FAQs

The SWAP will be a work plan for SGCN and addresses that specific suite of species. However, this will not limit CPW or our partners from continuing existing programs or developing new efforts to address other species. 

The SWAP does not provide any direct regulatory protections for SGCN. Enforcement of federal protection (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) for species not listed in the SWAP will continue. The SWAP will be used to help inform an update to Colorado’s state endangered and threatened list. 

No. SGIN are a subset of SGCN and will be treated the same as the Tiers. They have been identified as species where the critical need/action is more information. The intent is to direct researchers looking to address gaps in scientific knowledge to these species. SGIN will not be further split into Tiers. SGCN subsets are Tier 1, Tier 2 and SGIN.

A lot! Ten more years of data, taxonomic changes, updated selection criteria and the addition of “Species of Greatest Information Need (SGIN)” has resulted in many changes to the vertebrate and plant SGCN.

• The final selection criteria should be used to understand which species are included as SGCN for the 2025 SWAP.
• Some changes are a result of moving species considered Tier 2 in 2015 to SGIN for 2025. In most cases, these species were Tier 2 in 2015 due to a lack of scientific knowledge - they are now SGIN to recognize this need. 
• There is cause to celebrate too - some species are no longer SGCN due to their improving status! Bald Eagles are nesting in incredible numbers in Colorado and their population has more than doubled since the 2015 SWAP. Research, monitoring and other eagle related work will continue by CPW and our partners. Swift fox’s continued recovery has been documented in Colorado and other states seeing stability, if not an increase, in distribution and a secure long-term status. 
• CPW is one of many partners contributing to Bird Conservancy of the Rockies’ Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR) program. Ten more years of investment in this work meant CPW had robust trend data to rely on for scoring many landbird species. The SGCN list of birds changed as a result of having this data.

In addition, the SGCN Work Group and taxa scoring teams engaged in a robust process to ensure SGCN list integrity and a transparent process. The Dashboard documents the results of this effort for all species reviewed, including those not SGCN, which improves our long term ability to see how decisions were made and be better prepared for future SWAP revisions. 

Explore the Dashboard to see how and why species were ranked, as well as information on changes since 2015 (see the table below bar charts, find the column labelled “changes in species vulnerability since 2015”, click on the column header to sort for species with relevant notes). 

By the numbers:

• In 2015, there were 150 SGCN vertebrates. Fifty-five species were identified as Tier 1 SGCN, including 2 amphibians, 13 birds, 25 fish, 13 mammals, and 2 reptiles. The Tier 2 SGCN list of vertebrates contained 95 species, including 8 amphibians, 48 birds, 2 fish, 23 mammals, and 14 reptiles. 
  • The 2025 list includes 181 species. Sixty-six species are identified as Tier 1, including 2 amphibians, 18 birds, 25 fish, 20 mammals and 1 reptile. The Tier 2 list contains 41 species, including 1 amphibian, 24 birds, 2 fish, 7 mammals and 7 reptiles. The SGIN list contains 74 species, including 3 amphibians, 32 birds, 7 fish, 21 mammals and 11 reptiles. 
  • The Dashboard includes a column titled “ Changes in species vulnerability since 2015” where there are relevant notes for any species with a different rank in 2025 than it had in 2015. 
• In 2015, there were 117 “Plants of Greatest Conservation Need (PGCN)” of which 43 species were Tier 1.
  • For the 2025 SWAP imperiled plants will be referred to as plant Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). 
  • The draft 2025 list includes 195 species of which 64 are Tier 1, 69 Tier 2 and 62 SGIN. 

**Coming Soon! A storymap will be added soon for further exploration on this topic.**

A SGCN Work Group reviewed the 2015 criteria and those from other states. The group agreed on the importance of “conservation need” to identify our SGCN. Criteria related to Colorado’s responsibility (What is the ecological contribution of Colorado to the species? How are we maintaining Colorado’s biodiversity?) and urgency of action (What are we quickly losing? What threats are likely to increase in scope and severity in the coming years?) were considered along with the species’ vulnerability (based on abundance, distribution and trend) and relevant ESA status. 

The ecological value of a species (e.g., keystone species or habitat indicators) was not included to maintain the focus on need. Another important consideration was to develop criteria that resulted in a list of SGCN where action can impact conservation in the coming years. Species with little representation in the state (e.g., few individuals, small proportion of global population), that are extirpated or support SGCN (but not considered vulnerable themselves) are not unimportant - but, a crucial aspect to maintaining list integrity included prioritization of species most in need of conservation. 

Vulnerability scores were paramount but not the only factor considered. Review the Criteria tables to see how modifiers (Table 2) moved species rankings. 

For example, the ESA status may move species with similar scores to different final ranks. ESA Status included species in all of the following categories: endangered, threatened, candidate/warranted but precluded/positive 12-month finding,proposed, ongoing monitoring following not warranted finding, positive 90-day finding, petitioned,ongoing monitoring following recent delisting.

The current criteria ranked some species differently from 2015 due to priorities identified for this SWAP Revision not necessarily any change in species status. 

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) is part of the NatureServe Network made up over over 60 programs throughout the United States and Canada. The network shares data and works collaboratively to rank the imperilment of species and maintain a shared database of tracked species’ locations and status. 

• Ranks run from critically imperiled (1) to (5) secure and are applied to a Global rank (G) and State rank (S) to indicate imperilment at two scales. CNHP is responsible for ranking species endemic to Colorado. If a species is found in multiple states, NatureServe looks at data across a species range to make a determination with input from natural heritage programs. 

• Assigning ranks is a standardized repeatable process based on the following factors such as range extent, area of occupancy within a species’ range, population size and trends as well as critical threats. 

• For vertebrates, the G and S ranks were used to develop the Potential SGCN list. Our Criteria were then used to score over 300 species on the Potential list to determine the SGCN.

• CNHP consistently updates the ranks for plants in Colorado. All species listed in the 2015 SWAP have been assessed in the last 5 years. For plants, the ranks were used to determine SGCN. All G1 and G2 species are SGCN and a subset of G3 species were evaluated for inclusion. 

Any changes to our list of species (or other Elements) require approval from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Simple removal/addition of species is a “minor revision” with a simpler review process but not something CPW will engage in frequently. We can track our understanding and knowledge about species throughout implementation of the SWAP to prepare for future revisions.

The intent of creating the new SGIN list is to identify which species we collectively need to learn more about. As gaps in our knowledge on these species close, what would move a species from SGIN to another rank? What is “enough” information? As CPW ponders these questions we want to hear from you! Please fill out our survey.

Thank you to our partners asking to share their data. We will be collecting information on what monitoring is occurring for SGCN and their habitats. In addition, a key part of creating an actionable plan is considering how to bridge the implementation gap - how should we move from planning to implementation? Tracking our accomplishments during the implementation years, including growing the body of knowledge all conservation partners have access to, will be important. Once the SWAP is done we will be working more on digital and other spaces for collaboration and information sharing.

Along with the requirement to identify a species list, CPW is also required to identify the habitats SGCN rely on. This list was not ready when we released the draft SGCN but is now available. These habitats will have a threats assessment and actions for their conservation. There are no tree species in Colorado that are considered imperiled or vulnerable to extinction.

Although the 2015 SWAP contained a wealth of valuable information, an 800 page pdf is not user friendly or representative of digital tools available today. Many states are moving to a “digital SWAP” defined (by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies) as “a web-hosted SWAP with content published on an interlinked series of web pages, a SWAP that is published as a database or dashboard, or some combination thereof”. The Dashboard and EngageCPW page are our first digital products with more to come as we develop remaining Elements. CPW and CNHP also anticipate creating a short report to synthesize the information in a single document. We also will continue working on improving accessibility throughout implementation of the SWAP.