heritage Program and U.S.

Bureau of Land Management 1998).

C. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE

The known historical as well as current range of S. oregana var. calva is

restricted to Chelan County, Washington. The historical range covered an area of

approximately 17.7 by 4.8 kilometers (11 by 3 miles), extending southsoutheasterly from Leavenworth, Washington, to the area now known as Camas

Meadows. Most of the historical records of this species are based upon

occurrences in the Icicle and Peshastin watersheds (Figure 3). 

Within its historical range, many of the large meadows that may once have

provided suitable habitat for S. oregana var. calva have since been converted to

agricultural or residential use. Of the 12 historical and extant occurrences of S.

oregana var. calva recorded in the Washington Natural Heritage Information

System, 4 of the earliest records from Kittitas County (pre-1940) are considered

unconfirmed since they provide imprecise geographic information and cannot be

relocated. The widespread conversion of lands in the general area of many of

these early collections has likely extirpated these populations. Resurveying of

other sites thought to have S. oregana var. calva revealed plants that were found

to be the closely related S. oregana var. procera (F. Caplow, 
5

 FIGURE 3. Map of current and historical occurrences of Sidalcea oregana var. calva in the Icicle

Creek and Peshastin Creek drainages in Chelan County, Washington. The Icicle and

Peshastin Creek watersheds are subunits of the Wenatchee Basin. The arrow indicates

where three of the known extant populations occur in relatively close proximity to one

another and therefore appear on the scale of this map as a single open circle. Also shown

is one unconfirmed historical report from the Swauk Creek watershed in Kittitas County. 

Swauk Creek is a subunit of the Upper Yakima River Basin.

pers. comm. 2004). Still other small populations discovered in 1984 have not

been relocated, either due to poor location information or possibly because the

plants have been extirpated in response to hydrological changes in the area (J.

Gamon, pers. comm. 1997; F. Caplow, pers comm. 2004). Table 1 summarizes

the population sizes, areas, population trends, and landownership for the

remaining sites where this species is currently known to occur.
6

TABLE 1. Summary of known extant sites for Sidalcea oregana var. calva.

Site Name

Population

Size

(Survey

Year) Occupied Area

Trend in

Population

Size Landownership

Camas Meadows 1 11,000

estimated 2

(2000)

 14 to 20 hectares

(35 to 50 acres)

stable 2

 WDNR 3, WNF 3,

private

Mountain Home 1 300

(2001)

less than 0.4

hectares

(less than 1 acre)

stable private

Pendleton Canyon 160

(2001)

less than 0.4

hectares

(less than 1 acre)

unknown;

discovered in

1999

private

Camas Creek

Tributary

8

 (2001)

less than 0.4

hectares

(less than 1 acre)

unknown;

rediscovered

in 2001

WDNR

Forest Service 43*

(2001)

*only 2

flowering

adults

less than 0.4

hectares

(less than 1 acre)

increasing

(based on 

occasional

observations)

WNF

1

 Portions of these populations are in the voluntary registry program administered by The Nature

Conservancy and the Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2

 The large size and patchy distribution of the Camas Meadows population have not allowed for an accurate

census to date. However, this population appears stable (D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 2004). 3 WDNR = Washington Department of Natural Resources; WNF = Wenatchee National Forest, Leavenworth

Ranger District.

The wetland and moist meadow complex at Camas Meadows, an area

managed as a Natural Area Preserve by the Washington Department of Natural

Resources, contains the largest known population of S. oregana var. calva. The

Camas Meadow Natural Area Preserve includes approximately 535 hectares

(1,337 acres) and is located in the rural/wildland interface about 16 kilometers (10

miles) south of Leavenworth, Washington. An estimated 11,000 individuals

occur there, covering an approximate area of 14 to 20 hectares (35 to 50 acres)

The Camas Meadows population has proven difficult to accurately census, and
7

annual survey data have not been collected to date (D. Wilderman, pers. comm.

2004). Low-density, rural residential home sites have been developed adjacent to

the Preserve. The Camas Meadows Bible Camp has occupied the southern

perimeter of the meadow since the late 1940's, and the U.S. Forest Service

administers properties surrounding the Preserve as well.

The next largest known populations occur on private lands. One

population of about 300 individuals is located at the Mountain Home Resort. 

This population is disjunct from the others (more than 16 kilometers [10 miles]

distant), and is located in an area entirely surrounded with private residences,

private timberlands, and a road administered by Chelan County. The population

of S. oregana var. calva at this location is confined to a small linear area

associated with a drainage ditch along a road. Due to its isolation and the

marginal nature of this habitat, the final designation of critical habitat for S.

oregana var. calva determined that this habitat was not essential to the

conservation of the species (USFWS 2001). However, this population may

represent a source of genetic variability for S. oregana var. calva, and therefore

retains its importance as a potential source of seed for propagation and

reintroduction efforts for the species.

The other privately-owned population is located in Pendleton Canyon, and

consists of about 160 plants. This population is located less then 8 kilometers (5

miles) from the Camas Meadow population, and occurs in a relatively unmodified

wildland setting.

The final two populations of S. oregana var. calva are very small. One,

the Camas Creek Tributary site, is located north of the Camas Meadows Natural

Area Preserve and is owned by the State of Washington. There are only eight

plants at this site. The other population is found along the shoulder of a forest

road within the Wenatchee National Forest (U.S. Forest Service). Although there

were 43 individuals present in 2001, only 2 of those 43 were reproductive adult

plants (Caplow 2002).

In addition to the known population sites, areas not currently occupied by 

S. oregana var. calva, but which provide the physical and biological features
8

required by the species, have been designated as critical habitat (see Critical

Habitat, section E, below). These areas of suitable potential habitat will play an

important role in the recovery of this species, as recovery will depend upon

expanding the area occupied by the existing populations, where possible, and also

potentially establishing new populations of the species through propagation and

restoration efforts.

D. HABITAT DESCRIPTION

S. oregana var. calva is found between elevations ranging from 488 to

1,000 meters (1,600 to 3,300 feet) in the Wenatchee Mountains of Chelan County,

Washington. The plant communities where the species is found are usually

associated with meadows that have surface water or saturated upper soil profiles

during spring and early summer. S. oregana var. calva may also be found in

open conifer stands dominated by Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) and

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir), and on the margins of shrub and hardwood

thickets when these areas are characterized by saturated soils that are maintained

well into the early summer. Soils are primarily composed of silt loams and clay

loams, with a high percentage content of organic material, that are poorly drained.

S. oregana var. calva is generally found on flats or benches, but may also occur in

small ravines and occasionally on gently sloping uplands.

Concentrations of S. oregana var. calva are found in the wetter portions of

open forest-moist meadow habitats, in slight topographic depressions, on the

perimeter of shrub and hardwood thickets dominated by Populus tremuloides

(quaking aspen), and along permanent or intermittent streams in sparsely forested

draws. Frequently associated species include Populus tremuloides, Crataegus

douglasii (black hawthorn), Symphoricarpos albus (common snowberry),

Amelanchier alnifolia (serviceberry), Lathyrus pauciflorus (few-flowered

peavine), Wyethia amplexicaulis (northern mule’s-ear), Geranium viscossimum

(sticky purple geranium), Polygonum bistortoides (western bistort), Aster

foliaceus (leafy aster), Epilobium watsonii (Watson’s willow-herb), Veratrum

californica (false hellebore), and Rudbeckia occidentalis (rudbeckia). A former

Federal category 1 candidate plant species, Delphinium viridescens (Wenatchee

larkspur), may be found in association with S. oregana var. calva as well.
9

In general, the maintenance of the natural hydrologic processes that

provide the wetland and moist meadow habitats on which S. oregana var. calva

depends is of critical importance in the conservation of this species. Additional

information on the characteristics of important habitat for S. oregana var. calva is

provided in the section on Critical Habitat below.

E. CRITICAL HABITAT

Critical habitat was designated on approximately 2,484 hectares (6,135

acres) of Federal, State, and private land in Chelan County, Washington (Figure

4). The final rule to designate critical habitat for S. oregana var. calva was

published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2001 (USFWS 2001). The

critical habitat designation included 831 hectares (2,051 acres) of Federal land,

578 hectares (1,428 acres) of local/State land, and 1,075 hectares (2,656 acres) of

private land.

Critical habitat identifies specific areas that have the physical and

biological features (“primary constituent elements”) that are essential to the

conservation of a listed species and that may require special management

considerations or protection. The primary constituent elements found in the areas

designated as critical habitat for S. oregana var. calva include surface water or

saturated upper soil profiles; a wetland community dominated by native grasses

and forbs and generally free of woody shrubs and conifers that produce shade and

competition for the species; seeps and springs on fine-textured soils (clay loams

and silt loams), which contribute to the maintenance of hydrologic processes

necessary to support meadows that remain moist into early summer; and

elevations of 488 to 1,000 meters (1,600 to 3,300 feet).

Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection under section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act (Act) through the prohibition against destruction or

adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded,

or authorized by a Federal agency. Federal agency consultations under section 7

of the Act do not apply to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do

not have a Federal nexus. The critical habitat designation does not afford any

additional protections under the Act against such activities.
10

FIGURE 4. Lands designated as critical habitat for Sidalcea oregana var. calva in

Chelan County, Washington (USFWS 2001). As noted in the Final

Rule (USFWS 2001), critical habitat does not include existing

features and structures such as buildings, roads, lawns, residential

landscaped areas, or other areas not containing the primary

constituent elements for the species. 

F. LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY

S. oregana var. calva is a relatively long-lived herbaceous perennial. 

Plants have several stems and may grow as tall as 20 to 150 centimeters (8 to 60

inches). Vegetative stems are composed of several stalks with about one to three

leaves each. Reproductive individuals produce flowers on one to several stems. 

Flowering begins in the middle of June and peaks in the middle to end of July,

although some individuals may have flowers present in mid-August. Welldeveloped fruits are present by early August (Hitchcock et al. 1961; Washington

Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1998). 

Investigations have suggested the species is not rhizomatous (D. Wilderman, pers.

comm. 2004). The species likely reproduces only from seed and, based on

examination of seed capsules, the production of seed appears to be high (Gamon
11

1987). The somewhat clumped distribution of mature S. oregana var. calva

plants suggests that seed dispersal is restricted to the areas near mature plants,

unless the seeds are moved by animals or transported by water (Caplow 2002).

Areas where the species is found are generally wetter than adjacent areas

where the plants are absent. Soil moisture studies indicate that populations of S.

oregana var. calva are most dense on the wettest sites, and tend to occupy sites

with higher season-long average moisture levels (Bleckinger 2001; Wilderman

and Bleckinger, in prep.). However, no significant relationships were observed

between plant growth (as measured by stem length) and soil moisture levels. 

Interestingly, no inverse relationships were found between canopy cover and the

species’ growth or density (Bleckinger 2001). While providing valuable

information, this work indicates that additional factors, such as shading, soil

conditions, and recent disturbance history, likely play important roles in defining

suitable habitat conditions for this species as well.

Pollination of the species is not well understood. In her studies of S.

oregana var. calva, Tara Goldsmith reported that the colonial ground-nesting bee

Diadasia nigrifrons is most likely the dominant pollinating insect (Goldsmith

2003). Honey bees (Apis mellifera), although present, were not observed to visit

S. oregana var. calva. Interestingly, Goldsmith found no significant difference in

the rate of flower to fruit success (about 36 percent) between flowers that were

excluded from insect pollination and those that were not, indicating that insects

are not the sole vector for pollination. Goldsmith pointed to the need for further

study of the pollination mechanisms of S. oregana var. calva to potentially

improve the plant’s reproductive output.

High levels of seed predation by native weevils (insect family

Curculionidae) had formerly been reported as a potential threat to S. oregana var.

calva (Gamon 1987; L. Malmquist, pers. comm. 2001), and the studies of

Goldsmith (2003) support these observations. Of all seeds counted, Goldsmith

found that from 62 to 78 percent had been damaged by weevils (Macrorhoptus

niger). She speculated that this level of seed predation probably has a substantial

negative impact on the reproductive output of S. oregana var. calva. Whether

sublethal damage to the seeds may potentially benefit germination (e.g., by
12

breaking the seed coat) is unknown. Goldsmith reported that of the four sites

where she studied S. oregana var. calva, none had greater than 25 percent seed

survival over the 2 years of her study, potentially limiting seedling recruitment

and population growth for the species. S. oregana var. calva and the native

weevil M. niger have likely coexisted over time. However, in combination with

other effects, predation by weevils could currently be a limiting factor for S.

oregana var. calva.

 Occasional fires may play a role in the maintenance of suitable habitat for

S. oregana var. calva, depending on their timing and intensity (Gamon 1987). 

Historically (prior to 1900), fire frequency in the forests east of the Cascade Crest

was approximately every 13 years (Everett et al. 1997). Occasional fires could

potentially benefit the species by maintaining the open habitats with high

moisture levels that it prefers. In the absence of fire, succession and woody plant

invasion increase competition for light, nutrients, and water. The increased

density of woody vegetation would also adversely impact habitat suitability by

reducing the surface runoff within the small wetlands where S. oregana var. calva

occurs. High temperature wildfires, by contrast, pose a threat to S. oregana var.

calva, particularly if they should occur during the plant’s growing season.

Goldsmith attempted to assess the response of S. oregana var. calva to

fire by comparing numbers of plants in plots subjected to controlled burns with

plants in untreated plots (Goldsmith 2003). The numbers of plants and various

measures of size and cover were assessed 9 months after a controlled burn

conducted in mid-October, a time when most of the plants have naturally died

back due to frost. Unfortunately her results were confounded by a severe drought

during one of the two seasons of data collection, preventing statistically strong

treatment effects. Goldsmith did observe that S. oregana var. calva on both the

burned and unburned plots responded with relatively vigorous and lush growth

during the year that precipitation levels were normal.

S. oregana var. calva appears to be more resilient to ground disturbance

than previously believed. The Mountain Home Meadow site was adversely

impacted by fire suppression activities associated with the Rat Creek Fire during

1994 (Harrod 1995). A fire line was constructed in the drainage area supporting a
13

population of S. oregana var. calva. Blading of the area by a bulldozer destroyed

approximately 50 percent of the population (more than 100 plants), disturbed the

soil, and altered the hydrology of this wet meadow. One year after the

disturbance, no S. oregana var. calva plants were observed at this location (T.

Thomas, pers. obs. 1995), and the likelihood of recovery within the disturbed

portion of the population was originally considered to be unlikely (R. Harrod,

pers. comm. 1996). By spring 2001, however, much of this drainage area had

become repopulated with S. oregana var. calva from seed disseminated from

residual plants. By 2003, the species was reported to be resprouting and

recovering on the site (L. Malmquist pers. comm. 2004; D. Wilderman, pers.

comm. 2004).

Germination studies of S. oregana var. calva conducted at the Berry

Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon, were unsuccessful. Seeds were subjected to

8 weeks of cold stratification or no cold stratification, but no germination resulted

under any of the test conditions. It is not known whether the conditions for

germination were not met or if the seed was not viable (Center for Plant

Conservation 2003). Germination of S. oregana var. calva was successfully

achieved, however, by a student at the University of Washington (Huseby 2000). 

Priya Huseby compared the results of nine different treatments on seeds of S.

oregana var. calva, including various combinations of scarification and cold

stratification; all seeds were soaked in water for 24 hours. Although germination

was achieved under six of the nine test conditions, only one seedling emerged

from those treatments without cold stratification. Seedlings were successfully

produced from seeds that received 1.5 months of cold stratification, but

germination was greater still and occurred more quickly in those seeds that were

subjected to 3 months of cold stratification. An increased period of cold

stratification therefore appears to increase germination of S. oregana var. calva. 

Scarification of the seed coat did not appear to influence germination, however

the researcher noted the need for further study in this regard.

Based on the size and stability of the known populations, and the life

history of S. oregana var. calva (a long-lived perennial that occupies relatively

stable habitats), a population that maintains at least 500 flowering plants is

presumed to be viable for this taxon. Population viability analysis has not been
14

undertaken for S. oregana var. calva. Minimum viable population size is affected

by many factors, including the life history of the species and the frequency and

magnitude of random, natural events impacting the environment (Shaffer 1987). 

Effective population sizes as small as 500 plants have allowed the maintenance of

genetic diversity for some species (Barrett and Kohn 1991). Because our present

knowledge of the biology of S. oregana var. calva is limited, research to gather

key information such as the attributes affecting population viability for this

species will be a key component of the recovery strategy.

G. THREATS AND REASONS FOR LISTING

Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act specifies that species may

be determined to be threatened or endangered due to one or more of the five

factors listed below, all of which apply to S. oregana var. calva. Removal of

these reasons for listing is the ultimate criterion for recovery and delisting, as

described in Part II of this plan. Additional details about the reasons for listing S.

oregana var. calva can be found in the Final Listing Rule (USFWS 1999).

1. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its

habitat or range

All known sites and habitats for S. oregana var. calva have undergone

various alterations. Conversion of land to orchards or other agricultural uses and

rural residential development is thought to have extirpated historical populations

(Gamon 1987). Habitat for this species may be degraded or destroyed by

residential or agricultural development through modifications such as alterations

in hydrology, introduction of nonnative grasses, conversion of meadows to

agricultural uses including pasture land and gardens, and road construction

(Gamon 1987; T. Thomas, pers. obs. 1995; D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 1997).

Altered hydrology is one of the primary threats to this species. At Camas

Meadows, for example, natural drainage channels have been altered to direct

water away from the primary wet meadow area for agricultural purposes (Gamon

1987; R. Harrod, pers. comm. 1996; D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 1997). 

Alterations in hydrology threaten the species by changing the amount, timing,
15

duration, and/or frequency of the water supply to its wetland habitat. Most

individuals of S. oregana var. calva at Camas Meadows are associated with the

drainage channels or areas that retain moisture relatively longer (Gamon 1987;

Bleckinger 2001). Potential effects to the species from increased nutrients or

altered hydrology due to the presence of septic systems nearby are currently

unknown. Activities such as road construction and timber harvesting may also

alter hydrology by modifying surface and subsurface runoff, changing water

flows, and increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation. 

Wildfire suppression is likely both a direct and indirect source of habitat

degradation or loss for S. oregana var. calva. As described under Life History

(above), in the absence of fire to set back succession, woody plants begin to

encroach upon the moist mountain meadows preferred by this species, altering the

hydrology and availability of sunlight and nutrients. Fire suppression has

probably resulted in less suitable habitat for this species (R. Harrod, pers. comm.

1996), and as fires threatening private property and public structures are

suppressed, the likelihood for further negative impacts through habitat succession

remains high. Strategic thinning or harvest and prescribed burning of some forest

stands may benefit S. oregana var. calva if intended to decrease encroachment

due to fire suppression, reverse plant succession, or increase light penetration at

occupied sites (D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 2004).

Some fire suppression activities may also result in direct mortality to

substantial numbers of S. oregana var. calva. In the course of constructing a fire

safety zone in Camas Meadows during the Rat Creek and Hatchery Creek fires in

fall of 1994, a bulldozer inadvertently destroyed several hundred S. oregana var.

calva plants (Harrod 1995; T. Thomas, pers. obs. 1995). The plants were bladed

and uprooted, the topsoil removed, and the site scraped to mineral soil. During a

visit to the disturbed site in May of 1995, researchers observed no sprouts or

seedlings of S. oregana var. calva (T. Thomas, pers. obs. 1995). As witnessed at

the Mountain Home site following a similar event, the plants in this small

drainage did eventually recover, at least to some degree, and as of 2004 there

were approximately 25 to 30 reproductive adults and 10 juvenile vegetative plants

present (L. Malmquist, pers. comm. 2004). However, a small population of S.
16

oregana var. calva may not be capable of rebounding from such an incident if no

residual plants were left as a seed source.

The introduction of nonnative plants, and particularly grasses, may pose a

threat to S. oregana var. calva through competition. Many introduced grasses are

rhizomatous (forming a thick layer of matted roots) and tend to outcompete native

species for nutrients and water, therefore displacing native species (R. Harrod,

pers. comm. 1996). Historically, portions of the primary meadow at Camas

Meadows have been seeded to nonnative grasses to increase forage for livestock. 

In addition, nonnative grasses have been planted near residences for lawns and

appear to be encroaching into the primary meadow area (T. Thomas, pers. obs.

1995). S. oregana var. calva is generally absent from these areas except for

occasional individuals along the periphery, suggesting that the introduced species

are able to displace S. oregana var. calva (Gamon 1987).

Timber harvest, particularly large-scale removal of overstory, may have

long-term effects on hydrologic function and poses a threat to S. oregana var.

calva by increasing erosion and sedimentation in the wetlands where it occurs and

changing the patterns of surface and subsurface water runoff. The direct impacts

of timber harvest operations may pose a greater threat than tree removal,

however, as local ground disturbance activities such as log yarding or slash

disposal may crush plants and compact the soil (Gamon 1987). Timber harvest

has occurred throughout the general Camas Meadows area (R. Harrod, pers.

comm. 1996), and several of the other populations occur in areas that are not

protected from timber harvest.

Additional development in the area may impact S. oregana var. calva

through gradual habitat degradation from increased trampling, soil compaction,

hydrologic changes, and increased weed invasion. Property development also has

the potential to further fragment the population and remaining suitable habitat. 

Development within seasonal wetlands has the highest likelihood of causing these

types of indirect effects, and could also directly impact S. oregana var. calva

plants depending on the location.
17

There are 24 privately owned parcels on the perimeter of the Camas

Meadows area, not including commercial timber land. The 24 parcels range in

size from 0.4 hectares to 23.9 hectares (1 acre to 59 acres), with 17 of them less

than 2 hectares (5 acres) in size. Of the 24 parcels, approximately 11 have been at

least partially developed as of March 2004. According to National Wetland

Inventory maps, 6 or 7 of the 24 parcels contain seasonal wetlands and may

require permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for future

development. However, most of the currently undeveloped parcels do not include

wetlands according to these maps (i.e., they are classified as upland habitats) (D.

Wilderman, pers. comm. 2004). 

2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes

Seeds of the full species Sidalcea oregana are collected by horticulturists. 

Some populations are small enough that even limited collecting pressure could

have adverse impacts. S. oregana var. calva is an attractive plant and may be

sought for collection. All perennial species in the genus are considered attractive

plants with horticultural potential (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1961; Gamon 1987). 

Wild-collected seed of the species S. oregana (no variety given) is available

through a seed exchange program offered by the International Gardening Society,

North American Rock Garden Society (North American Rock Garden Society

1996). Although seed collection does not pose a key threat to S. oregana var.

calva currently, the potential of harm through such activity should be considered

when developing management plans for the species.

3. Disease or predation

Large numbers of aphids have infested individuals of S. oregana var.

calva at the Camas Meadows and Mountain Home Meadow populations (Gamon

1987). The effect of these aphids, or the relationship of the aphids to S. oregana

var. calva, is not known. In 1987, 2000, and 2001, researchers observed that

weevils had eaten the majority of the seeds that had been produced (Gamon 1987;

L. Malmquist, pers. comm. 2001). A recent study verified that loss of S. oregana

var. calva seeds due to weevil predation is very high, and may have substantial

negative impacts on the reproductive capacity of the plant (Goldsmith 2003).
18

Some grazing by horses and wildlife (deer and elk) has been observed in

areas occupied by S. oregana var. calva. However, the impact from grazing

livestock or wildlife is unknown (Gamon 1987; R. Harrod, pers. comm. 1996).

4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

S. oregana var. calva is included on the U.S. Forest Service Region 6

Sensitive Plant List, allowing some protection by policy, but not by regulatory

definition. In addition, the areas where these populations occur are designated

under the Northwest Forest Plan as “matrix” lands (U.S. Department of

Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior 1994a,b), which is land that is

available for timber harvest. 

S. oregana var. calva is listed as endangered by the Washington

Department of Natural Resources (Washington Natural Heritage Program 1997). 

However, Washington State legislation provides no regulatory protection for

plants, therefore the Washington Department of Natural Resources’ designation

provides no legally binding protection for this species. 

The wetland habitat of S. oregana var. calva is under the jurisdiction of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which regulates the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.). Project proponents

are required to obtain a permit from the Corps prior to undertaking activities (e.g.,

grading, discharge of soil or other fill material) that would result in the fill of

wetlands under the Corps’ jurisdiction. Generally, if a project falls below certain

thresholds, such as the fill of wetlands less than 0.13 hectares (0.33 acres) under

Nationwide Permit 26 (33 Code of Federal Regulations 330.5(a)(26)), the project

is considered authorized. Projects meeting the criteria for a nationwide permit are

normally permitted with minimal environmental review by the Corps. 

Individual permits are required for the discharge of fill material into

wetlands above the thresholds established by the nationwide permits. The review

process for the issuance of individual permits is more rigorous than for

nationwide permits. In practice, the Corps rarely requires an individual permit

when a project would qualify for a nationwide permit, unless the project has
19

substantial or more than minimal impacts, if a species is federally listed as

threatened or endangered, or other significant resources might be adversely

affected by the proposed activity. 

All but one of the five populations of S. oregana var. calva are less than

0.4 hectares (1 acre) in size. These populations could be severely affected by

even a small discharge of fill or dredged material, and any of the smaller

populations could be eliminated by wetland fill or discharged material. Because

many activities that could cause modification or destruction of the wetland

habitats of S. oregana var. calva may be authorized by a nationwide permit,

section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides insufficient protection of the species.

5. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence

When populations reach low numbers of individuals, their vulnerability to

extirpation from human-caused and random events increases (Gilpin and Soulé

1986; Schemske et al. 1994; Given 1995). Small populations may lose a large

amount of genetic variability because of genetic drift and therefore have a

reduced likelihood of long-term viability (Soulé 1980). The Forest Service and

Camas Creek Tributary populations of S. oregana var. calva currently have fewer

than 10 reproductive individuals each. The numbers of plants are so low in these

populations that they may not be viable, and little opportunity exists for genetic

exchange with other populations. The Mountain Home Meadow population and

the Pendleton Canyon population each have 300 or fewer plants and are

vulnerable to many of these same threats.

Population sizes are so low at most of the known sites of S. oregana var.

calva that the majority of these are highly vulnerable to extirpation by random

natural events such as wildfire. The potential for forest fires is high in the east

side ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest type. Prior to 1900, historical fires

occurred in this region on a cycle of roughly 13 years, with fire essentially absent

from 1900 to 1990 due to suppression (Everett et al. 1997). With the reduction of

fires during this century, the structure of east-side forests has been altered with an

increase in tree density and development into multiple canopy layers. Because of

the changes in stand structure, these forests are highly susceptible to wildfire

(Agee 1993). Although S. oregana var. calva may benefit from occasional low
20

intensity fires to set back succession, a high intensity wildfire during the growing

season of the plant could have highly negative consequences.

 The presence of an adjacent gravel road is an additional threat to the

Mountain Home population, the Pendleton Canyon population, and portions of

the Camas Meadows population. Dust from the road may hinder pollination of

the plants nearest the road (Gamon 1987).

Recreational usage poses a threat to some of the populations. People

engaging in a variety of recreational activities, including trail bike riding,

bowhunting competitions, and camping, contribute to the species’ decline by

trampling plants and compacting the soil. Trampling of S. oregana var. calva

plants has been documented (D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 1997), and usage of the

primary meadow in Camas Meadows has had detrimental effects on the

population of S. oregana var. calva there (Gamon 1987; D. Wilderman, pers.

comm. 1997). 

H. CONSERVATION MEASURES

1. Protections under the Endangered Species Act

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain activities. The Act provides

for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that

recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. Funding may be available

through section 6 of the Act for the State to conduct recovery activities.

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions

with respect to any species that is listed as endangered or threatened, and its

critical habitat, to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. One of the five known populations of S.

oregana var. calva is found entirely on Federal lands managed by the Wenatchee

National Forest, while a second population lies partially within its boundaries. 

The U.S. Forest Service would be required to consult with us if any actions such
21

as timber harvesting, road construction, grazing, or fire management activities

may affect S. oregana var. calva or its critical habitat. Other Federal agency

actions that may require consultation include the Corps’ authorization of projects

affecting wetlands and other waters under section 404 of the Clean Water Act,

Environmental Protection Agency authorization of discharges under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Natural Resource Conservation Service

projects, and Department of Housing and Urban Development and Veterans

Administration mortgage programs (Federal Home Administration loans). The

Act also requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out

conservation programs for endangered and threatened species.

General prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered plants

under the Act include all trade prohibitions of section 9(a)(2). These prohibitions,

in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the

course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign

commerce, or remove such plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In

addition, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction of listed plant

species on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up,

damaging, or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation, or in the course of a violation of State criminal trespass law. Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents and

State conservation agencies. The Act also provides for the issuance of permits to

carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered plant species under

certain circumstances. Such permits are available for scientific purposes and to

enhance the propagation or survival of the species. Few trade permits are likely

to be sought or issued because the species is not common in cultivation or in the

wild.

Collection, damage, or destruction of this species on Federal lands is

prohibited, although in appropriate cases a Federal permit could be issued to

allow collection for scientific or recovery purposes. Such activities on nonFederal land would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act if activities were

conducted in knowing violation of Washington State law or regulations, or in the

course of a violation of Washington State criminal trespass law.
22

2. Other Conservation Measures

 The largest known population of S. oregana var. calva is found at Camas

Meadows, and about 75 percent of that population occurs within the boundaries

of the Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve. This preserve is one of nearly 50

such sites protected in Washington’s Natural Area Preserve System, owned by the

State and managed by the Department of Natural Resources. Natural Area

Preserves are designed to protect the highest quality examples of native

ecosystems and rare plant and animal species in the State, and may be used for

education and scientific research in addition to preserving native biological

diversity. The Washington Department of Natural Resources completed a

management plan for the Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve in February

2000, and this plan includes management objectives and guidelines to prevent

degradation to the population and the habitat of S. oregana var. calva that occurs

there. These provisions include, but are not limited to, control of nonnative

species and access by the public, maintaining and restoring natural hydrology,

and addressing the impacts of roads and fire suppression activities in the larger

drainage basin.

Some limited monitoring of S. oregana var. calva populations has taken

place on a relatively consistent basis since 1998. Six transects with tagged

individual plants have been counted on an annual basis; four of these transects are

on the Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve, and two are on Forest Service

lands. Botany staff from the Wenatchee National Forest have been in charge of

the data collection for these transects. In addition, baseline data has been

collected and there has been some experimentation with mowing and other forms

of treatment on S. oregana var. calva at the Camas Meadow Natural Area

Preserve (D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 2003). 

Mountain Home and a portion of the Camas Meadows population are a

part of the voluntary registry program administered by The Nature Conservancy

and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (Caplow 2002). Although

this program does not provide any specific protection to the plants, it does allow

access to the properties for the purposes of monitoring the populations.
23

I. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES,

AND SPECIES OF CONCERN

The Wenatchee National Forest has developed a draft conservation

agreement with us for another sensitive plant species, Delphinium viridescens

(Wenatchee larkspur), a former Federal category 1 candidate plant species that

remains a species of concern. The draft conservation agreement would indirectly

provide some measures for conserving S. oregana var. calva at the site where the

two species occur together, the Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve. Some of

the protective mechanisms discussed in the draft agreement have been

implemented and may serve to promote the recovery of S. oregana var. calva on

Forest Service land. However, this agreement has not been finalized, does not

address all of the threats to S. oregana var. calva, and on its own is not sufficient

to protect and recover the species throughout its range (Gamon 1987; J. Gamon,

pers. comm. 1997). Protection provided through this conservation agreement

would not extend to private or State owned land, where many of the individual

plants occur.

J. RECOVERY STRATEGY

The first step toward recovery of S. oregana var. calva is to protect and

manage the known populations. On public lands, we will work with the

Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Areas Program and the 

Forest Service. The Camas Creek Tributary and Pendleton Canyon populations,

which are small, isolated, and occur partially on privately owned lands, will need

protection through a combination of mechanisms including possible acquisition

from willing sellers, conservation easements, management agreements, voluntary

protection, or other approaches.

Maintaining the known populations will depend on developing successful

partnerships with public land managers and private landowners. It will also

require gaining knowledge about how the ecosystem functions where S. oregana

var. calva is found. Some active management will be required for each of the

locations to maintain or enhance the populations. Management actions must be

designed to eliminate or reduce the threats identified for this species in order to

ensure its long-term viability.
24

Recovery requires increasing the area occupied by existing populations

where space and habitat allow, as well as possibly establishing new populations. 

The first step in this process is to evaluate the feasibility and propriety of

expanding existing populations and establishing new populations, as well as

identifying the sites appropriate for these activities.

Another feature of recovery is continued survey effort. Small, isolated

populations of S. oregana var. calva have been discovered in the past 3 years. 

Additional populations that are not visible from any public access points may be

present on privately owned land that has not been surveyed. One strategy to

improve the efficiency of continued survey efforts is to prepare and make

available informational materials that will enable the public to recognize the

species, appreciate its significance, and encourage them to provide information on

possible locations.

Research and monitoring are also key components of the recovery

strategy. Research will need to focus efforts on: (1) maintaining and enhancing

populations at existing locations; and (2) establishing and maintaining new, viable

populations at appropriate sites. Basic research on the biology and ecology of S.

oregana var. calva is limited and will require funding. Research and available

information on the establishment of new populations is mostly lacking. To

recover the species, research will need to be designed to provide new information

in both areas.

II. RECOVERY

A. RECOVERY OBJECTIVES

The ultimate objective of this plan is to outline recovery actions that,

when implemented, will remove threats to S. oregana var. calva to the extent that

it is no longer in danger of extinction. At that point, removal of S. oregana var.

calva from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

(delisting) may be warranted. The interim objective is to stabilize the existing

populations and accomplish increases in population sizes and geographic
25

distribution across the historical range of the species sufficient to consider

reclassification or downlisting of S. oregana var. calva to threatened status. 

 

In the Final Rule to list S. oregana var. calva as an endangered species

(USFWS 1999), we identified several key threats that must be adequately

addressed before reclassification of the species to threatened status or delisting

can be considered. Appendix A links recovery criteria to the five listing factors

and the recovery actions. These “Threats and Reasons for Listing” are also

discussed in Part I of this recovery plan. 

B. RECOVERY CRITERIA

Downlisting Criteria. Downlisting will be considered when all of the following

conditions have been met: 

1. There are at least four separate, stable, self-sustaining populations

in each of the 5th field watersheds (Peshastin Creek and Icicle Creek)

where the species currently occurs. Alternatively, there could be at least

three stable, self-sustaining populations in each of these two 5th field

watersheds plus at least three self-sustaining populations in another

watershed if additional populations are discovered in the future. 

Additional populations may be identified through surveys or established

through reintroductions. To be considered separate, each population must

be geographically and hydrologically separated, such that events resulting

in the extinction of one population are not likely to result in the extinction

of another population. To be considered stable and self-sustaining, a

population should maintain a 5-year average of at least 500 adult plants,

show evidence of positive or neutral population growth over the same 5-

year period, and show evidence of natural reproduction and establishment. 

Attainment of, or progress toward meeting these measures will be

demonstrated through annual monitoring.

2. All of the stable, self-sustaining populations are on protected sites

secure from threats. For a site to be considered protected, it must be

owned or managed by a government agency or private conservation

organization that identifies perpetual maintenance of the species as the
26

primary management objective for the site, or the site must be protected

by a permanent conservation easement or covenant that commits present

and future landowners to the conservation of the species. 

3. Genetic material is stored in a facility approved by the Center for

Plant Conservation. The stored genetic material in the form of seeds

must adequately represent the species’ geographic distribution and genetic

diversity.

4. Adequate population and habitat monitoring has been established

for all of the species’ populations. Population monitoring must be

statistically sound and should be able to detect a 20 percent change in the

population with a 90 percent degree of certainty. Habitat monitoring

should include monitoring of shrub and tree cover, nonnative species, and

hydrology.

5. Management plans have been developed and implemented for all

State and federally owned populations. Management plans will include

provisions for habitat maintenance and restoration, monitoring, and

research, and will define actions designed to reduce or control threats to

the species such as noxious weed control and fire management. 

Delisting Criteria. The criteria for delisting the species remains the same as the

criteria for downlisting, with the following additions:

1. The populations that meet downlisting criterion #1 above will be

naturally reproducing, stable or increasing in number with a

minimum of 500 adult plants, secure from threats, and will have

persisted at that level for an additional 5 years, for a total of 10 years.

All other details of criterion #1 remain unchanged.

2 through 5. Remain the same.

6. Post-delisting monitoring plans and agreements to continue postdelisting monitoring are in place and ready for implementation at the

time of delisting. Monitoring of populations following delisting will
27

verify the ongoing recovery of the species and provide a means of

assessing the continuing effectiveness of management actions.

Due to our limited knowledge of the biology of this species at this time,

more specific downlisting or delisting criteria may be developed as new

population status and life history information is collected during the course of

research and management activities.

C. NARRATIVE OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS

1. Maintain the current geographic distribution of the species.

The current geographic distribution of the species must be maintained by

maintaining habitat integrity. There are only five known populations of S.

oregana var. calva. All of the populations are composed of 300 or fewer

plants, with the exception of the Camas Meadows population, which is

estimated to be over 11,000 plants (D. Wilderman, pers. comm. 2003

[unpublished data]). The current populations are within the Peshastin and

Icicle Creek watersheds. The Camas Meadows population is on private,

State, and Federal land. One population is entirely on Forest Service land,

one is on State land, and the two remaining populations are on private

land.

1.1 Develop and implement habitat management plans on

Federal and State managed lands.

Successful management on these lands will be critical to the

success of the recovery efforts. Current management activities, as

well as threats, vary from site to site, so each site must have an

individualized management plan. These plans should include

provisions for the management of the sites with the best potential

for providing long-term stable habitat, and maintenance of

unoccupied, potential habitat in suitable condition, since such areas

represent sites for potential future colonization.

1.1.1 Periodically review the Camas Meadows Natural

Area Preserve management plan (Priority 2).
28

A management plan for the Washington Department of

Natural Resources Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve

was completed in February 2000, and contains management

objectives and guidelines for the largest known population

of S. oregana var. calva. These should be reviewed and

updated annually, and the management plan should be

updated in its entirety as necessary.

1.1.2 Develop a management plan for the U.S. Forest

Service portion of Camas Meadows (Priority 1).

Although the U.S. Forest Service has been active in

research and management of their portions of the Camas

Meadows population, a written management plan would

help guide the management process.

1.1.3 Coordinate between U.S. Forest Service and

Washington Department of Natural Resources in the

management of Camas Meadows (Priority 1).

The Camas Meadows area is a complex, hydrologically

connected area. Coordination between the two primary land

managers is essential to good management. Management

plans should be coordinated, and the agencies should meet

annually or biannually to compare work and issues.

1.1.4 Develop management plans for all other

Washington Department of Natural Resources and U.S.

Forest Service populations (Priority 1).

At this time there are two other small populations that

occur on public lands: the Camas Creek Tributary site,

owned by the Washington Department of Natural

Resources, and one population within the Wenatchee

National Forest (U.S. Forest Service). Each of these

populations numbers 10 or fewer reproductive individuals. 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources and the

U.S. Forest Service should develop and implement plans

for this species wherever it may occur on their lands.
29

1.2 Develop and implement monitoring plans for all known

populations to assess trends and monitor threats (Priority 2).

There are several monitoring projects in place, but they are not

specifically designed to assess trends. Successful management of

individual populations will depend on the ability to detect longterm changes in the population or its habitat, and to make specific

management decisions based upon those changes. Monitoring of

population characteristics, such as distribution, density, rate of

reproduction, and establishment, is the most powerful method of

assessing population trends. If possible, some of the monitoring

should include these population characteristics, as this will provide

the data needed for estimating viable population sizes. For

practical reasons it may be necessary to have less time-intensive

monitoring for some populations. If possible, monitoring should

include the populations on private land. 

1.3 Promote protection of key occurrences on private land.

One of the populations on private land is the only known

population in the Icicle Creek watershed. Another is the only

known population in its subwatershed. Protecting these

populations is a high priority in the recovery of the species. 

1.3.1 Develop site-specific management

recommendations for landowners (Priority 1).

The habitat of S. oregana var. calva is seral and subject to

change through invasion by trees and shrubs. Hydrology is

also a critical component of the environmental parameters

for the species. Without active management, populations

on private lands are likely to decline. Written site-specific

management recommendations and support for landowners

increase the likelihood that these populations will remain

viable.

 

1.3.2 Develop protection on private land (Priority 2).

Unprotected populations on private land are inherently

vulnerable and cannot be used to meet the criteria for this
30

recovery plan. The highest level of protection agreeable to

landowners should be obtained. Land purchase from

willing sellers, conservation easements, or conservation

agreements are possible approaches for protecting

populations on private land. 

2. Identify and map all populations and identify potential habitat for

reintroductions.

Although considerable inventory work has been undertaken for this

species, the discovery in the last few years of previously unknown sites,

and the highly convoluted terrain of the Wenatchee Mountains, suggests

that other populations may yet be discovered. The Mission Creek

watershed, adjacent to the largest known population of S. oregana var.

calva in the Peshastin Creek watershed, is believed to have the greatest

potential for harboring additional populations that are as yet unknown.

2.1 Characterize and model habitat requirements (Priority 2).

Understanding the habitat requirements (soil texture, chemistry,

moisture, associated species, woody cover, hydrology) of the

known populations is the first step in the identification of possible

reintroduction sites, and is also important in the proper

management of the known populations. 

2.1.1 Analyze existing data (Priority 2).

Data have been gathered on many of the habitat

requirements above, but little analysis has been done. 

Some data collected in the areas of soil characteristics,

species associations, and light availability remains to be

analyzed. The analysis of the existing data and the

identification of further characterization work is an

important first step.

2.1.2 Collect and analyze additional data (Priority 2).

After the existing data have been analyzed, there may be

further field work and data analysis needed to refine the

model of the habitat requirements for S. oregana var. calva.
31

2.1.3 Conduct additional research (Priority 2).

Conduct research to investigate the moisture and

hydrological requirements of S. oregana var. calva to guide

site management and aid in the selection of future

reintroduction sites. 

2.2 Conduct geographic information systems-based analysis

and aerial photo interpretation to identify potential habitat in

the Peshastin and Icicle Creek watersheds (Priority 2).

There are both current and historical records from the Peshastin

and Icicle Creek watersheds. Potential habitat could be identified

using soil, slope, elevation, and vegetative cover characteristics of

the known populations, and applying these characteristics to a

geographic information systems based search of the watersheds. 

2.3 Conduct field investigations of potential habitat (Priority

2).

The maps of potential habitat developed through geographic

information systems-based searches would be used as the basis for

field investigations in the Peshastin, Icicle, and Mission Creek

watersheds, using standardized rare plant search methods

developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other natural

resource management agencies. Field searches may identify new

populations or areas for potential reintroductions.

2.4 Map all populations with Global Positioning Systems

(GPS) (Priority 2).

All populations should be mapped at the highest possible degree

of accuracy using global positioning systems technology.

2.5 Create a spatial database for survey results, including

negative searches (Priority 3).

In order to complete surveys for the species before moving toward

reintroduction, a systematic approach and protocol for information

management should be developed. 
32

3. Conduct research and monitoring essential for the conservation of

the species.

Research is needed to guide successful management of existing

populations and make possible the establishment and maintenance of new

populations. Our ability to effectively manage for the recovery of this

species is presently limited by critical data gaps in our knowledge of the

life history and ecology of S. oregana var. calva and the dynamic

processes that maintain its wetland habitat.

3.1 Conduct an annual weed inventory and implement control

measures (Priority 2).

Noxious weeds, including introduced grasses, pose a significant

threat to some populations of S. oregana var. calva. Annual

inventory of all populations will encourage the early detection and

control of weed infestations. 

3.2 Study the effects of seed predation by weevils (Priority 2).

Weevil seed predation has been widely observed (e.g., Caplow

2002; Goldsmith 2003), and may be a significant factor in the

suppression of seed production in S. oregana var. calva. 

Experimental weevil exclusion and the development of a

quantitative method to assess the annual severity of weevil

infestations would provide more information on the significance of

weevils in the recovery of the species.

3.3 Study the effects of fire and woody cover removal on

population dynamics (Priority 2).

Fire may have played an historical role in the maintenance of

habitat for this species. However, fire suppression over the last

century has resulted in significant changes to habitats, and species

composition has been particularly affected. When plants have

evolved in fire-adapted systems, fire can often be used to enhance

populations. However, the critical time of year, level of severity,

and fire return interval all need to be established. In the absence of

fire as a management tool, the manual removal of woody cover

may be appropriate, but again, further research is needed on the
33

effects of woody cover removal and the proper methods and

timing. 

3.4 Identify and study pollinators (Priority 2).

The presence and density of suitable pollinators may be significant

for the viability of current populations and the suitability of

potential reintroduction sites. Knowledge of pollinators and their

dispersal capabilities will also assist in determining the requisite

proximity of populations to ensure cross-pollination and gene flow. 

A recent study provided some clues to the identity of the most

likely pollinators (Goldsmith 2003), but also stressed the

importance of further research in this area for the successful

conservation of S. oregana var. calva.

3.5 Develop a model to predict annual reproductive success

(Priority 3).

There appears to be wide annual variation in the reproductive

success of S. oregana var. calva, particularly in the development of

viable seed. If years of poor reproduction can be correlated to

annual variation in precipitation or other climatic factors, it may be

possible to distinguish between natural fluctuations and declines

from other causes. 

3.6 Study the effects of ground disturbance on population

dynamics (Priority 3).

Some observers have noted that S. oregana var. calva may have

responded positively to ground disturbance experienced in the

course of fire suppression activities. Identifying the effects of

different degrees of ground disturbance will be of benefit in the

development of effective management plans.

3.7 Study the effects of herbivory (Priority 3). 

Potential effects to S. oregana var. calva of browsing and grazing

by horses, cattle, sheep, deer, and elk are currently unknown. 

Grazing may have beneficial effects which should be investigated.

Large concentrations of aphids have been observed parasitizing the
34

plants. The effects from this use by aphids are currently unknown

but should also be investigated. 

3.8 Determine how to quickly establish viable populations

(Priority 3).

Experiments are necessary to develop efficient, effective

techniques for establishing S. oregana var. calva in the field. 

Methods for preparing sites should be tested, as should preparing

seeds through scarification and cold stratification techniques. New

methods for the efficient germination, growth, and establishment

of the species need to be considered and tested. 

4. Develop and implement a reintroduction plan to establish new

populations within the confirmed historical range of the species.

Further field inventory may reveal previously unknown populations that

meet the criteria for recovery. If so, reintroduction efforts will not be

necessary. However, if no other large populations are found through

further surveys, reintroduction may be necessary for the recovery of the

species. A carefully prepared plan and research to develop propagation

and reintroduction protocols will be necessary before such actions are

undertaken. Reintroduction may only take place in watersheds that

currently support or once supported populations based on confirmed

historical collections.

4.1 Develop a reintroduction plan (Priority 3).

Many factors need to be evaluated before reintroduction is

undertaken. These factors include: (1) the goals of the

reintroduction effort; (2) where it will take place; (3) who will

maintain and manage the populations(s); (4) how, from a

biological perspective, the effort should be conceived and carried

out; and (5) whether reintroduction is technically feasible. 

4.2 Implement the reintroduction plan (Priority 3).

If necessary for the recovery of S. oregana var. calva, the

reintroduction plan should be fully implemented.
35

5. Establish a technical working group (Priority 3).

Individuals with expert knowledge of the biology of S. oregana var. calva

and the ecosystem on which it depends will be asked to assess the

progress of recovery efforts. Annual review of all progress toward

recovery and all ongoing research and monitoring is critical for successful

implementation of this recovery plan.

6. Collect seed from all source populations to represent the range of

genetic diversity within the species’ range and store the seed in a

facility approved by the Center for Plant Conservation (Priority 3).

The small number of known populations, the narrow range of the species,

and the small number of individuals in each population make the species 

vulnerable to random environmental and human-caused events. To hedge

against the loss of significant genetic material, seed representing the

diversity within the species should be collected and stored, preferably in

multiple facilities approved by the Center for Plant Conservation. The

stored seed could also be used in efforts to establish new populations.

7. Periodically review the status of the species and assess the

effectiveness of the management plans and other recovery actions;

review and revise the recovery plan as needed (Priority 3).

As new information about S. oregana var. calva becomes available

through additional surveys, research, and management experience, the

objectives, criteria, and recovery actions in this recovery plan should be

reviewed and revised as necessary. Of specific importance may be

evaluations of future research and management needs and the need for

reintroductions of additional populations.

8. Develop outreach materials to provide information about the

species and its habitat to local landowners (Priority 3).

Additional populations of S. oregana var. calva may be present on private

lands or lands that have not been previously accessed for surveys. The

development of informational materials that will assist members of the

public in recognizing the species, appreciating its significance, and

contacting the appropriate person(s) with location data may help to

identify currently unknown populations.
36

III. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

The following table is a summary of the scheduled actions and estimated

costs for recovery of S. oregana var. calva. It is a guide for meeting the

objectives discussed in Part II of this recovery plan. Initiation of the actions

identified in the Implementation Schedule are subject to availability of funds. 

The table includes the following elements:

1) Priority. The actions identified in the Implementation Schedule are those

that, in our opinion, should bring about the recovery of this species. The actions,

however, are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in the

species’ status, and the completion of recovery actions. The priority for each

action is given in the first column and is assigned as follows:

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

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/habitat quality or some

other significant negative impact short of extinction.

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

2) Action Number and Description. The action number and description are

extracted from the stepdown narrative found in Part II of this recovery plan. 

3) Action Duration. The action duration column indicates the number of years

estimated to complete the action if it is a discrete action, or if it is a continuous or

ongoing action. Actions are defined as follows:

Continuous Action will be implemented on an annual basis once it is

begun.

Ongoing Action is currently being implemented and will continue

until no longer necessary for recovery.

Intermittent Action will be implemented on an “as needed” basis.
37

4) Responsible Parties. We have identified agencies and other parties that we

believe are the primary stakeholders in the recovery process, and that have the

authority, responsibility, or expressed interest to implement a specific recovery

action. However, the list of possible stakeholders is not limited to those below;

other stakeholders are invited to participate. In addition, the listing of a party in

the Implementation Schedule does not require, nor imply a requirement, that the

identified party has agreed to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for

implementing the action(s). However, parties 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 S.

oregana var. calva. Also, section 7(a)(1) of the 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.

When more than one party is listed, the most logical lead agency (based

on authorities, mandates, and capabilities) has been identified as the “responsible

party” with an asterisk (*). The following abbreviations are used to indicate the

responsible party for each recovery action:

FS U.S. Forest Service

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

University May be any interested academic or research institution

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

5) Cost Estimates. Cost estimates are shown for each recovery action, both for

the first 4 years after release of the recovery plan and for the total estimated cost

of recovery over a period of 13 years (2005 through 2017). Total costs for

continuous and ongoing actions are based on estimated time to recovery. The

inclusion of estimated costs in this recovery plan does not commit any agency or

party to an expenditure of funds. Therefore, initiation and completion of these

actions is subject to the availability of funds, as well as other constraints affecting

the stakeholders involved.
Implementation Schedule for the Sidalcea oregana var. calva Recovery Plan

Action

Priority

Action

Number Action Description

Action

Duration

(years)

Responsible

Parties

(* = lead)

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units)

Total

Costs

FY

 2005

FY

2006

FY 

2007

FY

2008

1 1.1.2 Develop management

plan for FS portion ofCamas Meadows

3 years FS 10 5 3 2 __

1 1.1.3 Coordinate between FS

and WDNR onmanagement of CamasMeadows

Ongoing FS, WDNR* 26 2222

1 1.1.4 Develop management

plans for FS andWDNR populations

3 FS*, WDNR* 9 3 3 3 __

1 1.3.1 Develop site specific

managementrecommendations forlandowners

Ongoing FWS*, WDNR 28 4222

2 1.1.1 Review and update

Camas Meadowsmanagement plan

Intermittent WDNR 10 — — 5 __

2 1.2 Develop and implement

monitoring plans for allknown sites

Ongoing

WDNR*, FS,

FWS,

private

58 4 10 4 4

38
Implementation Schedule for the Sidalcea oregana var. calva Recovery Plan

Action

Priority

Action

Number Action Description

Action

Duration

(years)

Responsible

Parties

(* = lead)

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units)

Total

Costs

FY

 2005

FY

2006

FY 

2007

FY

2008

2 1.3.2 Develop protection on

private land Ongoing

FWS*,

WDNR, FS 69 7 7 5 5

2 2.1.1 Analyze existing data

on habitat requirements

2 years WDNR*, FS 8 __ 4 4 __

2 2.1.2 Collect and analyze

additional data onhabitat requirements

4 years WDNR*, FS 28 7 7 7 7

2 2.1.3 Conduct additional

research onhydrologicalrequirements

7 years WDNR*, FS*,

FWS,

University

70 10 10 10 10

2 2.2 Use geographic

information systemsand aerial photointerpretation toidentify potentialhabitat

4 years FS 24 __ 6 6 6 

2 2.3 Conduct field

investigations ofpotential habitat

4 years

WDNR*, 

FS, FWS 20 __ 10 5 5

39
Implementation Schedule for the Sidalcea oregana var. calva Recovery Plan

Action

Priority

Action

Number Action Description

Action

Duration

(years)

Responsible

Parties

(* = lead)

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units)

Total

Costs

FY

 2005

FY

2006

FY 

2007

FY

2008

2 2.4 Map all populations

with GPS Intermittent

WDNR*,

FWS, FS 6 — — — 2

2 3.1 Conduct annual weed

inventory & control

Ongoing WDNR*,

FS

40 4 3 3 3

2 3.2 Study weevil predation

on seeds

4 years WDNR*, FS 

University 13 4 3 3 3

2 3.3 Study effects of fire

and woody coverremoval

Ongoing

WDNR*, FS

& FWS 75 10 10 5 5

2 3.4 Identify pollinators 3 years WDNR*,

University

12 __ 4 4 4

3 2.5 Create and maintain

database for surveyresults

Ongoing WDNR*, FS 29 5222

3 3.5 Develop a model of

annual reproductivesuccess

5 years WDNR*, FS 54 6 4 4 4

3 3.6 Study effects of ground

disturbance

8 years WDNR*, FS 45 10 5 5 5

3 3.7 Study effects of

herbivory

4 WDNR*, FS*,

University

40 10 10 10 10

40
Implementation Schedule for the Sidalcea oregana var. calva Recovery Plan

Action

Priority

Action

Number Action Description

Action

Duration

(years)

Responsible

Parties

(* = lead)

Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units)

Total

Costs

FY

 2005

FY

2006

FY 

2007

FY

2008

3 3.8 Determine how to

establish viablepopulations

5 years WDNR*,

FS, University 30 10 8 4 4

3 4.1 Develop a 

reintroduction plan

3 years WDNR 20 __ 8 8 4

3 4.2 Implement

reintroduction plan

10 years WDNR*, FS 80 __ __ 8 8 

3 5 Establish a technical

working group

Intermittent FWS*, WDNR 20 5 __ 5 __ 

3 6 Collect and store seed Continuous WDNR*,

FWS, FS,

University

52 4 4 4 4

3 7 Review and revise

recovery plan

Intermittent FWS*,

WDNR, FS 10 __ __ __ __

3 8 Develop outreach

materials 1 year FWS 10 10 __ __ __

TOTALS 896 120 125 120 99

41
42

IV. LITERATURE CITED

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Covelo,

California. 493 pp.

Barrett, S.C.H. and J.R. Kohn. 1991. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of

small population size in plants: impications for conservation. Pages 3-30 in

D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger, editors. Genetics and Conservation of Rare

Plants. Oxford University Press, New York. 304 pp.

Bleckinger, A. E. 2001. The monitoring and management of the endangered plant

Sidalcea oregana var. calva. Incomplete Masters Thesis for Nicholas

School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University. 26 pp.

Caplow, F. 2002. Report on the status of Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray var.

calva C.L. Hitchcock. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service by the Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department

of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 33 pp. 

Center for Plant Conservation. 2003. Web Site of the Center for Plant

Conservation. Available at <http://www.centerforplantconservation.org>. 

Web page specific to S. oregana var. calva available online at

<http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/cpcweb/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=39

83>. Accessed 31 March 2003. 

Everett R., D. Schellhaas, D. Spurbeck, P. Ohlson, D. Keenum, and T. Anderson.

1997. Structure of northern spotted owl nest stands and their historical

conditions on the eastern slope of the Pacific Northwest Cascades, USA. 

Forest Ecology and Management 94:1-14.

Gamon, J.G. 1987. Report on the status of Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray var.

calva C.L. Hitchcock. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Olympia ,Washington. 41 pp.
43

Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soulé. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of

species extinction. Pages 19–34 in M.E. Soulé, editor. Conservation

biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc,

Sunderland, Massachusetts. 584 pp.

Given, D.R. 1995. Pages 63–65 in Principles and practices of plant conservation. 

Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 292 pp.

Goldsmith, T. 2003. Factors affecting population growth and persistence of

Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray var. calva C.L. Hitchcock (Malvaceae), a

taxon endemic to Chelan County, Washington. Unpublished M.S. thesis. 

University of Washington. 61 pp.

Harrod, R.J. 1995. The effects of the Hatchery and Rat Creek Fires on

endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species. Unpublished report. 

Wenatchee National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

19 pp.

Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp.

Hitchcock, C.L., and A.R. Kruckeberg. 1957. A study of the perennial species of

Sidalcea. University of Washington Publications in Biology, Number 18. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 96 pp.

Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1961. Vascular

plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 3: Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 614 pp.

Huseby, P. 2000. A preliminary study of seed germination in Sidalcea oregana

var. calva. Unpublished paper submitted to Dr. Sarah Reichard, Ecosystem

Science Division and Center for Urban Horticulture, University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington. 9 pp.
44

North American Rock Garden Society. 1996. A seed exchange society on the

internet, available online at <http://www.nargs.org>. Accessed 31 March

2003.

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.

Shaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pages

69-86 in M.E. Soulé, editor. Viable Populations for Conservation. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 204 pp.

Soulé, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary

potential. Pages 135-150 in M.E. Soulé and B.A. Wilcox, editors. 

Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 395 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994a. Final

supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat

for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range

of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2 volumes and appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994b. 

Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted

owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Endangered and Threatened Species

Listing and Recovery Priority Guidance. Federal Register 48:43098-

43105.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Endangered and Threatened Species

Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines Correction. Federal Register

48:51985.
45

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Determination of Endangered Status for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains Checker-Mallow). 

Federal Register 64:71680-71687.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for

Sidalcea oregana var. calva (Wenatchee Mountains Checker-Mallow). 

Federal Register 66:46536-46548.

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Report on the status of

Sidalcea oregana (Nutt.) Gray var. calva C.L. Hitchcock. Unpublished

report. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, Washington. 48

pp.

Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Endangered, threatened, and

sensitive vascular plants of Washington with working lists of rare nonvascular species. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,

Washington. 62 pp.

Washington Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

1998. Field Guide to Selected Rare Plants of Washington. Available

online at <http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm>. 

Accessed 3 April 2003.

Wilderman, D.L., and A.E. Bleckinger. In prep. Investigating the habitat of an

endangered, endemic plant: soil moisture conditions in Wenatchee Mts.

checker-mallow (Sidalcea oregana var. calva) habitat. Unpublished article

prepared as submission for Douglasia, 2004. 3 pp.
46

Personal Communications and Personal Observations

Caplow, Florence. 2004. Botanist, Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, Washington.

Gamon, John. 1997. Program Manager, Washington Department of Natural

Resources, Natural Heritage Inventory, Olympia, Washington.

Harrod, Richy. 1996. Fire Ecologist, Wenatchee National Forest, Leavenworth

Ranger District. Currently stationed in Wenatchee, Washington.

Malmquist, Lauri. 2001, 2004. Botanist, Wenatchee National Forest,

Leavenworth Ranger District, Leavenworth, Washington.

Thomas, Ted. 1995. Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.

Wilderman, David. 1997, 2003, 2004. Natural Area Preserve Scientist,

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Ellensburg, Washington.
47

V. APPENDICES

Appendix A. Summary of threats identified for Sidalcea oregana var. calva and reco

recovery actions. Recovery criteria addressed by the actions are also 

LISTING 

FACTOR 1 THREAT

RECOVERY

CRITERIA 2 RECOVERY ACTION(S)

A Alterations of wetland function 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans that discourage 

habitat, protect and restore wetland hydrolo1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.3.1), establish a w(Action 5), conduct research and analyze dacharacteristics (Actions 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3)

A Agricultural and rural residential

development, conversion of habitat forother uses (orchards), timber harvest

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1), develop protection on private l1.3.2), establish a working group (Action 5) 

A Road construction and maintenance 1, 2, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1), establish a working group (Ac

A Forest fires and fire suppression

activities

1, 3, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1), cooperate with fire manageme(WDNR and FS) to identify and mark plant (Action 2.4), conduct research on the effectdisturbance (Action 3.6) and the effects of fcover removal (Action 3.3)

A Competition from nonnative plant

species

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans that address red

eradicating nonnative species, manage nonninvasion, monitor invasive species distributdiversity (Actions 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, annual weed inventory and control measure
Appendix A. Summary of threats identified for Sidalcea oregana var. calva and reco

recovery actions. Recovery criteria addressed by the actions are also 

LISTING 

FACTOR 1 THREAT

RECOVERY

CRITERIA 2 RECOVERY ACTION(S)

B Recreation 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1) to address recreational activitieworking group (Action 5)

B Seed collection, plant collection 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Enforce section 9 prohibitionsC Insects and herbivory 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1) to include monitoring insect infherbivory from domestic and wild animals, research (Actions 3.2, 3.7) 

D No Washington State protection for

plants on State and private lands

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1) and develop protection on priva

1.3.2), establish a working group (Action 5)section 9 (on Federal land) and section 7 proAct when there is a Federal agency nexus

E Random environmental events

(drought, wildfire)

1, 4, 5, 6 Develop management plans (Actions 1.1.1, 

1.1.4, 1.3.1), reduce impacts by increasing n

populations (surveys, reintroductions) popuand population health (Actions 2.2, 2.3, 3.4, 4.2), collect and store seed (Action 6), devematerials to help identify new populations (

1 See Listing Factors, page 142 See Recovery Criteria, page 25

Abbreviations:

FS = U.S. Forest Service; NAP = Camas Meadows Natural Area Preserve; WDNR = Washington Department of Natural Resou

48
49

Appendix B. Glossary

5th field In the standardized hierarchical hydrologic unit cataloging

watershed system used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service,

a 5th field hydrologic unit, known as a watershed, is

represented by 10 digits and is the next unit below the level

of the larger 8-digit subbasin. Watersheds are normally

between 16,000 and 100,000 hectares (40,000 and 250,000

acres) in size. A 5th field watershed is generally further

divided into several 6th field watersheds known as

subwatersheds, the smallest units in the system.

Endemic Native to, and restricted to, a well-defined geographic area.

Seral A stage in the succession of a plant community, not

including the climax community.

Subwatershed The smallest of the units comprising the standardized

hierarchical system of hydrologic units. A subwatershed (or

6th field watershed) is represented by 12 digits, and is

usually from 4,000 to 16,000 hectares (10,000 to 40,000

acres) in size, although some may be as small as 1,200

hectares (3,000 acres). See also 5th field watershed, above.

Variety A group of plants or animals of less than species rank; some

botanists view varieties as equivalent to subspecies, and

other consider them divisions of subspecies.

Watershed syn. catchment; drainage basin; hydrologic unit. An area of

land from which water drains toward a common watercourse

in a natural basin. See also 5th field watershed, above.
50

Appendix C. Summary of Agency and Public Comments on the

Draft Recovery Plan for Sidalcea oregana var.

calva

On October 15, 2003, we released the Draft Recovery Plan for Sidalcea

oregana var. calva for a 60-day comment period. The notice of availability,

published in the Federal Register (68:59414-59415), solicited written comments on

the draft plan. This comment period ended on December 15, 2003. Peer review of

the draft recovery plan was provided by John Gamon, Manager of the Washington

Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program.

This section provides a summary of general information about the

comments we received. All comment letters are kept on file in the Central

Washington Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 215 Melody Lane,

Wenatchee, Washington 98801. 

A total of two letters or e-mails were received, both from Federal agencies. 

All comments received were considered. The majority of the comments were to

point out minor corrections or suggest areas in need of further explanation or

clarification; these have been incorporated directly into the final plan, where

appropriate. Significant comments regarding the substance of the plan are

summarized below, along with our responses to those comments. We thank those

who took the time to read the draft recovery plan and provide us with their

suggestions for improvement.

Summary of Comments and Our Responses

Comment: Has any molecular work had been done to determine genetic diversity

within the populations? How are populations of this species defined? 

Response: The genetic diversity of Sidalcea oregana var. calva has not yet been

investigated, either within or between populations. We defined populations of the

species as distinct from one another if they were geographically separated by at

least 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) distance.
51

Comment: What was the rationale for the abandonment of the original subspecies

classification of Sidalcea oregana ssp. oregana var. calva? Is there any

significance to being a variety of a species rather than a variety of a subspecies?

Response: The change in nomenclature from Sidalcea oregana ssp. oregana var.

calva (Hitchcock and Kruckeberg 1957) to Sidalcea oregana var. calva reflects a

decision made in conjunction with the publication of Flora of the Pacific

Northwest in 1973 (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). The change was intended to

simplify the name, and does not indicate any change in the relationship between

the subordinate varieties of Sidalcea oregana or their relative significance.

Comment: Following the construction of a fire safety zone at Camas Meadows in

1994, several hundred plants of Sidalcea oregana var. calva were accidentally

destroyed, and no plants were observed at the site 1 year later. Although the draft

plan implies that the site would probably recover, it does not provide an update on

the status of the population at this site.

Response: This site did eventually recover to some degree, and approximately 25

to 30 reproductive adult plants and 10 juvenile vegetation plants were present in

2004. This update has been incorporated into the final plan. 

Comment: There are some inconsistencies in the draft plan regarding the effects

of fire on Sidalcea oregana var. calva, in particular fire is cited as both a threat as

well as a potentially beneficial occurrence.

Response: We have attempted to clarify that although occasional fires such as

occurred historically may be of benefit by setting back succession and maintaining

preferred habitat conditions, we believe the species is now threatened by wildfires

that burn at extremely high temperatures due to altered forest structure (e.g.,

greater stem densities add to fuel loads, multiple canopy layers enable rapid

crowning), especially if such fires should occur during the growing season of the

plant. However, regarding the degree of threat to Sidalcea oregana var. calva, our

concerns are primarily with the potential negative impacts of activities associated

with fire suppression. For example, the creation of fire lines using heavy

equipment. There is a need for improved coordination with fire management

crews to protect the species to the extent possible, while simultaneously
52

recognizing that human safety needs are of the highest priority in an emergency

situation.

Comment: The plan does not address timber harvest as a management tool,

particularly the benefits of thinning and burning to reduce wildfire intensity.

Response: The plan now indicates that strategic thinning or timber harvest, as

well as prescribed burning, may potentially benefit the species in some areas.