Who cares about monarch butterflies? Comparing US State Wildlife Action Plans 2015–2025

In 2023, the International Union for Conservation of Nature listed the iconic North American monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as Vulnerable due to population declines. Yet, in the United States, there are no national laws protecting monarchs. In 2020, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that monarchs are “warranted” for US Endangered Species listing, although this listing was “precluded” because of lack of agency resources. In the absence of federal laws, individual US state—sub‐national—wildlife agencies play an essential role in monarch conservation. State wildlife agencies document decadal plans for at‐risk species conservation via State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). We analyzed all 2015–2025 SWAPs to assess and compare state‐level monarch conservation efforts. We found monarch representation in SWAPs varied widely and lacked geographic alignment with actual conservation needs and interstate coordination. For example, in the contiguous United States, 15 states that occupy critical monarch migration corridors omit listing monarchs as a species of conservation need; 10 of these states have critical breeding habitat. This limited attention in critical areas of monarch flyways is troubling. States can improve upcoming 2025–2035 plans by coordinating efforts to conserve monarch habitat across the entire migration corridor.

F I G U R E 1 Monarch butterfly fall and spring migrations (Monarch Watch, with permission).decline of 95% from the 1980s to 2020 (Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation 2021a).Factors contributing to the decline of North American monarch populations are complex and multifaceted, including the degradation and loss of summer breeding and fall migration habitats (Bartel et al., 2011; International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2022; Lemoine, 2015;Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2012;Solis-Sosa et al., 2021;Thogmartin, Wiederholt, et al., 2017;Zylstra et al., 2021).Monarchs require milkweed (most are in the genus Asclepias spp.), which is an obligate host plant for larval monarch caterpillars, to complete their lifecycle (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2012).The availability of milkweed for monarchs has been diminished by urbanization and agricultural intensification (Pelton et al., 2019;Thogmartin, López-Hoffman, et al., 2017).Thus, conservation efforts in the United States have largely focused on reintroducing milkweeds into urban, suburban, and agricultural landscapes.Monarch habitat improvement across summer breeding areas in the North Central, Northeast, and South regions together will have a greater impact than any single region alone; therefore, coordinated landscape-scale conservation is essential to preserve the unique migratory behavior (Oberhauser et al., 2017).
In 2006, Mexico, the United States, and Canada enacted the North American Monarch Conservation Plan, a cooperative conservation agreement.However, most of the reproduction occurs in the United States, so habitat management in the United States likely plays a disproportionate role (Flockhart et al., 2015).US federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) encourage monarch habitat creation and conservation through programs included in the Farm Bill and the Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement on Energy and Transportation Lands; however, national efforts for monarch conservation are voluntary.In 2020, USFWS found that listing the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was "warranted," but the listing was "precluded" because other species were designated as having priority for limited available funding (Monarch Joint Venture, 2020; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2020).Unlike vertebrate animals, the ESA does not allow for listing of "distinct population segments" of invertebrates like the monarch (Natural Research Council, 1995;Pelton et al., 2019;Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2019).Therefore, the more vulnerable western monarch population (which had fallen below its quasi-extinction threshold, then rebounded in 2021) has not been listed (Freedman et al., 2021;Pelton et al., 2019).In the absence of cohesive federal protections for the monarch, monarch butterfly conservation in the United States relies on a patchwork of activities initiated at the state level.
Non-managed animals, such as the monarch butterfly, are considered "wildlife" (Hall & Martins, 2020;Hall & Steiner, 2019).In the United States, wildlife categorically falls under the public trust doctrine, whereby wildlife is held in trust-preserved-for the citizens of a state and managed by each state's wildlife management agency (Freyfogle et al., 2019) although nine state agencies are statutorily constrained to conserve insects (Black, 2023).Differences in states' authorities, budgets, personnel, expertise, and shifting priorities constrain landscape-scale conservation.Yet, because species' breeding habitat spans many states, multi-state coordination and cooperation are vital for monarch butterfly conservation.The absence of landscape-scale US national policy for monarch conservation elevates the importance of stateagency actions.Therefore, we examined the 2015−2025 SWAPs including every major and minor revision for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for all mentions of conservation actions targeting the monarch butterfly.Specifically, we analyzed all references to the monarch butterfly and milkweed (Asclepias) in these 51 decadal planning documents to assess: What conservation efforts are states enacting to conserve the monarch butterfly?Which states are leading conservation efforts, and how do these efforts align with monarch breeding areas?What state-level policy innovations are occurring that may be useful to other states' wildlife management agencies?

METHODS: ANALYZING STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS
The 2015−2025 SWAPs (N = 51) and the 15 major and minor revisions completed between 2015 and 2025 were collected from all 50 states and the District of Columbia from agency websites.The minor revisions (LA, MT, NV, SD, UT, WY, and NE) were treated as addendums and added to the 2015 SWAP, and the major revisions (AZ, FL, IL, KS, NC, NJ, NM, MO) replaced the original SWAP.Only official SWAPs and their revisions were included, we did not include supplemental documents.Phone calls and emails went to states that did not post their SWAP or update online.Documents ranged in length from 42 to 3102 pages.A total of 31,948 pages of text were gathered and analyzed.All texts were read and coded by hand.No AI tools were used.QSR International's NVivo 12 text analytic software was used to organize our reading and document all mentions of "monarch," "monarchs," "Danaus plexippus," and "milkweed" OR "milkweeds" OR "Asclepias" (Table 1).Qualitative content analysis (Hall & Steiner et al., 2020) was used to analyze the surrounding text of each mention with special attention to stated conservation actions.
Conservation actions were categorized into thematic nodes for monarch conservation (Table 2) or milkweed conservation (Table 3).These action categories capture the full breadth of conservation work that states proposed.Themes were verified using current literature regarding monarch conservation strategies (MonarchJointVenture. org; Pleasants, 2016;Thogmartin, López-Hoffman, et al., 2017; Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2021b).

RESULTS
There was a high level of variation in both monarch and milkweed mentions by state.Monarch butterflies were mentioned in the SWAPs of 43 states (Table 1) and included 1,148 total references to monarchs (monarch butterfly or D. plexippus) (Table 2).Milkweed was mentioned in the SWAPs of 36 states and included a total of 516 milkweed mentions (milkweed or Asclepias) (Table 3).Eight states had no references to monarch butterflies or milkweed, of which six (Indiana, Kentucky 1 , Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas) host the monarch butterfly as part of the eastern or western migration populations.
The relative quantitative representation of monarchs and milkweed in SWAPs can suggest state agency attention to monarchs; however, the number of total mentions in a SWAP does not always indicate the strength of monarch conservation action.For example, some states with similar numbers of monarch and milkweed mentions differed in the strengths of their conservation actions.The SWAP for Kansas had 37 mentions of monarch butterflies and six mentions of milkweed.Michigan had 39 references of monarch butterflies and four milkweed mentions.Although the number of mentions was similar between the two SWAPs, the conservation actions outlined by Michigan's SWAP were more robust.Many of the mentions in the Kansas SWAP referenced monarchs as an SGCN among other species by habitat type, effectively increasing the number of monarch mentions.In contrast, the Michigan SWAP referenced conservation actions and monitoring specific to monarch butterflies for each habitat type, which will likely be more powerful for monarch conservation efforts.The six mentions of milkweed in the Kansas document are specific to Mead's Milkweed (Asclepias meadii), 1 Via email correspondence, the Kentucky State Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator stated that 2023 draft is not available yet, but KY plans to include the monarch as an SGCN (Personal correspondence, May 22, 2023).
which is listed as a Species of Concern and classified as threatened.There is no language regarding habitat conservation with milkweed management, seed programs, or plant survey, whereas the Michigan SWAP promotes identifying milkweed seed sources, providing public outreach for monarchs, and detailing best management practices for land managers.The Michigan SWAP also includes details about collaborating with the Minnesota Monarch Larva Monitoring Project (MLMP) for citizen science monarch population surveys.

Species of greatest conservation need
The central policy tool in SWAPs is the labeling of species along a gradient of conservation priority from no listing needed, to potential conservation need, and to SGCN designations.SGCNs are species experiencing environmental threats, that are low in abundance or distribution, or that are not currently rare but are showing declines in abundance or habitat (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2022).Thirty-two states listed the monarch as an SGCN.Listing the monarch butterfly as an SGCN indicates that the state plans to place conservation focus on this species within the next 10 years.New York listed the monarch "with potential conservation need" (Figure 2), which the state's SWAP describes with similar criteria as SGCNs but, in addition, as species with poorly known status that require further research.
F I G U R E 2 Map of the United States displaying states with State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) that list the monarch butterfly as a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN), potential conservation need, or not listed at all (17 states).

Conservation actions listed for monarch butterflies
The spectrum of conservation actions for the monarch butterfly found in the SWAPs includes monitoring, habitat conservation, conservation outreach, and listing as an SGCN (Table 2).Monarch monitoring programs refer to the monitoring of monarch populations by states or the collaboration of states with organizations already monitoring monarch populations, such as the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project located in Minnesota.Monarch habitat conservation indicates actions that conserve or develop habitat but also includes citations of monarch habitat decline.Some SWAPs addressed the consequences (or lack of consequences) of climate change for monarch butterflies in their state, referencing peer-reviewed research and outlining actions taken to mitigate climate change effects.SWAPs also proposed actions to involve community members and stakeholders in educational programs and outreach to disseminate information about how to conserve monarch butterflies.

Conservation actions listed for milkweed
SWAPs referenced the loss of milkweed stems and detailed milkweed conservation actions, including monitoring, outreach programs, seed saving, sharing, and dissemination programs, and incentives for management (Table 3).Milkweed conservation actions refer to actions proposed by a SWAP for conserving milkweed, including planting, propagating, avoiding invasive species, and other management activities.Seven SWAPs reported setting up milkweed seed banks to collect and distribute seeds to the community and interested stakeholders.One state agency promoted programs to incentivize landowners to plant milkweed.Similarly, milkweed education and outreach programs disseminate information on native milkweed species to the public.Six states referenced milkweed surveys as a tool for monitoring milkweed species diversity and abundance.SWAPs also described changes to their agency's property management practices, which included specific tactics of altering spraying, mowing, herbicide use, and planting to promote growing milkweed.Twelve SWAPs included text describing the loss of milkweed stems in agricultural areas and the effects of herbicide on milkweed.

Standout SWAPs and monarch conservation actions
States with high numbers of monarch and milkweed mentions and strong conservation programs included Arkansas, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Rhode Island.Some states like Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas have separate monarch and native pollinator conservation plans (not included in this study) that detail pollinator conservation actions.For example, Texas has extensive monarch conservation actions, including funding for monarch habitat research (examining milkweed patch size dynamics), seed saving through their Milk-weed Seed Collecting Project, and milkweed management strategies, which which included revegetation efforts and modifying city park and public lands management to improve support for monarchs.
Most unique among SWAPs was the mention of additional funding mechanisms for pollinators.Texas Parks and Wildlife Division offered external grants from Conservation License Plate Grant and State Wildlife Grant Program revenue to fund native insect pollinator research.While other states have monarch license plates, Texas is the only state to issue a monarch butterfly license plate thats directly funds actions identified in the plan.

Interstate coordination
Despite shared borders, attention to the monarch butterfly in neighboring state SWAPs was sometimes worlds apart.For example, Michigan's SWAP had a strong focus on conserving monarchs through an SGCN listing, monarch conservation actions (e.g., establishing baseline monarch status and distribution, mowing regimes to best coincide with monarch butterfly abundance), a focus on outreach (e.g., sharing information about what the community can do to aid monarch conservation; Table 2), and milkweedspecific actions (e.g., planting a variety of native milkweed species; Table 3).In contrast, despite occupying a critical space in the summer breeding range (Reich et al., 2021), Indiana's SWAP did not list the monarch butterfly as an SGCN.In fact, the Indiana SWAP document did not reference monarch butterflies or milkweed at all.There were similar differences between the SWAPs of neighboring states Arkansas and Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming, and Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where the former states.SWAPs included strong monarch conservation actions, and the latter states.SWAPs either barely mentioned or did not mention the monarch butterfly at all.Of the former states, Rhode Island had strong language for monarch conservation actions and milkweed conservation actions, such as local milkweed seed distribution and propagation and plans for milkweed management.In contrast, the Massachusetts SWAP document only mentioned monarch butterflies once (as a proposed indicator of highly migratory species).The Massachusetts document listed two species of milkweed as SGCNs (purple milkweed and whorled milkweed); however, it did not mention any plans for milkweed-specific conservation actions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The IUCN's 2022 listing of the monarch butterfly as Endangered linked its status to threats of habitat destruction and climate change, but the United States, although on schedule with its more thorough listing plan, has yet to list the monarch under the US Endangered Species Act.When a species is listed, legal mechanisms are triggered that can slow economic activities within critical habitat areas (Polasky et al., 2014;Salzman & Thompson, 2014;Stefanski & Shimshack, 2016).Listing a species is, therefore, a last resort, both for the species' survival and affected socioeconomic systems.In the United States, states are responsible for keeping wildlife in good health for their citizens.State wildlife agencies' assessments and designations of species as SGCNs are designed to conserve species before an Endangered or Threatened listing is necessary.The primary mechanism for state wildlife agency coordination is through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), a professional association of state wildlife agencies that seeks to advance favorable fish and wildlife conservation policy and funding and works to ensure that all entities work collaboratively on the most important issues.

Suggestions for the 2025−2035 SWAPs
This analysis of SWAPs highlights state communications about and intentions to enact monarch conservation over the next decade.Most states in the breeding range for the Eastern population list the monarch as an SGCN and have some conservation actions designed for monarchs.States should look to others like Arkansas, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Rhode Island that have strong monarch and milkweed conservation actions, such as seed saving programs, survey programs, and milkweed management action plans, to improve their conservation efforts.This includes directing additional funding toward monarch or pollinator conservation, research, or citizen monitoring efforts (Dilts et al., 2019).States should assess which existing actions for monarch butterflies and milkweed (Tables 2 and 3) can inform their planning.
Although states have varying degrees of statutory authority over insects (Black, 2023), the fact that states in critical locations (Figure 1) such as Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Texas have little or no mention of the charismatic monarch or its obligate milkweed should be particularly troubling to citizens and the USFWS.Actions in these lands are vital for the success of any landscape-scale conservation efforts (Cariveau et al., 2019;Thogmartin, López-Hoffman, et al., 2017).
An important step for the 15 contiguous US states that did not list the monarch butterfly as an SGCN (Figure 2) in their 2015−2025 SWAPs is to reassess listing in 2025.Of highest priority are the 10 states with critical breeding habitat (AZ, IN, KY, MA, NM, NV, OK, TN, TX, and WV).Authors of neighboring states' SWAPs can share peerreviewed studies to aid decision-making.Citizen groups may be able to help or encourage their state agencies to advance conservation planning efforts.
Truly effective SWAPs for monarch conservation will include monarch-specific actions, like milkweed and other nectar plants management, seed saving, and seed dispersal.Including monarch monitoring programs (or applicable partnerships with monarch monitoring organizations) and educational outreach for landowners and farmers would also provide concrete methods for conservation.Incentive programs for planting milkweed and other wildflowers would also be beneficial for monarch conservation in each state.

Pathways to interstate coordination
As a planning document, SWAPs are unique.The transparency about non-game species conservation actions enables interstate coordination-necessary for landscapescale conservation efforts for this species with such a large breeding range when federal protection is lacking.The standardized framework for documenting conservation goals via SWAPs could be used to align efforts for comparing and evaluating results (Lacher & Wilkerson, 2013).
As the work of AFWA progresses, SWAPs should reflect these advances and document their involvement.Because these SWAPs provide us with the ability to easily compare conservation goals from one state to another, extra care should be placed on their creation and subsequent revisions.By excluding species or not ensuring these documents are comprehensive, are we squandering SWAPs as a mechanism for interstate cooperation?There is no extrinsic incentive for states to develop these documents in a rigorous manner; therefore, it is critical for states to receive feedback for improving their SWAP documents.
To that end, we call on states in monarch breeding range and migratory flyways to bolster landscape-scale monarch conservation efforts through the interstate coordination afforded by SWAPs.
State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) mentions of monarchs and milkweeds by state.Conservation actions for monarchs mentioned in State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs).Conservation actions for milkweeds mentioned in State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs).
TA B L E 1 Effects or possible effects of climate change on monarch butterflies in the state (ID, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NH, NY, RI, SD, WA) 11 16 TA B L E 3 In anticipation of Endangered listing, the Midwest AFWA and USFWS created the Mid-American Monarch Conservation Strategy 2018−2038 (Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2018), and the Western AFWA developed the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan 2019−2069.These interstate groups work collaboratively to leverage available state and federal funding to accomplish actions that include and extend beyond what is written in a state's SWAP, at times using creative workarounds.MAFWA and WAFWA are a source for innovative interstate conservation actions.However, without an Endangered or Threatened listing, it is unclear if available funding supports this established planning capacity.