Genetic analysis (using isozyme and RAPD DNA markers) indicates that Polemonium occidentale var. lacustre has had an evolutionary history that is genetically isolated from other Polemonium species. This study also indicated that there is little genetic differentiation between populations of this species. (Cole 1998)

Seeds have been seed banked, and will need continued management

Only 6 extant populations in the Great Lakes Region (St. Louis and Itasca Counties in Minnesota and Florence County in Wisconsin). Although a great deal of potential habitat exists and known populations are viable with potentially 1,000's plants, number of individual genets is not known and extensive surveys have not turned up more locations. Further research into the life history and biology including pollinators and seed dispersal mechanisms may explain what is limiting the expansion of this species.??Information on total population size and phylogenetic relationships to other members of the genus as well as response to climate change may change the status.

Canopy Closure Any activity that directly alters the habitat and destroys plants, including peat mining and flooding by beaver dams. (Anderson et al. 1998)

There are five known populations of this taxon; three are located in St. Louis County in Minnesota and two are located in Florence County in Wisconsin. It is difficult to estimate the number of individuals, as population size fluctuates from year to year. (Anderson et al. 1998)

Genetic analysis (using isozyme and RAPD DNA markers) indicates that Polemonium occidentale var. lacustre has had an evolutionary history that is genetically isolated from other Polemonium species. This study also indicated that there is little genetic differentiation between populations of this species. (Cole 1998)

Polemonium occidentale var. lacustre is listed as endangered in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. All five populations are located either on county, state, or federal land, which have all been or are currently being managed for timber production. Observations of these five populations before and after logging activities suggest that logging is not detrimental to the species as long as the plants themselves are not directly impacted (i.e.. slash is not piled on the plants, the area of the population is not excavated, and the hydrological regime is not altered as a secondary effect of logging). In fact, it appears that this taxon needs natural or artificial canopy openings in order to stimulate flower production and assure seed production. (Anderson et al. 1998) This species is not currently under federal protection. Although the species was placed under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1976 (as Federal Category 2), no formal action was taken and the Category 2 status was disbanded. A 1998 report (Anderson et al.) state that further genetic studies need to be carried out to confirm without a doubt that there is a genetic basis in addition to the morphological basis for treating this taxon as a distinct subspecies.

The evolutionary relationship of this variety to other members of its genus is still largely unknown (Anderson et al 1998). Further work is also needed to clarify its taxonomic status. It appears as though a management plan that can maintain an open canopy is necessary for seed production (Anderson et al. 1998). However, further research and monitoring is needed to determine the optimum conditions required to maintain healthy populations. Other threats, natural and anthropogenic, need to be determined. Surveys of areas in the upper peninsula of Michigan with similar habitat conditions are also needed, as they may uncover additional populations.

There have been no known attempts to propagate this species off-site. Seeds have been seed banked, and will need continued management.