Select Page

SGCN Analysis Reveals Urgent Biodiversity Risks Across U.S. States

Jan 15, 2026 | Reforming State Wildlife Management

A ruby-throated hummingbird perches on a metal bar. Text on the image reads" At risk, overlooked, urgent." This SGCN analysis from the changes between 2015 and 2025, shows how most state increased the number of species at risk. These changes highlight the urgent need for conservation action beyond traditional game management.

We analyzed the change from 2015 to 2025 SGCN lists and most states have significantly more species at risk than they did a decade ago.

A monarch butterfly feeds on a milkweed flower in a valley with distant mountains behind it. Text on the image reads "Biodiversity Under Pressure: What State Wildlife Action Plans Are Revealing." This SGCN analysis from the changes between 2015 and 2025, shows how most state increased the number of species at risk. These changes highlight the urgent need for conservation action beyond traditional game management.

States Are Sounding the Alarm: New Data Shows a Nationwide Surge in At-Risk Wildlife

A new analysis of state wildlife conservation plans reveals a striking nationwide trend: most states are identifying significantly more species at risk than they did a decade ago. Far from being a bureaucratic update, this surge signals accelerating biodiversity decline, and growing strain on outdated, underfunded state wildlife management systems at a moment of deepening effects from climate change, biodiversity loss, and political instability.

What We Analyzed

Every ten years, states are required to update their State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs),  essential documents guiding wildlife conservation efforts in each state. States are required to adopt a SWAP and revise it every 10 years in order to qualify for federal State Wildlife Grants (SWGs). They are one of the few things that every state does to comprehensively assess the status and conservation needs of all wildlife within its borders, including invertebrates, regardless of whether a species is of interest to hunters, anglers, or trappers. 

Most state wildlife funding is still heavily directed toward game species. For example, the federal Pittman-Robertson program limits funding to mammals and birds, which are most of the species of wildlife that is hunted. At the same time, state wildlife agencies typically devote only about 10% of their budget to species that are not hunted or fished, leaving the vast majority of U.S. wildlife species, including amphibians, songbirds, and pollinators, underfunded despite many being at risk of extinction.

As part of their SWAP, each state identifies species that need additional research focus or conservation action before they are listed as threatened or endangered. These species are placed on lists of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Wildlife for All compared SGCN lists from 2015 and 2025, examining where states added or removed species and how overall conservation needs changed.

Our analysis of states’ updated 2025 SWAPs makes clear that most are identifying significantly more species at risk, revealing a nationwide failure of prevention driven by outdated management systems, chronic underfunding, and accelerating effects of climate change and biodiversity loss.

A ruby-throated hummingbird perches on a metal bar. Text on the image reads" At risk, overlooked, urgent." This SGCN analysis from the changes between 2015 and 2025, shows how most state increased the number of species at risk. These changes highlight the urgent need for conservation action beyond traditional game management.What the Data Shows

Nearly every state with finalized data identified more species at risk in 2025 than a decade ago.  Among the 31 states and one territory with usable, finalized data:

  • 27 states and one territory (Northern Mariana Islands) increased the number of species listed as SGCN
  • Only 4 states decreased their numbers of SGCN 
  • The median net increase was 145 additional species per state
  • The typical state increased its list by roughly 50–100%, with several states doubling or tripling the number of species identified as at risk in just one decade
StateUpdate_YearSGCN_2015SGCN_2025DELTA%Increased?Data
Alaska2025375293-82-21.90%NO2025-alaska-wildlife-action-plan-as-submitted-for-review
North Carolina2025457434-23-0.050328227571116NOhttps://www.ncwildlife.gov/media/4409/download?attachment
Oregon2025335176-159-0.47462686567164NOhttps://dfw.state.or.us/SWAP-Revision/
Texas202513061124-182-0.13935681470138NOhttps://tpwd.texas.gov/wildlife/wildlife-diversity/swap/sgcn/
Alabama20253671145778212YESAlabama State Wildlife Action Plan 2025–2035 Draft, Appendix 2 (All Species Ranks)
Arkansas20253765201440.38297872340426YESAWAP 2025 Revision_Full Plan_Draft
California202512811,4391580.12334113973458YESCALIFORNIA_2025
Colorado2025352405530.15056818181818YEShttps://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/590a929e-cd66-4d95-9fc4-3bdac550f416/page/p_lgj8dtw1nd?params=%7B%22df11%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580SGCN%2520Tier%25201%25EE%2580%2580SGCN%2520Tier%25202%22,%22df51%22:%22include%25EE%2580%25800%25EE%2580%2580IN%25EE%2580%2580SGCN%2520Tier%25201%25EE%2580%2580SGCN%2520Tier%25202%22%7D
Connecticut202556557380.014159292035398YEShttps://portal.ct.gov/deep/wildlife/ct-wildlife-action-plan/ct-2025-wildlife-action-plan
Delaware202556110194580.81639928698752YEShttps://dnrec.delaware.gov/dewap/sgcn/
Georgia202563810624240.66457680250784YEShttps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/542516e03f9848538c32e6ce258427b1
Kansas20252844311470.51760563380282YEShttps://ksoutdoors.gov/Services/Kansas-SWAP
Louisiana20256939802870.41414141414141YEShttps://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Wildlife_Action_Plans/2025-Louisiana-Wildlife-Action-Plan_Aug_2025.pdf
Massachusetts2025569620510.089630931458699YEShttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-state-wildlife-action-plan-swap
Mississippi202530710607532.4527687296417YEShttps://www.mdwfp.com/sites/default/files/2025-11/Mississippi%20SWAP%202025.pdf
Montana2025463763307.1739130434783YEShttps://mtnhp.mt.gov/about/announce/docs/2025_PartnersMeeting/FWP_SWAP_Update_20251211.pdf
New Hampshire20251693261570.92899408284024YEShttps://www.wildlife.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt746/files/inline-documents/sonh/swap-2025.pdf
New Jersey2025654742880.13455657492355YEShttps://dep.nj.gov/swap/about/
New Mexico20252345052711.1581196581197YEShttps://wildlife.dgf.nm.gov/download/2025-sgcn-list/
New York20253658394741.2986301369863YEShttps://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/nyswap2025draft.pdf
Northern Mariana Islands2025601651051.75YEShttps://dlnr.cnmi.gov/assets/docs/dfw/cnmi-swap-2025-2035-draft-for-review.pdf
North Dakota2025114134200.17543859649123YEShttps://gf.nd.gov/gnf/conservation/docs/2025-swap/nd-swap-2025-with-disclaimer.pdf
Oklahoma2025312397850.2724358974359YEShttps://www.wildlifedepartment.com/outdoor-news/public-invited-comment-state-wildlife-action-plan
Rhode Island20254536491960.4326710816777YEShttps://airtable.com/appcHHBaU4MWouXAb/shrYiE7xbihLuiNEa/tblaDKYK8bDNHzqS7/viwxhc3s1SI6v09tI
South Carolina202583817729341.1145584725537YEShttps://dnr.sc.gov//swap/pdf/2025Swap.pdf
South Dakota20251002351351.35YEShttps://gfp.sd.gov/UserDocs/draft_SGCN_list_for_comment_July_2024.pdf
Tennessee2025148215981160.078272604588394YEShttps://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/twra/documents/swap/2025swap/TNSWAP-2025-Ch3-SGCN-and-Habitats.pdf
Utah20251402561160.82857142857143YEShttps://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/WAP/utah_wap_2025.pdf
Vermont202599913423430.34334334334334YEShttps://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/documents/About%20Us/Budget%20and%20Planning/WAP2025/2024-9%20VT%20Wildlife%20Action%20Plan%20Draft%20SGCN%20List.pdf
Virginia2025882192110391.1780045351474YEShttps://dwr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/Virginia-Wildlife-Action-Plan-2025.pdf
Washington20252673811140.42696629213483YEShttps://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02665/wdfw02665.pdf
Wisconsin202541610646481.5576923076923YEShttps://widnr.widencollective.com/portals/cb5dpbjq/2025WWAPReview/c/41d7f740-46e3-441a-9b4b-04872aa85937/s/9e2d1c26-7584-4367-b2f5-c0518c5b5e6c
American Samoa2025
District of Columbia2025202
Hawaii20251322
Illinois2025420
Indiana2025151
Iowa2025404
Maine2025377
Maryland2025609
Michigan2025301
Minnesota2025345
Missouri2025601
Nebraska2025777
Ohio2025404
Pennsylvania2025663
Puerto Rico2025
West Virginia20251142
BASED ON CURRENT DATA
NUMBER OF STATES INCREASED28
NUMBER OF STATES DECREASED4

Note: 18 more states and regions are on a different update schedule, still finalizing plans, or lack usable data.

This is not a regional anomaly or methodological quirk. It is a nationwide pattern pointing in one direction: states are not identifying more species in need because conservation is working, but because existing systems are failing under accelerating ecological crises. These plans increasingly document a widening gap between ecological need and the tools, funding, and authority available to respond.

SCGNs Are An Early-Warning System And It’s Flashing Red

SWAPs were designed as a prevention tool. The idea is simple: identify species in trouble early, invest in proactive conservation, and keep them from ever needing emergency federal protections.

When SGCN lists grow across nearly every state, it’s a sign that prevention is failing. States are responding to:

  • Accelerating habitat loss
  • Climate-driven drought, fire, flooding, and temperature extremes
  • Increased pollution and habitat fragmentation
  • Management systems built for a different ecological era

In other words, wildlife decline is outpacing our ability—or willingness—to respond.

Why So Many Species Are Being Added

The surge in SGCN listings reflects systemic problems, not failures by state biologists or conservation staff. Across the country, wildlife agencies are grappling with:

Outdated Management Models

Many state systems remain narrowly focused on a small number of species to create harvestable surpluses of fish and wildlife for hunters, trappers and anglers, while the broader web of life continues to unravel.

Chronic Underfunding

States are expected to conserve more species with insufficient and unstable funding, often tied to political whims rather than ecological need. Most states focus limited funding on game management rather than conservation.

Habitat Loss

Wildlife agencies often lack the political courage to acknowledge when new development or extractive industries put wildlife at existential risk, facilitating the destruction of critical acres of habitat every hour.

Climate Change as a Threat Multiplier

The twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss intensify every existing pressure on wildlife and state systems, pushing already-vulnerable species closer to collapse.

Governance Captured by Special Interests

Decisions about wildlife are too often shaped by a narrow set of political and economic interests, rather than by science or public values. Agency capture means that well-monied trophy hunting, agriculture and extractive industries are able to lobby for their profit motives to the detriment of democracy, the public trust and the health of all life.

A northern leopard frog sits in a wetland. Text on the image reads "Silent Warnings: The Species WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OVERLOOKS." This SGCN analysis from the changes between 2015 and 2025, shows how most state increased the number of species at risk. These changes highlight the urgent need for conservation action beyond traditional game management.The Cost of Waiting

This data arrives at a precarious time. As more species edge closer to collapse, national conservation safeguards themselves are under threat. States are sounding the alarm just as federal leaders are dismantling the very tools meant to respond.

Across the federal policy landscape, we are seeing:

The result is a widening gap: more species at risk, fewer tools to protect them. When species decline far enough to require emergency protections, the costs—ecological, economic, and social—rise dramatically while options narrow and recovery becomes less and less probable.

Preventive conservation is not just more ethical, it is far more effective and far less expensive. But prevention requires stable, dedicated funding, modern, science-informed governance, and a commitment to holistic ecosystem health, not just short-term political wins.

What’s Next? 

The rapid expansion of SGCN lists should be treated as a national warning, not a footnote. It underscores the urgent need for:

  • Wildlife governance reform that reflects public values for the sake of democracy and because the vast majority of Americans understand what’s at risk and care for all life
  • Increased and reliable conservation funding to sustain the years of work ahead
  • Management systems built to meet the current ecological crises
  • Policies that prioritize prevention over crisis response

States are starting to do what they are required to do: documenting risk and sounding the alarm. The question now is whether state and federal policymakers will act on this information, and whether the public will step up to amplify these calls and demand meaningful change.

At Wildlife for All, we believe this moment calls for honesty, urgency, and systemic change. The data is clear. The warning has been issued. What happens next will determine the future of wildlife across the country.

 

DEFEND DEMOCRACY. PROTECT WILDLIFE. DEMAND LEADERSHIP.