opportunities to improve sensitive habitat and movement

Opportunities to Improve Sensitive Habitatand Movement Route Connectivityfor Colorado's Big Game Species

In cooperation with

September 27, 2021

i

Acknowledgements

The Colorado Department of Natural Resources thanks the ColoradoDepartment of Transportation for its cooperation; the ColoradoDivision of Parks and Wildlife for its extensive collaboration; andnumerous other state agency personnel and external partners for theirassistance in producing this report.

Produced by:

Colorado Department of Natural ResourcesDan Gibbs, Executive DirectorTim MauckChris ArendAngela BoagCarly JacobsVanessa MazalKelly Romero-HeaneyDoug Vilsack

In Cooperation with:

Colorado Department of TransportationShoshanna Lew, Executive DirectorRebecca WhiteTony CadyJane HannMatt MuraroDavid Singer

Contributors:

Colorado Division of Parks and WildlifeDan Prenzlow, DirectorRaymond AberleBrett AckermanCory ChickCasey CooleyMichelle CowardinReid DeWaltBrian DreherHeather DuganTaylor ElmCarlee KoutnikMark LeslieBrian MageeBrandon Marette

JT RomatzkeJe� Ver SteegKaren Voltura

Colorado Department of AgricultureAdam OrtegaLes Owen

Colorado Department of Local A�airsRobert PresslyChristy Wiseman

External Reviewers:

Aaron Kindle, National Wildlife FederationJohn Holst, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipSuzanne O’Neill, Colorado Wildlife FederationLuke Schafer, Conservation ColoradoMadeleine West, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Photo Credits:

(Cover) Vince O’Brian, Flickr; (1) Christian Hansel, CreativeCommons License; (4) Rick Houchin, Pixabay; (5) Michael Sherbeck,Unsplash; (6) Colorado Parks and Wildlife; (11) Gabe Pierce,Unsplash; (12) David Clarke, Unsplash (16) Ryan Charron,Unsplash; (17) Briana Tozour, Unsplash; (21) Mike Reiss, courtesyColorado Sun; (23) Trailsource, Flickr; (25) John Reichert, courtesy ofBlue Valley Ranch; (28) Ecoflight; (31) C. David Clark, CreativeCommons; (33) Colorado Parks and Wildlife; (34) Colorado Parksand Wildlife; (36) Jason Clay, Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

© 2021 Colorado Department of Natural Resources

1313 Sherman Street, Suite 700Denver, Colorado 80302

(303) 866-3311

www.colorado.gov/DNR

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Acknowledgements

http://www.colorado.gov/DNR

ii

Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………..…... 1

Big Game Executive and Secretarial Orders ……………………….………. 2

What does success look like? ………………………………………….……….. 4

The Current Policy Landscape …………...……………………………….……….. 5

The Historic Context ………………………………………………….………... 5

The State Policy Landscape ……………………………………..………...….. 6

Wildlife Management ………………………………….……...….. 6

Habitat Management ………………………………….……...….. 7

High Priority Habitat ……………………………..……..…...….. 7

Transportation …………….…………………………..……..…….. 8

Recreation: Outdoor Partnerships Exec. Order ……….…... 8

State Conservation Funding ………………………..…..………. 9

The Local Policy Landscape ……………………………………..…..………... 11

The Federal Policy Landscape ………………………………………..….……. 12

1. Federal Land Management ……………………………...…….. 12

2. Federal Wildlife Jurisdiction ……………………………...…... 13

3. Sources of Federal Conservation Funding …………..…….. 14

4. Federal-State Cooperation ……………………………...……... 15

Opportunities for Policy Solutions ………………………….…………….……... 16

1. Habitat Alterations and Loss .….…………………………...… 17

2. Land Use, Residential Growth and Development ……... 21

3. Outdoor Recreation ……………….……………...………….…. 23

4. Transportation Infrastructure …………………………....…... 25

5. Energy Development ……………………………………....……. 28

6. Conservation on Private Lands ……………………….………. 31

7. Research Needs and Data Gaps …………………………….... 33

8. External Partnerships and Public Outreach .……………... 34

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………...……………….... 36

AppendicesMap: State of Colorado Land Ownership ……………………...……. App. A

Table: State and Federal Conservation Funding ………………….... App. B

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Contents

1

IntroductionThe West’s iconic big game species, such as bighorn sheep,pronghorn, elk, moose, and mule deer are important tonatural systems, sporting enthusiasts, and local economies,but some species and local populations have su�eredsigni�cant declines in recent decades. Between 2007 and2013, Colorado’s estimated statewide deer populationsdeclined from roughly 600,000 deer to approximately390,000 deer.1 More speci�cally, the White River Herd,the nation’s largest mule deer herd, was reduced bytwo-thirds, from over 100,000 to roughly 32,000, between2005 through 2017. While disease, competition, andpredation contribute to these dwindling numbers, habitatloss and fragmentation stemming from residential,recreational, and industrial development -- compoundedby the long-term e�ects of climate change -- present risk tothese species. Preserving contiguous swaths of thesagebrush, grassland, and forest landscapes that big gamerely on for winter range, and facilitating safe passage alongmigration and movement routes -- within and between

1 C. Cooley et al., Status Report: Big Game Winter Range andMigration Corridors, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Park andWildlife (CPW), (2020).

seasonal ranges -- are priorities for wildlife and landmanagers in Colorado as well as other Western states.

A variety of solutions are being considered at all levels ofgovernment and by private sector stakeholders to betterprotect big game winter range, and migration andmovement routes. On the whole, these policies aim tofoster collaboration, expand data collection and research,incentivize participation in habitat connectivity programs,and implement targeted infrastructure solutions. The goalof this report is to identify, evaluate, and recommendpriorities for a range of regulatory, policy, and legislativeapproaches to ensure the health of Colorado’s big gameherds and solidify Colorado’s status as the national leaderin big game management and conservation.

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Introduction

2

Big Game Executive and SecretarialOrdersIn 2017 and 2018, a pair of secretarial orders issued by theU.S. Department of Interior (DOI) directed federal landmanagers to work with states to protect big game speciesand their habitat within the region. Secretarial Order (SO)3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, andWildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordinationwith States, Tribes, and Territories, and SO 3362,Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game WinterRange and Migration Corridors, respectively, provideddirection to federal land managers for improving access tolands for recreational activities, particularly hunting and�shing.2 SO 3362 also ordered DOI agencies to improvehabitat quality to ensure the long-term viability of biggame and other wildlife populations, in particular,migration corridors and sensitive winter range for elk, deerand pronghorn, and made funds available through a grantprogram housed at the National Fish and WildlifeFoundation (NFWF) to further our understanding of biggame movements and provide support to transportationand related projects addressing threats to big game herds.

SO 3362 established a framework for federal coordinationwith state and Tribal wildlife agencies and transportationdepartments, and led to support for states in habitatmanagement and migration corridor research activities.Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), a division within theDepartment of Natural Resources (CDNR), and theColorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) bothbene�ted from these funding streams with grants in 2018

2 U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), SO 3356 Hunting, Fishing,Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities andCoordination with States, Tribes, and Territories (2016), and SO 3362,Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range andMigration Corridors (2018).

and 2019 to support wildlife fencing and additionalmigration research.

Following these federal directives, Governor Jared Polisissued Executive Order D 2019- 011, ConservingColorado’s Big Game Winter Range and MigrationCorridors, a complementary state directive to the federalSOs. In November, 2019, the Colorado Parks andWildlife Commission (PWC) also adopted a resolutionrea�rming the Governor’s EO and supporting the federalfunding opportunity.3 The executive order (“Big GameEO”) reiterated the state’s own habitat conservationpriorities and required state agencies to workcooperatively, and with federal land managers, localgovernments and private landowners, to reduce risks towildlife from vehicle collisions, and preserve habitat andmigration corridors used by the state’s big game herds. Inaddition to other outcomes tied to public education,collaboration and process improvements, the EO calledupon CDNR and CDOT to produce several“deliverables” to help guide future action andprioritization:

● An MOU signed by CPW and CDOT outliningexpectations for collaboration in mitigatingwildlife-vehicle collisions, identifying priority biggame highway crossings in the state, andparticipation in and support of the multi-stakeholderColorado Wildlife-Transportation Alliance(CWTA);

● A Status Report covering known threats to seasonalbig game habitat and migration corridors; data and

3 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (PWC), Resolution 19-01,Regarding Support for Governor Polis’ Executive Order D 2019-011:Conserving Colorado’s Big Game Winter Ranges and MigrationCorridors (November 15, 2019).


3

information gaps; and an action plan timeframe forrevisiting priority landscapes and corridors;4

● A Policy Report produced by CDNR identifyingpotential “policy, regulatory, and legislativeopportunities to ensure ongoing conservation ofseasonal big game habitat and migration corridors”;

● A set of recommendations by CDOT mirroring theconsiderations in CDNR’s policy report.

The agreement between CPW and CDOT was enacted onDecember 31, 2019, and CPW, on behalf of CDNR,submitted the status report, entitled 2020 Status Report:Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors (i.e.,“2020 Status Report”) on April 1, 2020.

The 2020 Status Report provides a compilation ofinformation to help guide CPW, CDOT, andconservation partners to collectively improve and protecthabitats associated with big game winter range andmigration corridors. The report provides a baseline ofscienti�c information related to Colorado big gamepopulations, including population status and trends,monitoring and inventory techniques, and currentresearch. Data gaps and threats related to big gamemovement and migration routes, as well as winter rangeand other sensitive habitat, are also identi�ed, along withshort-term and long-term management and data needs.

This report, produced in partnership by CDNR, CPW,and CDOT, serves as a combined response to the policyrecommendation deliverables in the Big Game EO. Theterminology utilized in this report diverges from Big GameEO in in its use of “movement routes” as opposed to“migration corridors” and “sensitive habitat” as opposedto “winter range,” in order to re�ect the best available

4 Cooley et al., CPW (2020).

science and a shift in CPW’s treatment of big game habitatpriorities.

We expand beyond inter range habitat to also includeproduction (i.e., calving and fawning) areas, and in somecases, “high country” summer range. While winter range --typically low-lying parks and valleys used for winter forage-- remains at-risk from residential and industrialdevelopment, these other sensitive habitat types facedi�erent pressures in parts of the state, such ashigh-volume recreation and conditions that can lead tocatastrophic wild�re. Additionally, state wildlife managersincreasingly refer to “movement routes” to describetransitional patterns both between seasonal range andwithin it, as it has become evident that summer and winterseasonal ranges for big game herds are often in closeproximity, largely due to the mountain/basin geography ofmuch of Colorado. Documented big game migrations inour state are better characterized as di�use,landscape-scale, and often relatively shorter-distance, thansome of the more narrow, discrete, and longer-distancemigrations documented in some other Western states.5

5 See, e.g., Kau�man, M.J. et al., Scientific Investigations Report2020–5101: Ungulate migrations of the western United States, Volume 1,U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2020.


4

What does success look like?The 2020 Status Report captures the state of a�airs in biggame research and management, and identi�es some of thespeci�c issues that must be addressed to improveoutcomes for big game habitat and connectivity.Unfortunately, there are few easy solutions to the complexchallenges described in the report. As such, the outcomesfor success listed below can be thought of as componentsof an aspirational “future state” for Colorado’s big gamepopulations and their habitat, as opposed to strategicobjectives. More concrete recommended actions that canhelp move the needle toward these goals are provided inthe �nal section of this report.

● Management - Lands in Colorado are cooperativelymanaged among state, local, and federal agencies andother stakeholders to reduce fragmentation andpreserve or improve the integrity of priority big gameseasonal habitats and movement corridors.

● Conservation - Programs aimed at the long-termprotection of habitat are established, strengthened,and funded.

● Coordination - Programmatic, scienti�c, andcoordination capacity is built among state agencies,government, and private sector partners.

● Mitigation - Impacts to priority habitat caused byresidential and industrial development, recreation,and other human activities are �rst avoided, thenminimized in a strategic way to maximize intact

habitats. Residual or unavoidable impacts arecompensated for in a manner that bene�ts theimpacted species or habitats.

● Political Prioritization - Habitat connectivity isrecognized by state and local leadership as a legislativeand regulatory priority.

● Climate - State and local governments work toaddress the impacts of climate change on wildlife andtheir habitats, including habitat conservation andrestoration e�orts to increase climate resilience, whilewildlife managers lead planning and mitigatione�orts to address the e�ects of extreme seasonalconditions, prolonged drought, and natural disasters.

● Infrastructure and roads - Infrastructure projectsare planned/retro�tted to both promotepermeability for big game movements and to reducethe risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions.

● Knowledge - Wildlife managers carry out robustapplied research and monitoring programs tocontinually improve knowledge of big gamepopulations, movement, disease, and habitatresponses to inform future action and collaboratewith partners in developing research priorities.

● Outreach - Key partners collaborate tocommunicate issues and needs to maintain andenhance wildlife connectivity and garner support forstate connectivity initiatives.

● Education - A diverse group of people andcommunities are engaged in promoting the need forconserving wildlife habitat and connectivity.

● Private lands - Private landowners are incentivizedto limit habitat fragmentation and to participate inhabitat restoration and conservation programs tomaintain wildlife habitat connectivity.

● Capacity - Wildlife management initiatives at alllevels are su�ciently resourced to carry out e�ectiveprograms to protect vital wildlife habitat andmaintain habitat permeability.


5

The Current Policy LandscapeThe Historic ContextColorado’s contemporary wildlife policy is underpinnedwith a set of principles known as the North AmericanWildlife Conservation Model, rooted in theProgressive-era of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.Foundational to this model is the “Public Trust “ -- thereservation of authority to states to manage wildliferesources in trust for public bene�t. The U.S. SupremeCourt's 1896 decision in Greer v. Connecticut, coupledwith the 1900 Lacey Act, a bedrock federal wildlife lawdesigned to curtail poaching on the vast swaths ofnewly-acquired federal lands in the West by restrictinginterstate commerce in wildlife products, together had thee�ect of codifying states’ wildlife jurisdiction, inaccordance with historical precedent.6 The NorthAmerican model is further characterized by an adherenceto evidence-based wildlife management and habitatconservation approaches, and a distinction between wildgame species regulated for sport hunting and angling, and

6 Lacey Act of 1900 (6 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378); Geer v. Connecticut, 16S.Ct. 600 (1896) (overruled by Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322). SeeG.R. Batcheller et al., “Chapter 2: Public Trust Doctrine and the LegalBasis for State Wildlife Management,” in State Wildlife Managementand Conservation, ed. T. Ryder, JHU Press, Baltimore (2018), pp.22-38.

other non-game, non-domesticated native species whosepopulations are either not actively controlled or arespeci�cally managed for conservation.7

The Colorado Game and Fish Department, the state’sprototypical wildlife agency established in 1897, wasnarrowly charged with controlling the unauthorized takeof animals in order to preserve hunting, �shing, andtrapping license revenues to �nance its operations. Asdevelopment pressures mounted, game and �sh agenciesin Colorado and across the U.S. became increasinglyinvolved in conserving habitat and protecting at-risknon-game species. Despite the broader public bene�t ofthese expanded functions, hunting and angling feescontinued to almost exclusively underwrite Colorado’sand other state’s wildlife agencies until the GreatDepression imposed urgent �nancial realities.8

8 See R.J. Regan and S. Williams, “4: Evolution of Funding for StateFish and Wildlife Agencies,” in Ryder (2018).

7 More thorough examinations of the North American Model can befound in: J.F. Organ et al. The North American Model of WildlifeConservation: Technical Review 12-04, The Wildlife Society and theBoone and Crockett Club, (2012); J.F. Organ and R. McCabe, “1:History of State Wildlife Management in the United States,” in Ryder(2018), pp. 1-23. Federal land ownership data per CongressionalResearch Service, “CRS Report R42346 Federal Land Ownership andData,” 2020, pp. 1-3.

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Current Policy Landscape

6

A pioneering pair of New Deal Era laws, championed byAldo Leopold and the American Game Policy Committee,expanded the federal government’s role in assisting states’e�orts. These included the 1934 Fish and WildlifeCoordination Act authorizing wildlife conservation onfederal lands, the 1934 Migratory Bird ConservationHunting and Conservation Stamp Act, or “Duck StampAct,” and 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,also known as the “Pittman-Robertson Act,”the latter twoof which created mechanisms to direct federal resources tostates.9 The New Deal Era also brought additional policiesfocused on public lands management. Among them, theTaylor Grazing Act closed certain lands to developmentand created a grazing permit system that still serves as acritical tool for preventing disease transfer betweendomestic livestock and wild big game populations.

While the federal government’s �nancing of wildlifemanagement has increased over the last century, and newprograms at the state and federal levels have furtheraugmented fee-based agency revenues, hunting and anglingcontinues to provide the bulk of support for wildlife andconservation activities in most states, including Colorado.However, this funding model has proven challenging inrecent years as recreation and residential and industrialdevelopment increasingly jeopardize ecosystems thatfunction as habitat for big game species and other wildlife.10

For its part, Colorado has taken steps to better distribute theburden of conservation �nancing through CPW’ssustainable funding initiative, such as the recent passage ofthe Keep Colorado Wild Pass in statute.11

11 SB21-249, Keep Colorado Wild Annual Pass Act,” Colorado GeneralAssembly, 2021 Reg. Sess.

10 As of 2017, hunting and �shing license sales and federal hunting and�shing equipment excise taxes together accounted for 59% of total stateconservation funding in the U.S., per Chase et al., “The StateConservation Machine,” Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies(2017), p. 8. See also N. Rott.,”Decline In Hunters Threatens HowU.S. Pays For Conservation,” NPR (Mar. 20, 2018).

9 American Game Protective Association Conference (15:1928),Committee on Game Policy; T.W. Cart , “‘New Deal’ for Wildlife: APerspective on Federal Conservation Policy, 1933-40,” Pacific NorthwestQuarterly (63:3, 1972), pp. 113-120; Regan and Williams (2020).

The State Policy Landscape

Wildlife Management

Title 33 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.)provides the overarching governing framework for wildlifeand habitat management within Colorado and creates a13-member Parks and Wildlife Commission (PWC)responsible for carrying out the state’s policies. It alsonames CPW, under the PWC’s direction and the auspicesof CDNR, as the agency primarily responsible for makingdecisions about wildlife management, and forimplementing programs and activities in support of itsmandate, in cooperation with land management agenciesand private landowners.12

Title 33 declares the state’s policy to “protect, preserve,enhance, and manage all native and game wildlife speciesand their environment, and to ensure the provision of adiversity of wildlife-related recreational opportunities, for“the use, bene�t, and enjoyment of the people of this stateand its visitors.”13 Several additional statutes obligate otheragencies to consult with CPW on avoiding, minimizing, ormitigating impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat,including habitat for big game, in land and naturalresource use planning and permitting decisions.14

14 E.g., C.R.S. § 34-32-116.5(6) concerning environmental protectionplans for designated mining operations

13 C.R.S. § 33-1-101

12 C.R.S. § 33-9-101


7

Finally, consistent with the North American Modeldescribed above, Title 33 distinguishes “game” as thosespecies that may be lawfully hunted or taken for food,sport, or pro�t and which are classi�ed as such by thePWC, whereas “nongame” species are generally prohibitedfrom being harmed, harassed or killed. The PWC setslimitations on hunting based on an annual review of gamepopulation status relative to management objectives inlong-term herd management plans based on geographicdata analysis units, or DAUs. While the PWC alsoregulates predators and non-native ungulates, we refer hereto “big game” as large, native ungulate species, most ofwhich typically migrate in herds between and withinseasonal ranges.

Habitat Management

CPW’s programs and operations are guided by a StrategicPlan, adopted by the PWC in 2015, which provides anoverarching vision for the agency, and establisheshigh-level objectives, tangible actions and benchmarksassociated with six strategic goals, which collectively serveas the basis for annual progress reporting.15 Programs andactivities relevant to protecting habitat, though notspeci�cally for big game species, fall generally under GoalI: Conserve wildlife and habitat to ensure healthysustainable populations and ecosystems. Goal V: Connectpeople to Colorado’s outdoors deals with hunting andpublic access and also has applicability to big game habitat.

While activities tied to big game population and habitatconservation have long been important to CPW’s wildlifeconservation e�orts, the division did not begin explicitlytracking progress against these outcomes until the GeneralAssembly’s passage of the Future Generations Act in2018.16 CPW also included a Big Game EO tracking

16 SB18-143, Future Generations Act, Colorado General Assembly,2018 Reg Sess. CPW, Future Generations Act Report(s), FY2019 andFY2020.

15 CPW, Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2015 Strategic Plan

sub-objective in its annual operational plan, whichspeci�es the following actions: that the agency compile areport on the status of Colorado's big game migrationcorridors and winter range; identify policy opportunitiesto promote ongoing conservation of seasonal big gamehabitat and movement routes by July 1 2021; executiveorder.”17

High Priority Habitat

In 2019, the Colorado General Assembly enacted a pair oflaws that, together, represent a monumental shift toward avision of sustainability for the state. Senate Bill 19-181 andHouse Bill 19-1261 have signi�cant implications forColorado's climate, communities, and land, water,wildlife, and other natural resources.18 CPW revised itsenergy and land use guidance for high priority habitat(HPH) -- including big game migration routes,production areas and winter range -- as part of therulemakings undertaken in 2019-20 to overhaul themission, organizational structure and permittingrequirements of the Colorado Oil and Gas ConservationCommission (COGCC).19 CPW has since adopted therevised HPH recommendations as agency land use policy,imposing surface disturbance density limitations forindustrial facilities and infrastructure of one unit persquare mile, and one linear mile per square mile forpipelines, roads and recreational trails within mappedHPH; compensatory mitigation measures to o�-set

19 Colorado Oil and Gas Commission Rules: 1200 Series - Protection ofWildlife Resources, January 15, 2021; also, CPW, Recommendations toAvoid and Minimize Impacts to Wildlife from Land Use Developmentin Colorado:https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation-Resources/Energy-Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf; CPW Administrative DirectiveOG-1, 2021

18 SB19-181, “Protect Public Welfare Oil and Gas Development,” andHB19-1261, “Climate Action Plan to Reduce Pollution,” ColoradoGeneral Assembly, 2019 Reg. Sess.

17 CPW, Strategic Plan Progress Report, as updated FY 2019-20. TheJuly, 2021 report referenced was delayed but anticipated in the fall of2021, as of this report’s publication.


https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation-Resources/Energy-Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation-Resources/Energy-Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf

8

density limitation exceedances; sound and lighting levelrestrictions; seasonal activity timing restrictions, and othermeasures. This guidance will be applied in future decisionson lands within the state’s jurisdiction, including parks,wildlife areas and State Trust Lands, and will form thebasis for recommendations on permitting, project design,trail development, and planning decisions on landsoverseen by external agencies.

Transportation

CDOT builds and maintains interstates, U.S. and statehighways, to ensure that Colorado’s transportation systemis safe and e�cient. Senate Bill 40 (SB40), passed in 1973,requires transportation construction projects andmaintenance activities with the potential to a�ect streamsand wetlands, gold medal �sheries, threatened andendangered species, or species of concern to obtain wildlifemitigation certi�cation from CPW.20 While these criteriaexclude projects within priority big game habitat, SB40certi�cation nevertheless establishes a meaningful role forCPW and creates a framework for inter-agencycoordination with respect to project design.

Additionally, the Governor’s Big Game EO elevatedCDOT’s role in facilitating big game habitat connectivitythrough increased cooperation with CPW andparticipation in the Colorado Wildlife TransportationAlliance (CWTA), which is working to address the issue ofwildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs). Almost 4,000 WVCs,which result in nearly 400 human injuries and oftenmultiple deaths, are reported each year in Colorado.Research suggests that wildlife crossing structures canreduce ungulate-related WVCs by up to 80-90 percent.21

The CWTA, made up of representatives from federal,

21 Average 87% e�ectiveness, depending on design speci�cs. M.P.Huijser et al., “Wildlife-Vehicle Reduction Study: Report to Congress,”FHWYA-HRT-08-034, U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration (2008), p. 29.

20 (C.R.S. § 29-20-101, et. seq.) See CPW and CDOT: Guidelines forSenate Bill 40 Wildlife Certification (Jan 2003).

state, local, and Tribal governments, subject matterexperts, and conservation partners, is playing a key role inidentifying opportunities to implement prioritiesidenti�ed through CDOT’s Western Slope PrioritizationStudy Final Report, produced in collaboration with CPW,and to inform state and federal agency wildlife policy.

Recreation: Outdoor Partnerships Executive Order

In 2020, Governor Polis issued an executive order tolaunch a new initiative to further the state’s objectives toconnect people to nature, sustain wildlife, and protectColorado’s natural heritage. Executive Order 2020 008,Creating the Outdoor Regional Partnerships Initiative, or“Outdoor Partnerships EO,” creates a framework forregional and state coordination for accommodatingsustainable recreation while advancing wildlife, habitat,and other natural resource objectives.22 The directive tasksCPW, with support from CDNR, with drivingmulti-stakeholder processes culminating in regionalrecreation and conservation plans that will roll up into anoverarching, statewide conservation and recreation plan.This initiative presents an opportunity to work with local,federal, and private partners to identify approaches forreducing habitat degradation and fragmentation fromrecreational uses.

Additionally, the Outdoor Partnerships EO expanded themake-up and mission of the Inter-Agency Conservationand Recreation Council and formalized the ColoradoOutdoor Partnership (CO-OP) to advise on both regionaland statewide conservation and recreation plandevelopment and implementation.

22 Colorado Exec. Order No. B 2020 008, Creating the ColoradoOutdoor Regional Partnerships Initiative and Establishing theInteragency Conservation and Recreation Council (October 30, 2020).


9

State Conservation Funding

While CPW receives funding from a variety of sources,wildlife management and habitat conservation havehistorically been �nanced by hunting and �shing licensefees. Senate Bill 11-208 provided for the merger of theformer Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation andDivision of Wildlife, and authorized enterprise revenuesfrom wildlife-related activities to be deposited in theWildlife Cash Fund, and appropriated annually in supportof CPW’s wildlife operations, some of which areearmarked for speci�c programs that may bene�t big gamemanagement or habitat conservation. While concernsover CPW’s �nancial stability remain, recent legislationhas provided new, more reliable revenue streams for theagency, particularly the 2018 Future Generations Act,which allowed for increases in resident hunting and �shinglicense fees, and recent SB21-249, which created the KeepColorado Wild Pass an annual access pass attached tovehicle registrations.23 Other long-standing state fundingprograms for wildlife and habitat conservation aredescribed below.

● Species Conservation Trust Fund - The nativeSpecies Conservation Trust Fund (SCTF) wascreated by the legislature in 1998.24 Later, itsinitial scope was expanded to cover studies andprograms dedicated to recovering species listed orat-risk of becoming listed as threatened orendangered. The CDNR Executive Director, inconsultation with the Colorado WaterConservation Board (CWCB), PWC, and CPWDirector, provides the General Assembly withrecommendations for programs within thesedivisions that satisfy the goals of STCF and could

24 HB 98-1006, Conservation of Native Species Fund Act, ColoradoGeneral Assembly, 1998 Reg. Sess. (C.R.S. 24-33-111).

23 SB 18-143, Hunting, Fishing, and Parks for Future Generations Act,Colorado General Assembly, 2018 Reg. Sess.; SB21-249, KeepColorado Wild Annual Pass Act.

be candidates for annual funding. Previous SCTFbills have supported research and conservationprograms that provide secondary bene�ts to biggame species or habitat.

● Habitat Stamp Program and ColoradoWildlife Habitat Program - The WildlifeHabitat Stamp was created by the GeneralAssembly in 2006. The stamp is an annual fee(currently $10.40 for an individual stamp;$312.30 for a lifetime stamp) assessed on the �rststate hunting or �shing licenses purchased eachyear, and used for the purposes of restoring andexpanding terrestrial and aquatic wildlifehabitat.25 Revenues generated help fund theColorado Wildlife Habitat Program (CWHP),which supports habitat protection and expandedpublic recreational access on private landsthrough real estate acquisitions, such asconservation or public access easements, orfee-title land purchases. The 11-member,multi-interest Habitat Stamp AdvisoryCommittee recommends project proposalssubmitted by willing private land owners thatalign with PWC’s annual funding priorities. Biggame habitat has been an ongoing priority sincethe program’s inception, with a previousrequirement to direct 60 percent of fundscollected to winter range and movement routes.This requirement was modi�ed when theprogram was reauthorized in 2013 to becomemore inclusive of other public access and wildlifehabitat priorities, but retains an emphasis onconserving critical habitat and landscapeconnectivity for big game species.26

26 SB 13-175. “Wildlife Habitat Stamp Programs Continuation,Colorado General Assembly, 2013 Reg. Sess.

25 HB 05-1266, Colorado Wildlife Habitat Stamp Act, ColoradoGeneral Assembly, 2005 Reg. Sess. (C.R.S. 33-4-102.7 et seq.)


10

● Great Outdoors Colorado - Article XXVII (27)of the Colorado constitution, adopted by ballotmeasure in 1992, established Great OutdoorsColorado (GOCO) to administer proceeds fromstate-sponsored lotteries for the bene�t of Colorado’soutdoor heritage, including wildlife, parks, rivers,trails, and open space.27 Forty percent (40%) of lotteryproceeds are mandated to be invested in local openspace and recreation through the Conservation TrustFund, administered by the Department of LocalA�airs (DOLA), and 10 percent is allocated directly toCPW to support state parks. GOCO administers theremaining 50 percent of lottery funds (up to a cap),with 25 percent of these funds allocated to CPW forstate parks (Parks Quadrant) and 25 percent allocatedto CPW for wildlife (Wildlife Quadrant). Fundingfrom GOCO totals about 16 percent (~$49 million in2020) of the division’s annual revenue, including 11percent of the agency’s wildlife expenditures.28 Eachyear, the two organizations align their strategic planobjectives to facilitate programmatic evaluation andbudgetary review.29.30

In addition, GOCO participates in theRestoration and Stewardship of OutdoorResources and Environment (RESTORE)Program. RESTORE is a collaborative fundingpartnership between GOCO, the National Fishand Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the GatesFamily Foundation, CDNR, CPW, and corporatepartners. The program provides grants insupport of �ve landscape conservation objectives,one of which is to advance the protection of gamewinter range and migration routes. The others -riparian areas and river corridors, grasslands,

30 CPW Great Outdoors Colorado FY2021-22 Investment Proposal,online: https://goco.org/about/our-�nances

29 CPW Great Outdoors Colorado FY2021-22 Investment Proposal,online: https://goco.org/about/our-�nances

28 Per CPW FY 2019-20 Funding Sources summary, online:https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx

27 Colorado Constitution, Art. 27, Great Outdoors Colorado Program.

sagebrush, and forest lands - often o�er secondarybene�ts to big game habitat. Ten of the 20projects funded in the program’s inaugural 2020and 2021 grant rounds targeted big game habitatrestoration or connectivity.31

● Habitat Partnership Program - The HabitatPartnership Program (HPP) and HabitatPartnership Council were created by theColorado General Assembly in 1990.32 Unlikeother state programs, HPP is speci�cally gearedtoward engaging landowners in assisting inCPW’s big game management and habitatconnectivity objectives by directing funds toprojects on private lands that reduce, remedy ormitigate the potential for wildlife-agriculture orlivestock con�icts. The program receives 5percent of the annual revenues generated frombig game hunting licenses (roughly $2.7 millionper year), which are allocated to projects among19 regional HPP committees across the state bythe nine-member Habitat Partnership Council.Regional HPP committees provide projectrecommendations and advise on a range ofstrategies to address local big game habitat andpopulation management concerns.

32 HPP’s initial, speci�c purpose of resolving fence and forage damagecon�icts caused by big game was expanded to include othermanagement activities in 2002. (C.R.S. 33-1-110 (8)(a) and (b), et. seq.)

31 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, RESTORE Program factsheet, online:https://www.nfwf.org/sites/default/�les/2021-05/NFWF-restore-CO-fact-sheet.pdf


https://goco.org/about/our-finances

https://goco.org/about/our-finances

https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Funding.aspx

11

The Local Policy LandscapeTitle 29 of the Colorado Constitution, the Land UseControl Enabling Act, grants cities, towns, and countiesbroad authority to regulate most land use decisions withintheir jurisdictions, along with other matters.33 Dependingon their jurisdiction’s population, local planning boardsand commissions are either incentivized or required toadopt comprehensive or master plans with the goals ofproviding overarching policy and regulatory frameworksthat contribute to long-term community developmentobjectives. Comprehensive plans are considered advisoryunless codi�ed through zoning regulations and codes.34

Colorado Constitution, Title 29, Local Land UseEnabling Control Act, also grants local governmentspowers to a�ect controls, such as project permittingstandards and mitigation requirements, over mattersidenti�ed as “areas of state activity and interest.”35 Whilethese can include areas with particular natural orecological signi�cance, 1041 regulations have not been

35 HB74-1041, “Areas of State Interest Act,” Colorado GeneralAssembly, 1974 Reg. Sess. (C.R.S § 24-65. 1-101)

34 Master and comprehensive planning authorities are de�ned in(C.R.S. § 30-28-111 and § 31-23-301)

33 For an overview of authorities granted under Title 29, see C. Hanceet al., Ch. 4: Planning, Colorado Land Planning and Development Law(9)., ed. D. Elliott, American Planning Association, Bradford, Denver.(as excerpted by Land Use Training Alliance:https://www.law.du.edu/documents/rmlui/workshops/LinkingLandUse-Water-GuidanceManual.pdf)

comprehensively or consistently applied to a�ect wildlifehabitat or landscape connectivity protections.36 Oneconstraint on local land use authority with implicationsfor habitat fragmentation is the state’s so-called “35 acrerule,” adopted by statute in 1972 through SB72-035.Unique to Colorado, the law prohibits local governmentsfrom requiring landowners to subdivide private propertiesinto parcels greater than 35 acres. Some jurisdictions haveadopted work-arounds to the rule, for example, placingannual limitations on development rights, as opposed toparcel size, or by incentivizing larger acreage subdivisions.

Other counties and municipalities, such as Boulder andLarimer Counties, have also updated their comprehensiveplans to include land use codes and associated zoningregulations for areas designated as wildlife habitat andmigration corridors. Some of these plans have gone furtherto adopt incentive programs to encourage landscapeconnectivity and other wildlife-compatible practiceswithin agricultural zones, as well as performance metricstied to wildlife conservation strategic objectives. Othercommunities, including Grand and Cha�ee Counties,have passed bond measures to establish communityinvestment funds to allow local governments toimplement a suite of tools, including conservationeasements, transfers of development rights (TDRs), andhabitat restoration projects, to shift development todesired areas or o�set development impacts.37 CPW andthe Department of Local A�airs (DOLA) both provideassistance to local communities in implementing bestpractices with respect to zoning and land use.

37 Cha�ee Common Ground Fund, online:https://cha�eecommonground.org/; Grand County Open Space,Rivers and Trails Fund, online:https://www.co.grand.co.us/851/Open-Lands-Rivers-and-Trails-Advisory-Co

36 See B. Green and B. Seibert, “Local Governments and House Bill1041: A Voice in the Wilderness,” Colorado Lawyer 2245 (Nov. 1990),1-2; see also, A. Daken, “Capstone Project: Colorado LocalGovernments Use of 1041 Regulations,” Colorado Department ofLocal A�airs (2017) (especially Town of Silt case study, 34).


https://www.law.du.edu/documents/rmlui/workshops/LinkingLandUse-Water-GuidanceManual.pdf)

https://www.law.du.edu/documents/rmlui/workshops/LinkingLandUse-Water-GuidanceManual.pdf)

https://chaffeecommonground.org/

https://www.co.grand.co.us/851/Open-Lands-Rivers-and-Trails-Advisory-Co

https://www.co.grand.co.us/851/Open-Lands-Rivers-and-Trails-Advisory-Co

12

The Federal Policy LandscapeThe framework that governs federal wildlife managementresponsibilities is complex and ever-shifting. In general,though, the laws and policies that directly or indirectlyshape federal wildlife e�orts can be assigned to one ormore of four categories:

1. Federal land management -Provide direction orguidance as to wildlife habitat management onfederal lands, and set parameters for analysis andpublic participation in decision-making;

2. Federal wildlife jurisdiction - Establish federaljurisdiction over management of particular wildlifespecies or categories;

3. Federal conservation f unding - Direct federalfunding to states, Tribes and private landowners insupport of wildlife management and habitatconservation priorities;38 or

4. Federal-State Cooperation - Establish federalagencies’ cooperative role in supporting state andTribal wildlife management objectives.

38 See, e.g., National Research Council, Committee on AgriculturalLand Use and Wildlife Resources, Land Use and Wildlife Resources,Ch. 8: Legislation and Administration, Sec: Funding of WildlifeAdministration, Washington, DC: National Academies Press (1970).

Rather than providing a comprehensive examination ofthe myriad intersections of state and federal wildlifegovernance, this section o�ers an overview organized byeach of these categories to illustrate the ways in whichColorado and other states engage with federal partners inwildlife and habitat conservation.

1. Federal Land Management

Broadly, this category includes Congressionally-adoptedstatutes as well as administratively adopted rules thatgovern allowable activities within geographic areas underfederal land designations, including those set aside forwildlife conservation purposes. These include those lawsthat de�ne federal agencies’ overarching land and resourcemanagement authorities and responsibilities, includingthe National Park Service’s 1916 Organic Act, the Bureauof Land Management’s (BLM) 1976 Federal LandManagement Policy Act (FLPMA), and USFS NationalForest Management Act (NFMA).39 Supplementing thesestatutes are administrative rules and regulations thatprovide more speci�c instruction on how each agencyshould implement ground-level planning, permitting, andother decisions.40

Federal agencies administer 36.2 percent (66.5 millionacres) of Colorado’s total land area,41 and federal forest,land use, and resource planning has signi�cant, long-termimplications for big game habitat functionality andconnectivity. Federal agencies must comply with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and otherlaws which require a comprehensive analysis of theenvironmental e�ects of a range of alternative proposals,

41 Congressional Research Service R45340, 2020, 7.

40 Governing agency responsibilities regarding federal land managementare more thoroughly described in: Congressional Research Service,CRS Report R45340, Federal Land Designations: A Brief Guide, 2018.

39 1976 Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. §§1701-1775) and National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 etseq.)


13

and provide opportunities for public input.42 In somecases, federal laws a�ord state, Tribal, and localgovernments additional opportunities, apart from thegeneral public, to provide input on proposals. FLPMA,for instance, requires the BLM to allow for a Governor’sConsistency review to the state BLM director prior todecision �nalization.43 CDNR, CPW, and other stateagencies also regularly contribute technical expertise onproject and plan proposals under cooperating agencyagreements.44

The state regularly requests to secure a formal,consultative role for CPW in project design andimplementation to provide additional assurances foravoiding, minimizing, or mitigating future impacts towildlife habitat, consistent with high priority habitatguidance and the State Wildlife Action Plan.45

Additionally, CDNR and CPW actively encourage theuptake of measures to protect wildlife populationsdesignated as threatened, endangered, or species of stateconcern. This includes the state’s recently-adopted HPHland use guidance, such as recommendations to limit

45 Colorado's 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan, addresses recoverystrategies for species listed as threatened or endangered, or as statespecies of concern, in compliance with the state and federal fundingrequirements.

44 Cooperating agency roles and responsibilities are de�ned underNEPA (40 C.F.R 1508.5)

43 43 CFR § 1610.3-2.

42 In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969, as amended (P.L. 91-190; 83 Stat 852, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq)federal agency actions must comply with the Administrative ProcedureAct of 1946 (5 U.S.C §§ 551 et seq.), the Environmental QualityImprovement Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4371-4374)agency-speci�c statutes, such as FLPMA and NMFA, environmentallaws, and others. See Cole, CRS Report R44699: An Introduction toJudicial Review of Federal Agency Action, Congressional ResearchService, 9; also Environmental Law Institute, “National EnvironmentalPolicy Act: Back to the Future,” 1995, 12, 33; and CongressionalResearch Service, Public Participation in the Management of ForestService and Bureau of Land Management lands: Overview and RecentChanges,” 2004, generally.

development activities and infrastructure and road densitywithin sensitive big game habitat and movement routes.

Finally, state wildlife management decisions are impactedby a variety of federal protective land designations. Forexample, the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule (CRR) is oneof two state-speci�c administrative rules that grew out ofchallenges to the USFS 2001 national Roadless Rule.46

With some exceptions, the CRR prohibits new roadconstruction and protects large landscape connectivity,habitat functionality, and other protected values withinundeveloped lands inventoried as Colorado RoadlessAreas (CRAs). Under the CRR, the USFS must consultwith CDNR and CPW on decisions a�ecting CRAs. Inaddition, wilderness designations can impact wildlifemanagement decisions by limiting mechanized travel andother activities that can occur on federal lands.

2. Federal Wildlife Jurisdiction

Beginning with the Lacey Act of 1900, which restrictedinter-state transport of illegally acquired wildlife productsunder the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, federallaws have sometimes had the contested e�ects of reservingstate wildlife management authorities while shoring upfederal interests in -- and powers to regulate -- non-gamewildlife in certain circumstances. In addition tocommerce, these include powers to: ful�ll internationaltreaty obligations with respect to “non-game” wildlifespecies, as �rst articulated by the 1918 Migratory BirdTreaty Act; impose actions required to recover wildlifespecies federally listed as threatened or endangered; andgovern wildlife on federal lands.47 With respect to thelatter, federal agencies traditionally defer to states’authorities.

47 D. Favre, “American Wildlife Law: An introduction,” Animal LawWeb Center, 2003; Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C.§§703 - 712)

46 USFS, 2012 Colorado Roadless Final Rule (36 CFR 294)


14

The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) also a�ords theFWS considerable latitude to oversee federally-listedspecies recovery, including on state-managed land.48 CPWand other CDNR divisions regularly weigh in on criticalhabitat designation, participate in recovery plandevelopment, and undertake signi�cant responsibility forenforcement and implementation under agreementsauthorized under Section 6 of the ESA, which authorizes�nancial assistance to states and Tribes. These activitiescan a�ect agency budgets and resources, as well as for themanagement of big game or other wildlife under thestate’s jurisdiction. Federally-listed terrestrial species inColorado include lynx, black-footed ferret, Gunnisonsage-grouse, Mexican spotted owl, among others.

3. Sources of Federal Conservation Funding

● Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program- The 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act authorized theWildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program(WSFR), the �rst federal program to provide directsupport for state wildlife conservation e�ortsthrough funds raised by an excise tax on the sale of�rearms, and other hunting and angling equipment.So-called “PR funds” are deposited into theUSFWS-administered Wildlife RestorationAccount and apportioned among Tribes, and states,territories and other U.S. jurisdictions for wildlifeagency operations.49 The WSFR also manages asuite of related grant and incentive opportunities,including the annually- appropriated State WildlifeGrants Program (SWG), which assists in theimplementation of State Wildlife Action Plans(SWAPs) through both dedicated and competitivegrant mechanisms. primary source of federal

49 (16 U.S.C. §§669 et seq.) Funding overview in U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS), WSFR Program brochure, 2018, online:https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/AboutUs/WSFRProgramBrochure2018.pdf

48 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 et seq.)

support for state wildlife operations.50 The WSFRprogram has served as a model for other programsby setting wildlife planning standards and requiringa state co-investment of up to 25 percent. Coloradohas received $17 million in PR funds for �scal year2021 and $15 million in 2020 toward research,habitat management, restoration and acquisition.51

● 2018 USDA Farm Bill Programs - Several otherimportant federal funding sources, such as USDAFarm Bill programs, underwrite voluntaryconservation easements and other privatelandowner incentives. For instance, theConservation Reserve Program administered by theFarm Services Agency (FSA) contracts withagricultural producers to retireenvironmentally-sensitive crop and pasture lands forperiods of 10 - 15 years, while the AgriculturalConservation Easement Program (ACEP) underthe Natural Resource Conservation Service helps topreserve agriculturally productive lands thatcontribute conservation bene�ts.52 While these andsimilar private land conservation programs don’tdirect funds to the state, they are neverthelessimportant wildlife habitat conservation e�orts inColorado, where nearly 56 percent of the land isprivately owned.53 (See Appendix A: LandOwnership in Colorado)

● Land and Water Conservation Fund - TheLand and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),created by Congress in 1965, also includes a suite offunding mechanisms for federal, state and private

53 CNHP and Geospatial Centroid, Colorado State University,COMaP (202), online: https://comap.cnhp.colostate.edu/

52 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (7 CFR 1410); AgriculturalConservation Easement Program (ACEP) (7 CFR 1468.)

51 USFWS Wildlife Restoration apportionments, online:https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/grantprograms/wr/wr_funding.htm

50 USFWS State Wildlife Grant Program apportionments, online:https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SWG/SWG.htm


https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/AboutUs/WSFRProgramBrochure2018.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/AboutUs/WSFRProgramBrochure2018.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/grantprograms/wr/wr_funding.htm

https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/grantprograms/wr/wr_funding.htm

https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SWG/SWG.htm

https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SWG/SWG.htm

15

land conservation.54 In addition to targeted federalland acquisitions, LWCF provides grants to statesfor recreational and cooperative endangered speciesconservation acquisitions, and to privatelandowners through the states-administered ForestLegacy Program. Initially created by the 1964 Landand Water Conservation Act, LWCF washistorically �nanced through a mix of revenuesources and annually appropriated. In 2020,Congress enacted the Great American OutdoorsAct, creating permanent funding for LWCF ($900million annually) and a companion program, theNational Parks and Public Land Legacy RestorationFund, or “Legacy Fund,” ($1.9 billion through2025) to address deferred infrastructure andmaintenance priorities.55

● Administrative Initiatives - Initiatives that aredesigned to address the near-term priorities ofparticular federal administrations often makeresources for state habitat conservation e�ortsavailable through discretionary departmentalspending, such as the program created under SO3362. The “Conserving and Restoring America theBeautiful” (“America the Beautiful”) campaignrecently launched by USDOI, USDA and otheragencies under the direction of President Biden issimilarly expected to be implemented incooperation with states, Tribes and other partners.56

The campaign is based on the 30x30 initiative,which refers to a global goal to protect 30 percent ofthe earth’s lands and waters by the year 2030, on apath toward achieving 50 percent protection by2050.57 The proposal, also known as the “GlobalPlan to Conserve Nature,” was initially focused on

57 Campaign for Nature, online: https://www.campaignfornature.org/

56 U.S. Presidential Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the ClimateCrisis at Home and Abroad,” Jan 27, 2021; U.S. DOI et al., “Report:Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful,” 2021.

55 Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), 2020.

54 Land and Wildlife Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (54 U.S.C.§§200301 et seq.); Congressional Research Service (CRS), Land andWater Conservation Fund: Process for Allocating Funds (Oct., 2020).

stemming biodiversity loss, but has since grown toencompass other conservation objectives, such asreversing climate change, and promoting landscapeconnectivity and habitat functionality. The U.S.recently joined a coalition of �fty nations and morethan four hundred Tribal, local, provincial and stategovernments -- including several cities and countiesin Colorado -- that have adopted 30x30resolutions.58

● Congressional Earmarks - Congress alsooccasionally speci�es expenditures for one-o�habitat restoration or wildlife infrastructureprojects or related programs as line items inomnibus spending bills. Support for a nationalwildlife safe passage pilot program was includedin the 2022 bipartisan infrastructure bill passedby the U.S. Senate and under consideration in theHouse as of the publication of this report.

4. Federal-State Cooperation

Federal cooperation in state and Tribal wildlifemanagement is governed by a collection of laws andpolicies. The 1956 Fish and Wildlife Act, building uponits predecessor, the 1934 Fish and Wildlife CoordinationAct, created the FWS and formalized a federal wildlifeprogram, opening the door to more meaningful wildlifemanagement collaboration on federal lands.59 NEPA,FLPMA, NFMA, and related implementation rulesprovide the principle framework for state consultation onenvironmentally signi�cant decisions, whereasintergovernmental cooperative agreements often de�neshared priorities, and establish procedures to guideday-to-day federal-state wildlife and land managementcoordination.

59 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669-669i;50 Stat. 917)

58 The Guardian, “More than 50 countries commit to protecting 30%of Earth’s lands and oceans by 2030,” Jan 11, 2021.


16

Opportunities for Policy SolutionsBig game habitat and movement route connectivityprotection are not new priorities in Colorado, but the BigGame EO highlighted their importance and laid thegroundwork for action by state agencies and lawmakers.The recommendations in this section predominantlyre�ect opportunities for policy change with the potentialto be carried out directly by the State of Colorado, and toa lesser extent, opportunities for action by otherstakeholders and land managers that could bene�t fromState leadership. They include adjustments toadministrative policies implementable by agency directors;regulatory shifts implementable by boards, commissions,or other governing bodies; administrative actionsimplementable by the Governor; and legislative solutionsfor consideration by the Colorado General Assembly. Avariety of proposals are provided, some of

which can be readily achieved, and others that eitherwarrant further exploration, are not immediatelyactionable by the State, or may have a higher barrier toimplementation.

A �xed scoring rubric was inappropriate for the purposeof this policy analysis, so a range of considerations wereexamined in selecting the �nal recommendations for thisreport. These include: consistency with current legal andpolicy framework; bene�ts to wildlife, wildlife habitat orhabitat connectivity; existing capacity to implement;complexity of implementation; cost and budgetimplications; balancing competing legislative and policypriorities; and the likelihood of stakeholder buy-in.

With some modi�cations, recommendations are organizedto align with the categories identi�ed in CPW’s 2020 BigGame Winter Range and Migration Corridors Report:

1. Habitat Alterations and Loss

2. Land Use, Residential Growth and Development(Modi�ed from “Residential Growth andDevelopment” in 2020 Status Report)

3. Outdoor Recreation

4. Transportation and Infrastructure

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Opportunities for Policy Solutions

17

5. Energy Development (Modi�ed from “Mining andEnergy Development” in 2020 Status Report)

6. Private Land Conservation (Modi�ed from“Agriculture” in 2020 Status Report)

7. Research Needs and Data Gaps

8. External Coordination and Public Outreach(Newcategory, not included in 2020 Status Report)

Finally, it is important to note that many of therecommendations below would have implications for stateagency sta� and capacity. For example, improvedinter-agency and external coordination; increasedparticipation in local, statewide and federal planningprocesses; research and data gathering; and large-scaleconservation and restoration project implementationwould all place additional demands on sta� and, in somecases, require investments in technology andinfrastructure. To the extent that Colorado wishes tocreate an even more visionary program to achievelong-term gains for big game species and habitat, it will beimportant to identify resources to support the proposalsin this report.60

60 State departments and agencies should implement any directives, orchanges in policy or programmatic priority resulting from this reportwithin existing budgets and authorities to the extent feasible. Ifnecessary, agencies and departments will engage with the Governor'sO�ce of State Planning and Budgeting in the annual budgetdevelopment process to identify resource requirements for any actionstargeted for implementation in future �scal years.

1. Habitat Alterations and LossA. Develop a statewide habitat conservation andconnectivity plan

CPW should formalize a statewide habitat conservationand connectivity plan to identify priority landscapes thatsupport big game and other key wildlife species. Thisundertaking would bring together CPW’s existing wildlifeplans, such as the 2020-2021 Colorado “Big Game ActionPlan” responding to Interior Secretarial Order 3362,61

Statewide Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), and West SlopeMule Deer Strategy,62 to derive streamlinedrecommendations to inform future planning, research,programs, acquisitions, easements, and resourceallocation. Such an undertaking would require carefulconsideration of outstanding questions that havepresented barriers in the past, including some resolution tothe matter of ensuring that unique movement patterns ofColorado’s big game and other wildlife, changing climateand habitat conditions, and new data and analysis can beaccommodated in e�orts to map migration routes andseasonal habitat.63

63 See, e.g., Center for Large Landscape Conservation, WildlifeConnectivity: Opportunities for State Legislation, 2019.

62 CPW, Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy, 2014.

61 CPW, “Colorado Action Plan for the Implementation of SO 3362,Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range andMigration Corridors,” revised September, 2020.


18

B. Direct new funding toward strategic landconservation priorities

Additional sources of conservation funding are needed toexpand protections within big game movement corridors,winter range, and other sensitive habitat in Colorado toaddress impairments caused by accelerating residentialdevelopment, industrial activities and recreation. Withsupport from CDNR, CPW should continue to advanceits future funding initiative by working with the legislatureto secure new resources for conserving key landscapes andprotecting wildlife corridors as pressures escalate.

At the state level, the 2021 Colorado legislative session hasillustrated both the potential for conservation and wildlifefunding initiatives to succeed, and opportunities fordirecting newly-generated funding toward projects thatbene�t big game habitat. For example, HB21-249 createdthe Keep Colorado Wild Pass, a new vehicle-displayedpublic access and conservation pass that will be madeavailable when Colorado residents register light trucks,motorcycles and passenger and recreational vehiclesstarting in 2023.64 This new pass will provide access toColorado’s 42 state parks and recreation areas, andpotentially certain federal lands, with existing and futureaccess fees. In addition to funding recreational lands, aportion of revenues generated through the pass in excess offunding needs for existing state parks will be used to openand conserve new state parks, and support projects thatadvance the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). CPWand conservation stakeholders must work together as theKeep Colorado Wild Pass is implemented to generateparticipation and ensure that signi�cant funding �owstoward SWAP implementation.

The General Assembly also passed a trio of other bills in2021 that could bene�t e�orts to conserve big gamehabitat. In addition to creating the Outdoor Equity GrantProgram, HB21-1318 directs a portion of future spilloverlottery revenue to be split between the wildlife cash fund

64 SB21-249, Keep Colorado Wild Pass Act

and parks and recreation cash fund. HB21-1326 alsoprovides $3.5 million in one-time General Fund supportto implement the SWAP and conserve native species.Finally, HB21-1233 allows landowners to receive up to90% of the donated value of their conservation easement,providing a greater incentive for private landconservation.65

In terms of new federal funding opportunities, CDNRand CPW should also lay groundwork throughinteragency and external coordination to ensure thatColorado’s conservation goal-setting and planning e�ortsmeet requirements -- and position the state to takeadvantage of -- federal programs, including resources thatmay become available through the Biden Administration’s“America the Beautiful” initiative, which sets targets forconserving nation’s lands and waters.66 (See Appendix C)

C. Coordinate existing conservation funding

In addition to developing new funding sources andimplementing bills passed during the 2021 legislativesession, CDNR, in coordination with CPW, shouldannually convene partners and cooperators, such asgovernment agencies, land trusts, and private landownersto identify and review priority movement routes and keylandscapes to target for protection. While competitionbetween individual organizations, regions, and projects forthese resources will continue, CPW’s ability to leadColorado’s land conservation e�orts could be expanded toprovide improved guidance and assistance regardingprograms available across CDNR divisions, ColoradoDepartment of Agriculture (CDA), Colorado State ForestService (CSFS), Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO),and/or other agencies. With improved coordination,

66 Presidential Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis atHome and Abroad,” Jan 27, 2021; U.S. DOI et al., “Report:Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful,” 2021.

65 HB21-1318 Outdoor Equity Fund; HB21-1326 General FundTransfer Support Department of Natural Resources Programs;HB21-1233 Conservation Easement Tax Credit Modi�cations,Colorado General Assembly, 2019 Reg. Sess.


19

collective investments and acquisitions could be bettersteered toward the targeted completion of large,landscape-scale conservation projects, along withsmaller-scale opportunities that protect key properties.

Improved and ongoing coordination would ensure thatthe signi�cant funds available through various state,federal, and private sources are allocated each year in morestrategic alignment with big game habitat and connectivitypriorities. In addition to new, sustainable funding availablethrough the Keep Colorado Wild Pass and HB21-1318lottery spillover, this includes funding available throughthe Conservation Easement Tax credit; Habitat Stampfunds; local government support through theConservation Trust Fund; GOCO conservation programs(including the new Centennial Program); federallyadministered programs, such as LWCF and 2018 Farm Billprograms; private contributions and foundation grants;and corporate partnerships. The USFS Forest Legacyprogram alone, for example, presents an opportunity todirect nearly $20 million annually toward high-valueprivate forest conservation initiatives with co-bene�ts forpublic access, wildlife connectivity, and habitat priorities.Additionally, state and federal post-pandemic economicstimulus funds, such as the funds made available toimplement the SWAP and invest in native species throughHB21-1326, could be leveraged to support near-termrestoration and conservation investments. (See AppendixC: Examples of Federal, State and CollaborativeConservation Funding Programs.)

With a more comprehensive grasp of the fundinglandscape, CDNR and CPW could provide more targetedplanning and technical assistance to prospectiveapplicants, and help match priority projects with relevantstate, federal, and private funding programs. Currently,CPW’s Habitat Coordinators, partner private landsbiologists, and the Private Lands Program Manager workwith the National Resources Conservation Service(NRCS), Farm Services Administration (FSA),agricultural producer groups, and the Western Association

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and American Associationof Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA, AFWA,respectively), to establish priorities for 2018 Farm Billprograms. To the extent possible, CDNR and CPWshould build upon this model to accelerate and scaleconservation priorities across other funding mechanisms.

D. Invest in large-scale habitat conservation andrestoration projects

In addition to underwriting new land and easementacquisitions and protections, state agencies and partnersmust continue to invest in stewardship onalready-conserved lands that bene�t big game movementroutes and sensitive habitat. While new funding sourcesand sta�ng should be developed to support this functionin CPW and other state agencies, government entities andprivate conservation partners can also leverage existingresources by pooling investments in large-scale stewardshipprojects that bene�t high-priority landscapes. Thesee�orts should be guided by CPW’s Statewide HabitatConservation and Connectivity Plan, described above.

Existing examples illustrate the promise of pooled fundingmodels in achieving e�ciencies and maximizingconservation outcomes. For instance, the RESTOREColorado program is a collaboration among state agenciesand external conservation partners to promote wildlifehabitat restoration, expansion, and improvement at-scale,and provide opportunities to proactively manageColorado’s public and private conservation lands for thegreatest bene�t to wildlife and local communities.67 Theprogram streamlines grant proposal and applicationprocesses, and provides a mechanism for funders to worktogether to invest in more impactful projects than wouldbe achievable by individual funding programs.RESTORE’s 2020 pilot funding round priorities includeda focus on big game winter range and migration routes,

67 See RESTORE Colorado, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,https://www.nfwf.org/programs/rocky-mountain-rangelands/restore-colorado-program


20

along with co-bene�cial habitat. In another example, theRocky Mountain Restoration Initiative (RMRI) bringsfederal, private, and state funding to bear onlandscape-scale forest health restoration projects, whichprovide co-bene�ts for big game habitat.68

DNR and CPW should also work to ensure that wildlifehabitat considerations are taken into account in new foresthealth and watershed restoration initiatives. New stateand federal resources for forest health and watershedrestoration have been made available in response to therecent catastrophic wild�res in Colorado, and additionalresources are likely to be allocated for these purposes in themonths and years ahead. These types of projects --especially when funded by government resources -- shouldbe planned in consultation with CPW, and guided by theStatewide Habitat Conservation and Connectivity Plan,to maximize bene�ts for big game habitat connectivity andfunctionality, or at a minimum, to minimize harm.Participation in these types of large-scale initiativesdemands signi�cant investments in land use and biologysta� time, as well as research and expertise, and capacityconstraints have often precluded CPW’s consistentinvolvement in such e�orts. As a result, CPW shouldprioritize this function going forward by expandingcapacity to contribute to landscape-level project planning .

E. Promote state cooperation and interests in federalland use decisions, policies and programs

Colorado’s experience in developing wildlife-compatibleland use recommendations can be leveraged to helpoperationalize conservation policies on public lands.While several recently-enacted regulations have curtailedopportunities for state agencies to weigh in on federaldecisions a�ecting wildlife populations and habitat,CDNR and CPW should continue to work proactively tosecure meaningful cooperative and/or consultative rolesfor the state in land use decisions, such as entering into

68 See Rocky Mountain Restoration Initiative (RMRI),https://restoringtherockies.org/

cooperative agreements for federal rulemaking andplanning processes.

In addition, the state should continue to work withColorado’s Congressional delegation, AFWA, and otherentities to advance Colorado’s wildlife management andconservation priorities in federal legislation. For instance,one legislative proposal currency under consideration inCongress, the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act of 2021(H.R. 2773) would direct more than $1 billion to states,tribes, and U.S. territories to catalyze collaborative e�ortsto implement strategies in State Wildlife Action Plans. Ingeneral, the State should help champion legislation thatserves to:

● Produce permanent protections for lands thatcontribute to wildlife habitat conservation orlandscape connectivity priorities;

● A�rm a meaningful role for the state in steeringfunds toward priority conservation projects,easements, or federal land acquisitions;

● Promote cross-fertilization, information sharing, andcoordination on wildlife issues of interjurisdictionalconcern; and

● Provide direct support for state habitat wildliferesearch and management programs, as well ashabitat restoration, mitigation, and landscapeconnectivity projects.

Finally, the State should fully engage in the formulation offederal programs that relate to the conservation of biggame habitat. For example, Governor Polis providedrecommendations to the Secretary of the Interior toinform preliminary recommendations for the federal“America the Beautiful” initiative, noting the importanceof private land conservation to statewide conservationpriorities, as private lands make up nearly 60 percent ofColorado and contribute signi�cantly to habitatconservation and landscape connectivity. CPW, alongwith CDA, can further engage in “America the Beautiful”by elucidating how private lands factor into the state’s


21

wildlife conservation and agricultural priorities, and byexpanding upon existing e�orts to communicate landconservation priorities to private partners eager tocontribute. While awaiting additional guidance from thefederal administration on the implementation of theInitiative, CDNR should also continue to spearheaddiscussions with external partners and other Coloradostate agencies to explore how the initiative can add to thestate’s existing conservation objectives and programsmandated by the legislature and Governor.

F. Implement local SO 3362 conservation plans

A fundamental tenet of SO 3362 is that activities andpriorities are to be led by states. In order to take advantageof funds made available under SO 3362, western states,including Colorado, were required to create action plansidentifying priority landscapes to be the focus of futureresearch and conservation activities. CPW’s 2020-21 State“Big Game” Action Plan selected �ve such emphasis areas,based on their importance to big game herds in Colorado,understanding of big game movement patterns, and theamount of federal public land in the landscape. The nextstep in implementation is to encourage local planning toincorporate project delivery in priority landscapes. CPWshould provide leadership for local planning e�orts withconservation partners to ramp-up the execution ofprojects associated with SO 3362. Additional research isalso needed to re�ne habitat priorities to target forconservation and restoration, as well as important highwaysegments with potential to improve permeability.

Finally, a lack of dedicated funding inhibits the continuedimplementation of the state’s Big Game Action Plan aswell as the SO 3362 program’s continued success. TheState should continue to participate in e�orts to securepermanent and expanded support for the SO 3362program within DOI, create a complementary initiativewithin USDA, and increase Tribal participation to buildupon the important accomplishments in coordination,research, and restoration to-date.

2. Land Use, Residential Growthand Development

A. Improve inter-jurisdictional disturbancemapping and data-sharing

A lack of coordination and data-sharing acrossjurisdictions currently prevents federal, state, tribal, andlocal wildlife managers and land use planners frome�ectively tracking habitat disturbance at scale. Activitiesand infrastructure on private lands, for instance,contribute to overall disturbance, but are often notre�ected in assessments. State, federal, Tribal and localagencies, and their academic and private sector partners,would collectively bene�t from the adoption of a uniformsystem that could provide shared data, with appropriateprotocols for protecting private property and interests, fortracking land cover habitat disturbance across jurisdictionsand planning units. Such a system would result in betterinformation about disturbance thresholds withinparticular zones or management areas, and allow for thesteering of development into less sensitive habitat. Shareddata could also be utilized in designing approaches formitigating the impact of speci�c projects or activities onwildlife habitat. For example, this data would be useful toCOGCC as it begins to track the cumulative impacts ofnew oil and gas developments under the requirements ofSB19-181.

Emerging tools currently being employed to modeldisturbance within greater sage-grouse (GrSG) habitat toinform oil and gas leasing and mitigation decisions couldalso be appropriate for tracking habitat disturbance on a


22

broader scale. The Colorado Conservation Data Explorer(CODEX), under development by the Colorado NaturalHeritage Program and NatureServe, in coordination withCPW and others, will expand access to a wide range ofpertinent information and is expected to include featuresthat could signi�cantly streamline shared surfacedisturbance analysis within the state.69 An examplecurrently in use by federal agencies is the SurfaceDisturbance Analysis and Reclamation Tracking Tool(SDARTT), created in partnership between the BLM andUnited States Geological Survey (USGS).70 BLM’s 2015Greater Sage Grouse (GrSG) Approved ResourceManagement Plan Amendment contains thresholds forhabitat disturbance and development densities withinindividual GrSG management zones, which are trackedusing this geospatial database.71 Colorado may consider apartnership with these federal agencies to expand the useof SDARTT within WAFWA’s Crucial HabitatAssessment Tool could also be leveraged to contribute tocomprehensive disturbance tracking.72

B. Expand cooperation with local governments todirect development away from priority habitat

State laws and policies establish broad requirements andincentives for -- and impose some restrictions upon --county and municipal comprehensive plans, butotherwise, state government has limited in�uence overlocal land use decisions. Local governments, withauthorities over zoning and other land-use determinations,have a wide array of tools at their disposal for steeringdevelopment away from big game movement routes andsensitive habitat. However, local zoning regulations are

72 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA),Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool: https://www.wafwachat.org/

71 U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 2015 Northwest ColoradoGreater Sage Grouse Resource Management Plan, Appendix E:Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Cap

70 U.S. Geological Survey, Surface Disturbance and ReclamationTracking Tool: https://on.doi.gov/397lYvo

69 Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State UniversityCODEX page, online: https://cnhp.colostate.edu/maps/codex/

often geared toward reducing barriers to private propertydevelopment in rural areas, which bene�ts landownerslooking to subdivide large properties into smaller landunits, and decision-makers face considerable economicand political pressures to approve new developments intheir communities.73 The resulting “parcelization” cancontribute to big game habitat fragmentation, particularlyin low-lying winter range that is especially desirable forresidential development.74 And while conservationeasement and other voluntary programs have beene�ective at incentivizing development into larger parcels,or steering development away from sensitive habitat, theseapproaches are not applied consistently.

Recognizing that state agencies are not currently resourcedto scale existing e�orts, there are interim actions thatCDNR and CPW, in partnership with CDOT, theDivision of Conservation within the ColoradoDepartment of Regulatory A�airs, and DOLA canundertake to begin to address this fundamental issue. As a�rst step, state agencies should work in partnership withColorado’s county associations to convene a workinggroup comprised of local governments, wildlife managers,developers, and conservation organizations with aims to:

● Develop recommendations for incentivizing andimproving the uptake of big game habitat andcorridor protections in local planning initiatives andland-use ordinances;

74 The impacts of high density zoning patterns on ecological systems arediscussed in: S. Brody, “The Characteristics, Causes, andConsequences of Sprawling Development Patterns in the UnitedStates,” Nature: Education and Knowledge, 4(5): Ch. 2, 2013. See alsoJ. Berger, “The Last Mile: How to Sustain Long Distance Migration inMammals,” Conservation Biology (18:2) (2004), 320-331.

73 A discussion of market-driven incentives in local zoning decisionsprovided in: W.A. Fischel, “Zoning Rules!: The Economics of LandUse Regulation,” Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge, 2015,Ch. 4. See also Schuetz, J., Governance and Opportunity inMetropolitan America, “Is Zoning a Useful Tool or RegulatoryBarrier?”, Brookings Institution online, 2019:https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-zoning-a-useful-tool-or-a-regulatory-barrier/


https://www.wafwachat.org/

https://on.doi.gov/397lYvo

https://cnhp.colostate.edu/maps/codex/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-zoning-a-useful-tool-or-a-regulatory-barrier/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-zoning-a-useful-tool-or-a-regulatory-barrier/

23

● Examine applications of 1041 regulations, which vestsome habitat protection authorities in localgovernments;75

● Review existing state and local policy frameworks toidentify possible impediments to implementing bestpractices around big game movement route andsensitive habitat conservation; and

● Explore opportunities to leverage related stateresources for natural resource management andplanning, such as CSFS’ recently-revised ForestRestoration and Wildland Risk Mitigation program,which is similarly exploring approaches forimproving wildland-urban interface (WUI) planningin local communities.76

State agencies are already working with several localgovernments across Colorado to shape innovative zoningordinances and incentive programs to encouragedevelopment outside of big game habitat. In one recentexample, CPW worked with Aspen Valley Land Trust on a�ve-year strategic plan to protect habitat, open space andagricultural land.77 Some communities have also passedballot measures to direct tax dollars or visitor fees towardhabitat conservation and mitigation, recreation lands,watersheds and other related needs, such as GrandCounty’s Open Lands, Rivers and Trails Fund, the City ofSteamboat’s Wildlife Habitat Mitigation (WHILD) LocalDistrict Fund, and Cha�ee County Common GroundFund.78 Finally, through the CWTA, CPW and CDOTare developing a template agreement with counties thatwould recognize the need to maintain open space adjacentto planned wildlife crossing structures to protectinvestments in these structures.

78 Grand County Open Lands, Rivers and Trails Fund

77 Aspen Valley Land Trust 2020-2024 Strategic Plan, online:https://www.avlt.org/strategic-plan.html

76 Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), Forest Restoration andWild�re Risk Mitigation Program:https://csfs.colostate.edu/funding-assistance/2020

75 Daken, 2017.

C. Promote uptake of wildlife land use policy

CPW recently formalized its HPH land use guidelines asagency policy through an administrative directive, and thispolicy was also incorporated into COGCC’srecently-revised 1200 series wildlife regulations.79 OtherCDNR agencies, such as the State Land Board, shouldadopt these recommendations and incorporate them infuture planning and project design decisions. CPW, withsupport from CDNR, should also encourage otherfederal, state, and private land managers to take theserecommendations into consideration in future land usedecisions, and draw on enforceable mechanisms, whereavailable, to drive consistency with state policy.

3. Outdoor Recreation

A. Engage in regional and statewide planning tobalance conservation and recreation

Since FY 2015-16, visitation at Colorado’s state parks hasincreased by approximately 25 percent, from about 13.6million visitor days to more than 17.1 million visitor days.In FY 2019-20, 2.3 million more people visited state parksthan in the prior year, a 15.7 percent increase from FY2018-19. On top of the broader trend of increasedvisitation, state parks have been experiencing a recent andsigni�cant increase in visitation resulting from theCOVID-19 pandemic. Visitation in calendar year 2020exceeded 2019 visitation by approximately 30 percent as a

79 COGCC 2021; CPW 2021 OG-1


https://www.avlt.org/strategic-plan.html

https://csfs.colostate.edu/funding-assistance/2020

24

result of increased participation in outdoor recreation.CPW is also experiencing increased use of its wildlife areasand increased interest in hunting and angling, and similarincreases in recreational activity are also being observed onpublic lands managed by local and federal governments.

There is a need to foster greater coordination amongrecreation and conservation planning e�orts to ensure theprotection of sensitive big game habitat and movementroutes in the face of this dramatic increase in recreationalpressure. To address this issue, Governor Polis recentlysigned the Regional Partnerships EO creating theColorado Outdoor Regional Partnerships initiative. Thegoal of the initiative is to build community ownership ofconservation and outdoor recreation planning e�orts thatsupport conservation of Colorado’s lands, water, andwildlife, while providing for appropriate and sustainableoutdoor recreation opportunities. Through this initiative,CPW has invited existing and new regional coalitions toidentify and prioritize local conservation and recreationprojects guided by a statewide vision that will stress theimportance of protecting big game movement routes andsensitive habitat.

In addition to local and regional planning, the RegionalPartnerships EO tasked state agencies with developing astatewide vision and plan for the future of landscape-scaleconservation and outdoor recreation. Wildlife migrationand movement routes, by de�nition, span regional andeven state boundaries. A statewide conservation andrecreation plan is necessary to strengthen and link regionalconservation and recreation plans and strategies, andidentify objectives and metrics to track collective success.To that end, the Regional Partnerships EO requires thatCDNR, CPW, and the CO-OP collaborate with regionalpartnerships to incorporate local priorities and strategiesinto the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor RecreationPlan by December 1, 2023, and continue to re�ne anddevelop those strategies into a statewide conservation andrecreation plan. CPW should work to ensure that each

regional plan and the statewide plan take into account theneed to conserve identi�ed wildlife routes and otherpriority habitats. One way to accomplish this could be bydeveloping a statewide Habitat Conservation andConnectivity Plan, discussed above, in tandem with astatewide conservation and recreation plan.

B. Plan trails with wildlife in mind

In September 1998, Colorado State Parks published“Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook forTrail Planners” to outline how trails can best be plannedand managed to accommodate conservation objectives andrecognize what trail developers can do to minimizeimpacts on wildlife. Since that time, trail use in Coloradohas skyrocketed, and there is increasing demand for newroutes to accommodate traditional activities such as hikingand mountain climbing and newer activities such asmountain biking and e-biking. In response, CPWupdated and expedited the release of a new Planning Trailswith Wildlife in Mind Handbook, in partnership withfederal and local government partners, stewardshiporganizations, conservation organizations, and trailadvocates. Among other recommendations, the handbookadopts CPW’s HPH land use recommendations forrecreational facility siting and trail/route density.

This new resource will contribute to avoiding andminimizing wildlife impacts from existing and proposedtrails, and identify when mitigating impacts from new trailconstruction is necessary to maintain habitat function andfacilitate wildlife movement. Key considerations includeavoidance of high density trail networks within movementroutes and sensitive habitat, maintaining low routedensities in high priority habitats (i.e. on average, one mileof route per square mile), and species-speci�c bestmanagement practices for trail planners. CDNR, CPW,and CDOT should invest in outreach and education topromote adoption of these recommendations in federaltravel management plans and local recreation plans. In


25

addition, adoption of these recommendations should berequired for all Regional Partnerships.

C. Emphasize the Value of Hunting for WildlifeManagement

It is di�cult to overemphasize the key role that huntingplays in wildlife conservation in Colorado. For over 125years, Colorado has used hunting as the primary methodto manage sustainable and healthy wildlife populationsand to generate (through license fees) the bulk of fundingsupporting conservation actions for both hunted andnon-hunted species. Funds generated by big game huntinglicense sales are used in the conservation of Colorado’swildlife in numerous ways, which includes habitatimprovement and conservation projects that bene�t adiversity of species.

Hunting and angling, and other wildlife-relatedrecreation, contribute over $5 billion annually toColorado’s economy, and the demand for this recreationresource is increasing. In 2021, CPW received 35,703additional applications for big game licenses (as comparedto 2020), an increase of over 5 percent. As a result, agreater number of prospective hunters did not obtain biggame licenses during CPW’s 2021 primary draw. CPWand CDNR should strive to maximize big gamepopulation abundance to the extent consistent withhabitat and other resource objectives.

CDNR, CPW, and the SLB should explore furtherdevelopment of voluntary, incentive-based programs thatprovide hunting opportunities to the public on state andprivate lands, consistent with state public access goals. Forinstance, Ranching for Wildlife is an important programthat forms a partnership between CPW and privatelandowners to obtain public access to large private landholdings in Colorado, and has the co-bene�t ofcontributing to habitat protection objectives. The value isassociated with not only public access, but these

agreements play a key role in the achievement ofpopulation objectives for a number of deer and elkpopulations in Colorado. Given the importance ofhunting in the management of big game, access for ourhunting public is important to achieve our managementobjectives. Where consistent with big game populationmanagement objectives, CPW should work to facilitateaccess to private or public lands currently not available tohunting.

4. Transportation Infrastructure

A. Secure new state funding for safe passageinfrastructure on Colorado highways

The bene�ts of wildlife highway crossing structures interms of human lives saved and wildlife protected havebeen well documented by the CWTA and others. CDOTnotes that an annual average of 3,300 wildlife-vehiclecollisions (WVCs) have been reported in Colorado overthe past decade, with an estimated $66.4 million annuallyin property damage and human injury cost, while manymore collisions likely go undocumented.80 One example ofa successful highway mitigation project to reduce WVCsand provide continued habitat connectivity in Colorado isState Highway 9 (SH 9), south of Kremmling. Between1996 and 2016, nearly 600 vehicle accidents related to

80 CDOT Wildlife Program, Annual Roadkill Reports,https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/wildlife/data


https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/wildlife/data

26

wildlife occurred on SH 9, with an average of 56 wildlifecollisions a year. WVCs have decreased annually by 90percent since the construction of �ve wildlife underpassesand two overpasses, connected by 10.5 miles of fencing.81

However, wildlife crossing projects can be costly, runningfrom $1 million for basic underpasses and fencing to tensof millions for comprehensive systems, and neitherCDOT nor CPW have dedicated funding sources tosupport these projects. To address this challenge, CPWand CDOT recently completed the West Slope WildlifePrioritization (WSWPS) study, a rigorous research projectto prioritize big game herds and highway segments acrosswestern Colorado in most need of mitigation to reducewildlife vehicle con�icts. The WSWPS also providesmitigation recommendations for the top priority areaswithin a decision support framework which includes acost-bene�t analysis and guidance for integratingmitigation into CDOT Transportation planning andproject development. CDOT is scheduled to complete acomplementary study for the East Slope and High Plainsin 2021, which will provide similar guidance for theeastern part of the state.

As part of its recently adopted 10-year plan, CDOT hasidenti�ed between $1.5 billion and $2.7 billion of capitaland asset management projects, and over 100 projects ofall sizes that are prioritized for construction and will beconstructed as funding becomes available These include25 migration corridor enhancement projects to helpwildlife, particularly deer and elk populations, thrive whilereducing collisions with vehicles and helping keep thetraveling public safe. Projects currently in design, underconstruction, or recently completed to reduce WCVsinclude portions of SH 13, I-25, I-70, US 160, US 50, US550 and US 285. Although construction of new wildlife

81 Average WVC 87% reduction, depending on design features,per M.P. Huijser et al., “Wildlife-Vehicle Reduction Study: Report toCongress,” FHWYA-HRT-08-034, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Highway Administration, pp. 12, 186.

crossings are needed in many areas to maintain or enhancewildlife connectivity, improvements to existing bridgesand culverts in need of repair improve infrastructureintegrity while increasing driver safety and wildlifeconnectivity.

While progress has been made, the General Assemblyshould prioritize new funding for transportation projectsidenti�ed by CPW and CDOT that provide a clear bene�tto wildlife populations and human health. For example,Wyoming is accessing funding from the Wyoming Wildlifeand Natural Resource Trust, the newly-created WYldlifeFund, and Game and Fish Commission funds to helpconstruct wildlife crossing structures throughout the state.The General Assembly could follow suit by creating adedicated fund to support the construction of wildlifecrossings in Colorado.

New funds could also be used to acquire conservationeasements on properties adjacent to crossing structures,promote the development and use of new technology anddesign options, and �nance continued research todetermine project e�cacy and connectivity value. Forexample, the CDOT Research Branch made "MitigatingWildlife Vehicle Collisions and Improving Safe WildlifePassage" a research emphasis area in 2021; providingfunding for a novel research project to determine viaexisting published literature and unpublished reports ifthere is a point of diminishing returns in e�ectivenesswhen it comes to sizing highway wildlife passages. Thiswill assist in optimizing the sizing of passages leading tothe most cost e�ective implementation while addressingconcerns outlined in the Big Game EO, and also serve as areference for crossing structure dimensions, allowing for amore informed project planning and design process.


27

B. Advocate for additional federal transportationfunding for wildlife safe passage infrastructure

The State should work with Colorado’s congressionaldelegation and the federal administration to advocate forfederal funding to support state wildlife safe passage andrelated transportation projects, as well as investments inmechanisms to improve inter-state and federalcoordination and information sharing related to WVCs.The transportation bills passed by the house in July, 2021and under consideration in the Senate, if signed into law,would address several provisions related to highwaytransportation infrastructure including wildlife relatedprovisions. Provisions important to Colorado big gameinclude:

● Authorization of dedicated funding for programs toimprove connectivity, reduce WVCs and makehighways safer for people and wildlife;

● Development of a voluntary template to standardizewildlife collision and carcass data and expandeligibility for wildlife infrastructure under othertransportation grants and funding sources;

● Funding for transportation and wildlife agency sta�development and training; and

● Expanded research into the causes and solutions toreduce WVCs while improving habitat connectivity.

C. Invest in the CWTA and agency capacity toimprove coordination and prioritization

Despite the signi�cant demands placed on CDOT andCPW in the Big Game EO and SO 3362, neither agencymaintains full-time sta� dedicated to the CWTA orassociated coordination on wildlife corridor and highwaypermeability projects. In addition, the operation of theCWTA itself has been supported ad hoc by both agencieson a year-to-year basis without a dedicated source offunding. It is evident that this sta�ng de�cit must beaddressed when considering the fact that these recent

directives require CPW and CDOT to study and authorreports regarding big game migration patterns andseasonal habitats, develop action plans to periodicallyupdate lists of high-priority big game migration andmovement corridors and seasonal habitats statewide,consider policy and regulatory actions, work with privatelandowners, local governments, public landowners andTribal representatives, work with neighboring states forhabitat and movement routes spanning state lines, anddevelop public information campaigns and outreache�orts regarding wildlife movement, among other tasks.

CPW’s budget request for a Wildlife MovementCoordinator position was recently approved, which willbegin to address sta�ng constraints. However, both CPWand CDOT should make it a priority to address theworkload demands of the CWTA in future budgetrequests and streamline intra-agency �nancial procedures.CDOT should also work to identify a reliable source ofannual funding for internal sta� to provide assistance inwork plan deliverables. Securing new sta� and resourcesfor both agencies will support the future development andcontinued success of CWTA, and facilitate interagencycoordination.

Finally, CPW and CDOT should continue to improve theconsistency of wildlife impact assessments across regions,personnel, and project types. For example, theco-development of an inter-agency roadkill data trackingsystem currently being tested by select agency sta� acrossthe state will help inform future wildlife mitigation needs.In many instances, the extent of WVCs may not bethoroughly understood until a reliable and standardizedstatewide dataset is created. For instance, the SH 9 wildlifecrossing monitoring project found that crash and carcassdata compiled by CDOT accounted for only 19 percentand 63 percent, respectively, of the actual WVC countedduring the monitoring study.


28

D. Strengthen adoption of wildlife guidelines fortransportation infrastructure projects

CDOT should work with CPW to explore opportunitiesto strengthen internal guidance around big gamemovement and habitat, including the establishment ofpolicies to ensure engagement with CPW from earlyproject planning through the construction phase and theincorporation of wildlife mitigation features in projectdesign. In tandem, CPW should foster coordination bycontributing data and input to inform CDOT’s LongRange Planning Process and development of its 4-year and10-year plans.

Policy shifts that prioritize wildlife-friendly projects, whilemore challenging to implement, could also eventuallyexpand the scope and e�ectiveness of CDOT and CPW’swork to conserve big game and limit WVCs. For example,CDOT’s Transportation Commission could amend itsPolicy Directive 14.0 Policy Guiding Statewide PlanDevelopment goals, performance measures, and objectivesto incorporate goals to maintain habitat connectivity andreduce WVCs. CDOT could also incorporate prioritywildlife crossings identi�ed by the CWTA into its short-and long-term planning products, including the StatewideTransportation Plan (SWP), Regional TransportationPlans (RTPs), and 10-Year Plan. Finally, CDOT couldamend its project-speci�c scoping form to include arequirement to address habitat connectivity and WVCmortality concerns for projects located in CPW-mappedbig game movement corridors. To expedite these policychanges, the General Assembly could also considerrequiring a review of wildlife impacts and theimplementation of mitigation measures in all relevanttransportation projects.

5. Energy Development

A. Implement state oil and gas wildlife rules

On November 23, 2020, the COGCC unanimouslyadopted robust new rules regulating the permitting,development, and operation of oil and gas facilities inwildlife habitat throughout Colorado. The new rulesresulted from the passage of SB19-181, which changedCOGCC’s mission from “fostering” to “regulating” oiland gas development in a manner that protects publichealth, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildliferesources.82 Some of the major wildlife-related updates tothe oil and gas rules include the following:

● Designation of HPH, including big game migrationroutes, pinch points, priority habitat, including,production, calving, fawning, and summerconcentration areas, and winter range, and arequirement to consult with CPW on oil and gasdevelopments proposed within these habitats;

● A requirement that operators consider alternativelocations that either avoid HPH altogether, or,where avoidance is not feasible, consider locationsthat minimize adverse impacts to the maximumextent possible;

● A requirement to develop Wildlife Mitigation Plansfor oil and gas developments in HPH to addressdirect, indirect, and cumulative impacts of oil and

82 COGCC, 2021


29

gas development, and to describe operating practicesand other measures that will be implemented toavoid, minimize, and in some cases, mitigate impactsto wildlife resources;

● The establishment of protective setbacks for oil andgas developments from the most sensitive HPH,including riparian areas;

● New rules incentivizing low density development inmigration and movement routes and certain HPH toreduce fragmentation and maintain habitat function,and landscape permeability for free-ranging big gamespecies; and

● A requirement for compensatory mitigation to o�setthe functional loss of habitat from oil and gasdevelopment in certain high priority habitat throughpayment of a habitat mitigation fee or thedevelopment of new habitat mitigation projects.

With an e�ective date of January 15, 2021, it is now theresponsibility of COGCC to implement these ruleswithout delay, and it is also likely that additional CPWsta� resources will be required to support this newregulatory framework.

CPW and COGCC also should work with federal landmanagement agencies to incorporate the wildliferecommendations contained in the rules into federalplanning decisions to ensure management consistencyacross all lands in the state. This includes working withthe BLM and USFS to update the longstandingMemorandum of Understanding for permitting processeson federal surface and mineral estate to re�ect the newrules, as well as active participation in federal land usedecisions.

In addition, CDNR and CPW should work with theBLM to initiate a statewide resource management planamendment (RMPA) process to strengthen oil and gaslease stipulations consistent with the new wildlife rules,including implementing facility and route density

limitations to protect key big game migration movementroutes, priority winter ranges, and production, calving,fawning, and summer concentration areas. (Appropriatedensity limitations should also be applied to other types ofproposed development on BLM lands outside of the oiland gas, for example, recreational trail projects, cleanenergy infrastructure siting, etc.) Until all BLM plans inColorado can be amended to accommodate HPHprovisions, the BLM should issue an InstructionalMemorandum (IM) requiring Colorado Field O�ces toadopt the best practices for conserving big game habitatsas described in CPW’s HPH Recommendations. Similarly,the state should work with the USFS to ensure thatstandards and guidelines, travel management, and otherprovisions in forest management plans also align with statewildlife recommendations. To the extent practicable, theseplans should incorporate careful monitoring andoutcomes-based adaptive management provisions toaccount for new collaring or observational data, orchanges in environmental conditions.

Additionally, the state should work with federal agenciesand the Colorado Congressional delegation to ensure thatlands under protected designations, such as CRAs, Areasof Critical Environmental Concern, Wilderness StudyAreas, Wilderness and the like, can continue to providelandscape connectivity and high quality habitat.

Finally, it is particularly important for CPW to prioritizethe development of a habitat mitigation fund to facilitatenew requirements for compensatory mitigation in the1200 series oil and gas rules, which allow operators to�nancially o�set their direct and indirect impacts onwildlife habitat from proposed oil and gas development.While operators maintain the ability to conduct their ownmitigation projects, it is anticipated that many will utilizethe habitat mitigation fund for simplicity and to avoiddevoting sta� resources to the development of mitigationprojects. The habitat mitigation fund will be utilized byCPW to plan and execute habitat enhancement and


30

conservation projects that mitigate, as much as possible,the impacts to the species or herd being impacted by thedevelopment. CPW sta� will submit annual reports to theCOGCC to document the amount of compensatorymitigation funds collected and subsequent projectscompleted.

B. Strengthen and Streamline Renewable EnergyProject and Transmission Lines Recommendations

Current regulations are also insu�cient to guarantee thatbig game movement and migration routes, and othersensitive habitats for big game and other priority species,are not impacted by utility-scale solar and winddevelopment, transmission lines, and associatedinfrastructure on federal, state, and private lands. Tobegin to inform this issue, CPW recently �nalized bestmanagement practices for solar energy developments foruse in comments and during consultation with federal,state and local permitting authorities.83 CDNR and CPWshould also convene an inter-agency working group,including the State Land Board, CDA, DOLA, ColoradoEnergy O�ce (CEO), and Colorado Public UtilitiesCommission, to explore opportunities to furtherminimize the impacts of renewable energy developmenton big game habitat, including:

● Strengthening wildlife consultation requirements forrenewable energy projects;

● Instituting project acreage limitations within biggame movement and migration routes and habitat;

● Encouraging renewable energy facility placement inalready developed areas with lower wildlife value;

● Creating a mitigation fund to o�set the impacts ofrenewable energy development in these habitats,similar to recently-revised state oil and gasregulations; and

83 CPW, BMPas for Solar Energy Development, May, 2021:https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2021/June/Item.18-Colorado_Parks_and_Wildlife_Solar_Energy_BMPs_May_2021.pdf

● Considering opportunities to redirect existing localassistance funds to incentivize development outsideof priority big game habitat through clustering plans,co-location, and easements or covenants.

C. Improve habitat compatibility of federalrenewable energy decisions

The current federal guidance regarding renewable energyproject planning and permitting is cumbersome, creatingbarriers for industry to pursue projects on public lands.State agencies, including CEO, CPW, and CDNR, shouldwork with federal land management agencies to initiateprogrammatic environmental assessments that wouldanalyze opportunities for streamlining permittingprocedures, identifying appropriate lands for renewableenergy projects, and incentivizing development outside ofhigh priority habitat.

Additionally, the State should work with members of theColorado Congressional delegation and federaladministration to advance legislation and programs thatstrengthen federal renewable energy requirements andcreate mechanisms for directing resources to states, Tribes,and other eligible entities to mitigate the impacts ofrenewable energy projects on wildlife habitat andmovement routes on public lands.


https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2021/June/Item.18-Colorado_Parks_and_Wildlife_Solar_Energy_BMPs_May_2021.pdf

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2021/June/Item.18-Colorado_Parks_and_Wildlife_Solar_Energy_BMPs_May_2021.pdf

31

6. Conservation on Private Lands

A. Reauthorize and Streamline the HabitatPartnership Program

CPW’s Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) has beenhighly successful in reducing wildlife con�icts onagricultural lands, enhancing agency relations with privatelandowners, and limiting private landowners’ �nancialliabilities for improving big game habitat and otherwisecontributing to herd maintenance. The program isstrongly supported by agency sta�, agriculturalorganizations, and numerous rural partners. However,considering the program’s forthcoming expiration in 2023and limitations presented by its current structure instatute, CPW should pursue legislation to reauthorize andstreamline HPP to continue to ensure critical locallandowner support for big game management objectives.CPW sta� and regional roundtables should also considerthe potential e�ciencies of investing unexpended funds inlarge-scale big game habitat restoration projects, such asthrough the RESTORE program, as consistent withagency priorities.

B. Continue to explore alternative valuation modelsto improve participation in conservation easementand tax credit programs

While conservation easements are a valuable tool forprotecting big game movement routes and priorityhabitat, it is challenging for landowners in some regions ofthe state with important big game populations to bene�tfrom the state tax credit because of the lack of directdevelopment pressure that would make them eligible for ahigh conservation easement valuation. Recognizing thisissue, HB19-1264 called for the director of the Division ofConservation to investigate “an alternative method to theappraisal process set forth in section 39-22-522 (3.3) toestablish the amount of tax credits for which a quali�edconservation easement contribution would be eligible.”Under this direction, CDNR and CPW should continueto work with land trusts, CSU, Division of Conservationand the General Assembly to develop an alternativevaluation method for conservation easements with thegoal of compensating private landowners for theconservation value of wildlife habitat or other ecosystemservice protections protected by the easement, in additionto evaluating participation and outcomes resulting thepassage of HB21-1233, which strengthened the existingconservation easement tax credit program to compensatelandowners for the forfeited development potential oftheir eased property.

C. Improve uptake and effectiveness of USDA FarmBill programs

The 2018 Farm Bill is the largest single source of fundingfor conservation on private lands, resulting indistributions of approximately $6 billion through NRCSannually. A number of 2018 Farm Bill programs provideimportant wildlife habitat conservation bene�ts throughconservation easements or �nancial or technical assistanceto private landowners. CDNR divisions, along with CDA,


32

regularly consult with NRCS and landowners. However,state agency personnel historically have had limitedcapacity to provide technical assistance to prospectiveapplicants to improve program participation, or tocoordinate with one another to identify shared prioritiesor develop high-value proposals. CPW, other CDNRdivisions and CDA should work to improve thee�ectiveness of 2018 Farm Bill programs by continuing todedicate sta� and resources for active participation in StateTechnical Committees and Sub-Committees related toforestry and wildlife, and by providing feedback oneligibility criteria and program e�ectiveness.

Given the importance of federal support in light of statebudget constraints, CDNR and CPW should spearheadan interagency working group to consider input into the2023 Farm Bill and provide recommendations to ensurethat the state’s wildlife needs are re�ected in thisimportant legislation, and continue to work withWAFWA and AFWA to ensure e�ective conservation titlesin the bill. In the future, the working group could alsochampion local, community-based e�orts and the state’shabitat conservation objectives in NRCS programpriorities, maximize enrollment of Colorado landownersin NRCS programs, and help to position proposals poisedto bene�t big game habitat to receive funding.84 Farm Billprograms would also bene�t from morestrategically-driven priorities for wildlife at local andlandscape levels, such as priorities developed with inputfrom CPW personnel in a statewide habitat conservationand connectivity plan, Outdoor Regional Partnershipconservation and recreation plans, or others.

D. Continue support for innovative private landconservation programs

Private lands make up almost 60 percent of Colorado’slandmass and provide important big game conservationbene�ts across the state. (See Appendix A: Colorado Land

84 See Center for Landscape Connectivity (2019), 22.

Ownership Map) In recognition of private landowners’important contributions, Colorado has developed a suiteof innovative tools to incentivize their participation inwildlife habitat protection e�orts. Both the ColoradoWildlife Habitat Program (CWHP) and Ranching forWildlife (RFW) support actions that bene�t wildlife onprivate lands. CWHP o�ers opportunities for privatelandowners to voluntarily protect key wildlife habitatthrough perpetual conservation easements and relatedmechanisms, provide wildlife-related recreational access tothe public and, if appropriate, facilitate propertyacquisition by CPW. RFW secures public hunting access,and habitat protection and enhancement particularly onlarge ranches along big game movement routes and inother priority habitat. Supporting these programs, with acontinued emphasis on evaluating their role in providingbene�ts to big game populations, provides additionalopportunities to partner with private landowners inaccomplishing goals related to wildlife habitat.

Along similar lines, the Colorado Habitat Exchange(CHE) was created in partnership with external entities toprovide an alternative source of revenue for landowners tomaintain large working ranches, and subsequently reducefurther subdivision of private holdings. While theprogram is still in existence, stakeholder interest in theCHE has waned in recent years. CPW, in coordinationwith CDA and other stakeholders, should considerrevitalizing the CHE partnership. Renewed interest andinvestment would ensure that this mechanism remainsavailable as an option in the future.


33

7. Research Needs and Data Gaps

A. Expand animal research capabilities

For 60 years, CPWs Research Unit’s active wildlifemonitoring, research and observation have allowed theagency to identify movement routes and sensitive habitatsthat are crucial to maintaining healthy big gamepopulations.85 As a national leader, CPW works bothindependently, and collaboratively with public and privatepartners, to gather information through animal collaring,disease monitoring, wildlife surveys, habitat assessment,data modeling, and other methods. These activities arecrucial to informing decision-making, and to maximizingmanagement and resource allocation e�ciencies, and alsoserve to identify data gaps and additional research needs.Ongoing or expanded investments in habitat enhancementprojects, climate adaptation research, animal collaring anddisease studies, in particular, must be prioritized in futureresource allocation decisions, along with projects thatprotect big game winter range and maintain landscapepermeability.

As a key example, CPW invests signi�cant time andresources in capturing and collaring between 1,000 to

85 Observation has been important to shaping wildlife and habitatmanagement priorities since the inception of Colorado's gameprogram, however, the �rst wildlife agency research unit was formallyestablished in 1961.

1,500 elk, mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep andmoose annually. In recent years, the agency has beentransitioning from very high frequency (VHF) collars, forwhich animals must be physically located by sta� to obtainlocations, to global positioning system- (GPS-) enabledcollars that gather real-time location data by satellitecommunication. GPS data is then either stored on thecollar for later retrieval or transmitted directly fordownload. GPS allows for an abundance of real-timelocation data to be gathered (a single project can generatehundreds of thousands of locations), and furthermore,provides location data throughout the day and night, evenfrom remote locations. Although this improvedtechnology has greatly contributed to wildlife managers’understanding of animal movements, it is signi�cantlymore costly, and can result in data management andstorage issues, as well as increased concerns associated withthe distribution of real-time locations.

CPW lacks the hardware, software development, andsta�ng to address the need to develop an intra-agency,server-based database for GPS collar data storage andanalysis to streamline data collection and processing whilemaintaining privacy protections for private landowners.These capacity improvements would allow for the bestavailable science to be used as a planning resource inidentifying wildlife seasonal ranges and movement routes.

However, as the use of GPS collars to track big game andsensitive species increases, so does the need to protectlocation data. There are several reasons why protection ofwildlife location data is important, including:

● The need to protect data associated with on-goingresearch and management studies as it relates toproprietary use;

● The concern that location data, especially real-timelocations, would be used to pursue wildlife duringhunting activities, negating the value of ethical and


34

sportsmanlike pursuit and potentially puttingcollared sensitive species at risk;

● The concern for animal welfare and increasedharassment if location data is distributed, which mayinclude activities associated with commercial gainssuch as wildlife viewing, hunting, and shedcollection; and

● The potential for the public to scrutinize collaringstudies if the data is released and misused forunattended purposes.

Several western states have passed bills to limit the releaseof collar data, and Colorado should consider similarlegislation in consultation with CPW sta� andconservation partners.

B. Build capacity to develop a priority habitat andmovement route climate adaptation strategy

Funding for land conservation and restoration is limited,and investments should be informed by climate changedata to help ensure that we are conserving the mostresilient landscapes. However, our understanding of thelocalized impacts of climate change on big game habitatand strategies to address these impacts are limited. As aresult, CPW should explore partnerships with researchorganizations, such as the Colorado State University andthe University of Colorado, that further extend theagency’s capacity and knowledge around climate resiliency.In addition, CPW should work with partners to considerconservation strategies that lead to more climate resilientwildlife populations through the use of new modelingtechnologies, such as the Nature Conservancy’s Resilientand Connected Lands Tool, CNHP’s CoMAP orCODEX tools, or others.

8. External Partnerships and PublicOutreach

A. Expand external partnerships and coordinationto advance state wildlife priorities

Wildlife movement routes and habitats often crossjurisdictional boundaries, requiring multi-state andmulti-agency conservation e�orts. As a state agency, CPWis a member of WAFWA and AFWA, both of whichadvance collaborative, science-based conservation.Through these collaborations, information is shared anddeveloped related to wildlife issues, strategies, policy, andconservation. CPW is also an active member in severaldi�erent councils, including those that focus on big game,habitat, and/or transportation topics such as the WAFWAMule Deer Working Group; Wildlife Movement andMigration Working Group; and Habitat Committee, andthe AFWA Transportation and Wildlife Community ofPractice and Agricultural Committee. Collaboration andcommunication among states facilitates e�ectivemanagement approaches, better data standardization, andthe development of in�uential policy and action acrossjurisdictional boundaries.

Data and information can also be pooled and analyzed atlarger landscape scales beyond the state boundaries. Oneexample is the USGS Ungulate Migrations of the WesternUnited States publication, Volume 2 (as well as futurevolumes), which presents a standardized analytical and


35

computational method and work�ow to apply tostate-collected data related to winter range and movementroutes. Through this and projects, the state shouldencourage collaborative, multi-jurisdictional cooperationregarding movement route and priority habitatidenti�cation and conservation.

Finally, both SO 3362 and the Big Game EO underscorethe importance of regional and multi-stakeholdercooperation in research and monitoring e�orts. Becausethese e�orts can be resource-, sta�- and time-intensive,they are often sidelined in favor of more immediate orlocalized priorities. Federal funding for coordination, asprovided by DOI under SO 3362 and, to a lesser degree,USDA, will continue to be critical sources of support.CPW, CDOT and other state agencies should alsoprioritize inter-jurisdictional research in federal fundingrequests, and identify opportunities to augment federalsupport with existing �nancial and sta� resources.

B. Build Support through Outreach and Education

Although wildlife managers have long understood theimportance of promoting wildlife habitat connectivity, theconcept is relatively nascent for the general public andpolicy makers. As a result, it is important to buildawareness about how big game species move across theColorado landscape, and how particular actions cancontribute to habitat fragmentation, degradation, or loss.State agencies, including CPW, CDOT, and CDNR, canstrengthen support for policy interventions by engaging adiverse range of partners in education and outreach,including conservation and sportspersons stakeholders,local, federal, and Tribal governments, and interestedcitizens.

CPW has a long-term commitment to public educationand outreach related to big game and wildlifemanagement, including promoting the value of protecting

big game habitat and connectivity. In addition to a team ofeducation coordinators around the state, CPW’s �eld sta�conduct numerous education programs each year inassociation with schools, volunteer programs, colleges,teacher workshops, and hunter education programs andcreate materials that can be leveraged by teachers orwildlife professionals. For example, CPW sta� recentlydeveloped two school modules focusing on wildlifemovement for CWTA.

Additionally, CDOT and CPW spearheaded thedevelopment of an interactive online map to display nearly70 dedicated wildlife crossing structures in Colorado,ranging from smaller pipe culverts to larger span bridgesand wildlife overpasses. This product will serve as aninformative tool both for internal decision-making andpublic education purposes. Other e�orts includeparticipating in webinars and workshops hosted byexternal partners, co-hosting conservation �lm viewings,and taking part in community events to share habitatconnectivity success stories.

Regardless of the format or forum, it will be critical forstate agencies to continue to invest in expanded publicoutreach initiatives and campaigns with a diversity ofexternal partners, and to tailor materials and messages toresonate with target audiences.86

862019. Wildlife Connectivity: Opportunities for State Legislation.Center for Large Landscape Conservation: Bozeman, Montana, R.R.Amend et al (2019).


36

ConclusionThe future viability of Colorado’s big game and otherwildlife species will be determined by the actions of thestate and its federal, Tribal, local and private partners atthis critical juncture. State wildlife managers and theirpartners have positioned Colorado at the forefront of biggame management and habitat conservation for nearly150 years. However, persistent environmental,development and population pressures threaten toundermine signi�cant investments in the management ofthe state’s big game populations, with impacts on biggame winter range and movement routes of particularconcern.

As this report suggests, no single policy, regulatory ormanagement action is su�cient to address thesechallenges. Instead, the state must adopt acomprehensive approach to improving habitat forColorado’s iconic big game species, including thedevelopment of a statewide habitat and connectivityplan, and enlist the full cooperation of its partners inimplementing near-and long-term solutions. Withleadership by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and a focuson collaboration, we can ensure that Colorado’s biggame and other wildlife populations are conserved forfuture generations.

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Conclusion

i

Appendix A

Map: Land Ownership in Colorado

Source: Colorado Natural Heritage Program, CoMAP (2017)

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Appendix A

1

Appendix B:

Examples of Federal, State and Collaborative Conservation Funding Programs

Federal Conservation Funding Programs

Bene�ciaries Program Title andAdministrator

Description Est. Total AnnualProgram Funds

Recent CO ProgramFunds/Allocations

Privatelandowners

Environmental QualityIncentives Program (EQIP)*

(USDA - NRCS)*

Financial assistance for conservation practices tooptimize priority environmental bene�ts on workinglands. (May be augmented by states.) (75% fed costshare capped at $450,000; 1-10 year contract term.)

$1.85 billion

(ave. annual fundingthrough FY23)

$37.6 million (FY20)

Privatelandowners

Agricultural ConservationEasement Program (ACEP)*(USDA - NRCS)*

Conservation easements to landowners throughcooperating entities to limit production on workinglands and protect wetlands. (50%-100% fed cost share;up to 30 year contract terms.)

$450 million

(annual fundingthrough FY23)

$5.1 million (FY20)

Privatelandowners

Conservation StewardshipProgram (CSP)*(USDA - NRCS)

Performance-based incentives for existing conservationsystem enhancements to address priority resourcesconcerns (Max $40,000 per year, 5 year contract term)

$1.5 billion


$5.6 million (FY20)

Privatelandowners

Regional ConservationPartnerships Program(RCPP)*(USDA-NRCS)

Coordinated funding partnerships in support oflarge-scale innovation projects in priority conservationareas, through Critical Conservation Area (65%non-federal match) or state/multi-state (75%non-federal match) funding pools

$300 million


$560,000 (FY20)

Privatelandowners

Conservation Reserve Program(CRP)*(USDA - NRCS/FSA)

Annual rental payments and additional cost shareincentives for cropland acreage contributing to prioritystewardship bene�ts issued on competitive orcontinual basis

$1.8 billion (FY21-23ave/year)

Not accessible

Privatelandowners

Conservation ReserveEnhancement Program(CREP)*(USDA-NRCS/FSA)

Program within CRP supporting regional or stateenvironmental priorities in targeted geographic areas

Included in CRP Not accessible

State and LocalGovernments,Privatelandowners

Forest Legacy Program(USDA-FS via CSFS)**

Competitive grants to states to conserve priority foreststhreatened by conversion to nonforest uses, throughconservation easements or fee simple purchase,administered in cooperation with states (max. $20million)

$94 million (FY21) $7 million (FY20)

Local, TribalGovernments;Non-pro�ts

Community Forest and OpenSpace Conservation Program(USDA- FS)

Competitive grants to communities for acquisitionsand management of forest lands with public access andconservation bene�ts (50% non-federal match)

$4 million $225,000 (FY16 ProjectGrant)

FederalGovernment

Land and Water ConservationFund (LWCF) - Core **(USDOI-NPS)

Federal land acquisitions in support ofrecreation/public access and conservation priorities,distributed between USDOI and USDA agencies

$280 million

(FY21 - all federalacquisitions)

$30 million (FY21)

(Incl. $20 million BLMunspeci�ed)

Local, Tribaland StateGovernments

LWCF - State and Local(“Stateside”)**(USDOI-NPS; CPW)

Competitive and formula grants to state, local andTribal governments to create and expand park andrecreational facilities through, administered by stateagencies ($250,000-$750,000; 50% non-fed match)

$325 million

(FY21; $220 millionformula, $125 millioncompetitive)

$5.1 million

(FY21 CO state formulaapportionment)

State and Local Cooperative Endangered Competitive grants to states (or local subgrantees) for $30 million (FY21) ~$600,000 (FY20 new

Colorado’s Big Game Habitat and Connectivity: Appendix C

2

Governments Species Fund (“Section 6”) -Land Acquisition grants**(USDOI - FWS)

restoration projects and land acquisitions in support ofHabitat Conservation Plans (HCP) for ESA-listed,candidate or at risk species; or ESA-listed speciesrecovery plan (Recovery Land Acquisition) (max ~$10million; 50% non-federal match)

( $19 million HCP;$11 million RLA)

projects)

North American WetlandsConservation Act (NAWCA)(USDOI-FWS)

Competitive standard and small grants programs forwetland and upland habitat conservation, primarilybene�ting migratory birds

$46 million (FY21) N/A

PrivateLandowners (

Landowner Incentive Program(USDOI-FWS, through CPW) **

Competitive and noncompetitive project grants forprivate conservation e�orts in support of State WildlifeAction Plans, supplementing state incentive programs(Tier 1 max $200,000)

-- ~$5 million (FY2017-21)

State, Local,Tribal Govts.Non-pro�ts,PrivateLandowners

Colorado Partners for Fishand Wildlife (USDOI - FWS)

Cooperative program between state, local, tribal, andfederal agencies, conservation organizations andlandowners o�ering incentives for voluntary habitatrestoration, enhancement and connectivity e�orts onprivate lands (max $750,000)

$57 million (FY21) --

States Wildlife and Sport FishRestoration Program (WSFR)State Wildlife Grants (SWG)***(USDOI - FWS)

Support to state wildlife agencies for habitatrestoration, species conservation, research, monitoring,and related activities to implement SWAPs disbursedthrough formula-based annual apportionments andcompetitive project grants.

$55 million (FY21) $1.2 million (FY21apportionment)

$345 million (FY17project grant)

StateGovernments

WSFR Wildlife RestorationFunds (PR Funds)***

Annual apportionments in support of state �sh andwildlife agency operations

$679 million (FY21) $17 million (FY21apportionment)

* Included among 2018 Farm Bill programs aimed at incentivizing voluntary conservation efforts on privately owned lands through various financial and technicalassistance mechanisms. (Additional programs also authorized by the the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334).

** Programs funded in whole or in part through Land and Water Conservation Fund as authorized by the Great American Outdoors Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-94 )

*** WSFR funds are authorized by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (“Pittman-Robertson Act”), and l funded by a federal excise tax on huntingequipment and annual Congressional appropriations. In addition to formula-based SWG and WR apportionments to states and Tribes, FWS administers a suite ofincentive and grant programs under WSFR.

Collaborative Conservation Funding Programs


Description Est. Total AnnualProgram Funds^

Est. CO AnnualProgram Funds^

State, Local,TribalGovernments,Non-pro�ts

Rocky Mountain RestorationInitiative (National WildTurkey Federation)

Cooperative pooled funding program convened by theFS and National Wild Turkey Federation and partnersto support landscape-scale forest, habitat andcommunity resiliency projects.

-- >$50 million(multi-year)

State, Local,Tribal, FederalGovernments,Non-pro�ts,

RESTORE Colorado (NationalFish and WildlifeFoundation)(NFWF)

Collaborative, public-private pooled resource programproviding competitive grants for large-scale priorityhabitat restoration, enhancement and land acquisitionprojects in Colorado (min. $100,000)

-- $2.7 million (FY20);$3.1 million (FY21)

State, Tribal,Local, FederalGovernments;Non-pro�ts

Improving Habitat Quality inWestern Big Game MigrationCorridors and HabitatConnectivity (NFWF)

Pooled federal-private resource competitive grants inWestern states in support of S.O. 3362 Big GameAction Plans, including land acquisitions, easements,research, safe passage infrastructure, and relatedactivities (50% non-program match)

$4 million $580,000 (FY20);$150,000 (FY21)


3

State Conservation Funding Programs


Description Est. Total AnnualProgram Funds (Asapplicable)

Est. CO AnnualProgram Funds

PrivateLandowners

Habitat Partnership Program(HPP) (CDNR- CPW)

Financial and technical assistance designed to alleviateor mitigate wildlife and agricultural or livestockcon�icts on private lands in Colorado, allocated toregional committees.

-- $2.5 million (FY21)

CPW,Non-pro�ts

Big Game Hunting LicenseAuctions and Ra�es (CPW)

CPW retains a portion of revenues from donated biggame hunting license ra�es conducted by non-pro�tconservation partner organizations (up to 75%)

-- ~$592,000 /year

PrivateLandowners,Land Trusts

Conservation Easement TaxCredit (CO Dept. RegulatoryA�airs - Division ofConservation)

Voluntary incentive program providing conservationeasements on private lands providing priorityenvironmental bene�ts (90% of donated assessed value,up to $5 million)

~$45 million --

PrivateLandowners

Colorado Wildlife HabitatProtection Program (CPW)

Support for habitat protection and expanded public saccess on private lands through easements and landacquisitions, funded in part by Habitat Stamp proceeds

-- $11 million (FY21)

CPW and LocalGovernments;Non-pro�ts

Great Outdoors Colorado(GOCO)

Grants for state parks and open space land acquisition,recreation and wildlife restoration projects funded by50% of state lottery proceeds (many grants havecross-cutting bene�ts. Also includes RESTORE.)

-- ~$70 million (FY21)

(Across all programs)

LocalGovernments

Conservation Trust Fund(CTF) (CO Dept. Local A�airs)

Grants to local governments for open space andrecreation grants apportioned annually by apopulation-based formula and funded by 40% of statelottery proceeds.

-- $58 million (FY21)

^ Estimated Total and State Program Funds as applicable and accessible.

References

Federal:

● National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition: https://sustainableagriculture.net/● Federal grant allocations, USASPending.gov - https://www.usaspending.gov/● CRS Report: Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs (Updated August, 2019): https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40763.pdf● U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee - FY21 Explanatory Statement DOI Appropriations:

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/INTRept.pdf● CRS Report - FY2021 USDA Appropriations - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R4643● USDOI - FWS - Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Program Awards - https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/index.html#grants

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/section6.pdf● USFS 2021 Forest Legacy Project Awards - https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/�les/FY2021-FLP-ProjectsFinalList-508.pdf

State:

● CPW Hunting Ra�e Fact Sheet: https://cpw.state.co.us/auctionra�elicense● Great Outdoors Colorado FY21-25 Spending Pla:n https://goco.org/sites/default/�les/GOCO-Spending%20Plan-062821_0.pdf● Colorado Legislature, Joint Budget Committee FY21-22 Long Bill, Operating Agency Budgets:

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/�les/documents/2021A/bills/2021a_nat_act.pdf

Collaborative:

● NFWF Rocky Mountain Rangelands: https://www.nfwf.org/programs/rocky-mountain-rangelands● Rocky Mountain Restoration Initiative: https://restoringtherockies.org/


https://sustainableagriculture.net/

https://www.usaspending.gov/

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40763.pdf

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/INTRept.pdf

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46437

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/index.html#grants

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/section6.pdf

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/FY2021-FLP-ProjectsFinalList-508.pdf

https://cpw.state.co.us/auctionrafflelicense

https://goco.org/sites/default/files/GOCO-Spending%20Plan-062821_0.pdf

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021A/bills/2021a_nat_act.pdf

https://restoringtherockies.org/

1

Appendix C: Summary of Recommendations

Category 1: Habitat Alterations and Loss

Topic Recommendation Priority Level/Implementation

Barrier

Lead/SupportEntities

CapacityRequirements

Type of ActionImplications

Considerations

A. Develop astatewidehabitatconservation andconnectivityplan

Identify priority landscapesand developrecommendations for futurefunding/programmaticpriorities

High Priority/Medium Barrier

CPW(support fromCDNR,externalpartners)

● Existing orexpanded sta�capacity

● New externalconsultantsupport

● Programmaticand/orbudgetaryprioritization

● Account for uniquedevelopment pressures,climate, animal movementpatterns

● Integrate other statewidewildlife and conservationplanning e�orts

B. Direct newf unding towardstrategic landconservationpriorities

Work with legislature tocontinue to advance CPW’sfuture funding initiative tosecure new resources forconserving key habitat,landscapes, projects


CPW/CDNR ● Existing sta�capacity

● Legislativeaction

● Programmatic/budgetaryprioritization

● Emphasize habitatconservation andconnectivity planimplementation or similarstate priorities

Lay groundwork throughinteragency/externalcoordination to positionstate to take advantage ofnew federal programs, e.g.,“America the Beautiful” init.


CDNR(support fromother relevantstate agencies,GA, GOV)

● Existing sta�capacity

● New externalconsultantsupport

● Programmatic/budgetaryprioritization;Executive orLegislativeaction

● Integrate with otherstatewide conservationplanning e�orts

● Align with federalrequirements/priorities

C. Coordinateexistingconservationf unding

Annually convene partnersto identify/reviewconservation priorities

Medium Priority/Medium Barrier

CDNR/CPW(coordinationwith stateagencies andexternalpartners)

● New externalcoordination /conveningcapacity

● InteragencyandExternalplanning/coordination

● May be statutory,regulatory, or institutionalbarriers to consider inidentifying shared priorities,in addition to logisticalchallenges

● May require additionalauthorizations

Expand agency ability toprovide guidance across stateprograms to steer collectiveinvestments and acquisitionstoward targeted landscape-small-scale conservationopportunity completion

High Priority/Low Barrier

CPW(coordinationwith CDNRand other stateagencies )

● Expanded sta�capacity

● Additional�nancialresources,and/or


● Interagencycoordination

Provide planning, technicalassistance and coordinationto help match applicants ofpriority projects withrelevant state, federal, privatefunding programs


CDNR/CPW(support fromother stateagencies)


● Planning andexternalcoordination


D. Invest inlarge-scalehabitatconservation andrestorationprojects

Pool investments inlarge-scale projects to bene�thigh-priority landscapes,guided by statewide habitatconservation andconnectivity plan


CDNR/CPW(coordinationwith otherstate agencies,externalpartners)

● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity

● External support



● May require board orcommissionreview/approval, or otherauthorizations


2

Work to ensure that publiclyfunded forest and watershedhealth projects are plannedin consultation with CPWto maximize wildlife habitatco-bene�ts


CDNR/CPW ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity

● Externalcoordination

● Input andanalysis

● Agency expertise exists butinsu�cient sta�ngresources to meaningfullyengage in projects onconsistent basis

● Anticipate acceleration infederal decision-making,projects in light of new fedfunding and priorities

● Requires signi�cant andongoing outreach,relationship building,coordination

E. Promote statecooperation andinterests infederal land usedecisions,policies andprograms

Secure meaningful roles forthe state in federal land usedecisions and rulemakings(e.g. through cooperativeagreements, project levelconsultation)


CPW/CDNR ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity



● Agency expertise exists butinsu�cient time/resourcesto meaningfully engage onconsistent basis

● Expect acceleration inlarge-scale planning /regulatory decisions in lightof current fed priorities

● Requires signi�cant andongoing outreach,relationship building,coordination

Work with COCongressional delegationand partners to advancestate wildlife andconservation priorities infederal legislation


CDNR/CPW(support fromGOV)



● Current national politicalrealities may constrainmovement on keylegislation

Contribute to shapingfederal programs related tobig game habitatconservation


CDNR,CPW, GA,GOV



● Externaloutreach

● Potential futurelegislative,executive action

● Alignment with “Americathe Beautiful” initiative, fedstimulus and infrastructureprograms presentpotentially game-changingopportunities, but currentsta�ng may constrainability to engage

● New priorities may requireadditional leg, board orcommission action

Engage in “America theBeautiful” initiative bydemonstrating private landcontributions to stateconservation priorities

Low Priority/Low Barrier

CDNR,CPW, CDA,CWCB


● Externaloutreach


● Related to other federalengagementrecommendations

● Ensure coordination withother state planning e�orts

F. Implementlocal S.O. 3362conservationplans

Provide leadership in localplanning e�orts for projectsassociated with S.O. 3362


CPW ● Existing and(possibly)expanded sta�capacity, TBD

● Field-levelplanning andimplementation


● Externalcoordinationand outreach

● Contingent uponcontinued federal adminand Congressionalprioritization/funding


3

Undertake add’l research tore�ne wildlife habitatconservation, restorationhabitat, and transportationinfrastructure priorities withpotential to improvelandscape permeability


CPW ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity

● External partneror consultantsupport

● Field-levelplanning andimplementation


● Contingent uponcontinuation/ expansion offederal program

● Intersection with statewidehabitat conservation andconnectivity plan

● Contribute to e�orts tosecure permanent andexpanded fed support forthe SO 3362 programwithin USDOI

● Create a complementaryinitiative within USDA;and increase Tribalparticipation


CDNR,CPW, GOV


● Externaloutreach andcoordination

● Signi�cant opportunity tobuild upon success and scaleexisting program, butprioritization may bea�ected by national politicalrealities

Category 2: Land Use, Residential Growth and Development


Barrier

Lead /SupportEntities


Type of Action Considerations

A. Improveinter-jurisdictionaldisturbancemapping anddata-sharing

● Consider adoptinguniform disturbance datasharing system acrossjurisdictions and planningunits with appropriateprotocols for protectingprivate property

● Consider federalpartnership to expandSDARTT use withinCHAT model


CPW(collaborationwithuniversitiesand externalorgs)

● Existing and newsta� capacity

● Newtechnologicalcapacity


● Technologyimprovement

● Technology andmethodology exist but maybe organizational orresource / capacity barrierswithin partner orgs

● Ensure private propertyprotection data protocols

B. Expand localgovernmentcooperation toimprovestrategies fordirectingdevelopmentaway frompriority biggame habitat

● Convene working groupto develop recs forincentivizing/improvinguptake of big game habitatand connectivityprotections in localplanning initiatives andland-use ordinances

● Examine applications of1041 regulations


CDNR, CPW(collaborationwith CDOT,DOLA,countyassociations,conservationorgs, otherpartners)


● Possible externalconsultantsupport


● May requirefutureregulatory orlegislative action

● Important to be inclusive,sensitive to local dynamicsand political considerations

Encourage uptake of CWTAcounty agreements tomaintain open space adjacentto safe passage structures

Low Priority/Low Barrier

CDNR,CPW, CDOT,DOLA


● Externalconsultantsupport(CWTA)


● Regional Partnerships andDOLA programs alsovenues to educate,encourage uptake

C. Promoteuptake of CPWland use policy

● Promote uptake of HPHrecommendations infederal, state and localland use, planning, projectdesign decisions;

● Draw on enforceablemechanisms to driveconsistency with statepolicy


CPW (withsupport fromCPW anda�ecting SLB,DOLA CEOand otheragencies)

● New and existingsta� capacity

● Additionalresources


● Leg, board/commissionand/or executiveaction

● Mixed ease ofimplementation dependingon agency / entity

● May require board /commission authorization


4

Category 3: Recreation


Barrier




A. Engage inregional andstatewideplanning tobalanceconservation andrecreation

● Collaborate with OutdoorRegional Partnerships toincorporate local prioritiesinto the statewidecomprehensive play(December, 2023);

● Ensure that regional andstatewide plans take biggame habitat andconnectivity into account

High Priority/High Barrier

CDNR,CPW, CDOT,CO-OP

● New and existingsta� capacity

● Externalconsultantsupport

● Externalplanning andcoordination

● Signi�cant investment ofsta� resources and time

● Coordination with otherstatewide planning e�orts

B. Plan trailswith wildlife inmind

Invest in outreach andeducation to promoteadoption of wildliferecommendations in federaltravel management plans andlocal recreation plans

Medium Priority/Medium barrier

CDNR,CPW, DOLA


● Programmatic /budgetaryprioritization


● Mixed ease ofimplementation dependingon speci�c agency orgovernment, process ordecision type

Require adoption of wildliferecommendation forstate-funded OutdoorRegional Partnerships plans

Medium Priority/Low Barrier

CPW (incooperationwith externalpartners)



● Programmaticpriority

C. Emphasize theValue ofHunting forWildlifeManagement

Explore further developmentof voluntary, incentive-basedprograms that providehunting opportunities to thepublic on state and privatelands, consistent with statepublic access goals.


CDNR,CPW, SLB


● New andexisting �nancialresources,includingincentiveprograms andpropertyacquisitions

● Legislative,administrativeor executiveaction

● Already re�ected in existingorganizational mission andstrategy, but need emphasison the need to consistentlyprioritize across regions,and in coordination withhabitat conservation andconnectivity plan,Outdoor RegionalPartnerships and otherconservation initiatives

● Likely to require board/commission authorizations

Work to facilitate access topublic or private lands whereconsistent with big gamemanagement objectives


CPW/CDNR ● Existing sta�capacity


● Board/commissionaction

● Already re�ected in existingorganizational mission andstrategy, but need emphasison the need to consistentlyprioritize across regions,and in coordination withhabitat conservation andconnectivity plan,Outdoor RegionalPartnerships and otherconservation planninginitiatives

● May require newauthorizations


5

Category 4: Transportation Infrastructure

Topic Recommendation Priority /Implementation

Barrier




A. Secure newstate f undingfor safe passageinfrastructureon Coloradohighways

Prioritize new funding fortransportation projects thatprovide clear bene�ts towildlife populations andhuman health


GA input fromGOV, CDOT,CDNR)

● Legislative,administrativeor executiveaction

● Ensure statewide habitatconservation andconnectivity plan, localordinances consistency

● Include private or localgovernment incentivesand/or property acquisitions

● Requires long term planning

Apply new funds to propertyeasement acquisitionsadjacent to safe passagestructures; promoting newtech and design options,expanding research intoproject e�cacy


CPW/CDOT(support fromCDNR, GA,GOV)

B. Advocate foradditionalfederaltransportationf unding forwildlife safepassageinfrastructure

Work with COCongressional delegation andfederal admin to advancesupport for state wildlife safepassage infrastructureprojects, mechanisms toimprove intra-state andfederal coordination andWVC info sharing


CDNR, CPW,GOV


● Federal adminand/orCongressionallegislative action

● Signi�cant opportunityexists, but implementationpathways and outcomeslikely to be a�ected bynational political realities

C. Invest in theCWTA andagency capacityto enhancecoordination

Secure resources to supportlong-term operations ofCWTA and associatedproject planning andimplementation

MediumPriority/Medium Barrier

CPW, CDOT,CDNR


● Legislativeaction


● Long term solution mayrequire more concertedlegislative action, as opposedto annual budget requests

Prioritize budget requests toto address sta� workloaddemands of CWTAparticipation; identifyreliable funding, streamlineintra-agency �nancialprocedures to facilitatecoordination


CDOT/CPW(input fromGA, GOV,CDNR)


● Administrativeor legislativeaction


Improve consistency ofwildlife impact assessmentsacross regions, personnel, andproject types. (E.g.,interagency roadkill datatracking system)


CDOT, CPW ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity

● Newtechnologicalcapacity


● Inter-agencycoordination

D. Strengthenadoption ofwildlifeguidelines fortransportationinfrastructureprojects

Explore opportunities tostrengthen CDOT internalguidance around big gamehabitat/connectivity, ensureCPW engagementthroughout project lifecycles,and incorporate mitigationfeatures in project design


CDOT(coordinationwith CPW)



● Internal agencypolicy change


6

Foster coordination bycontributing to CDOT’sLong Range PlanningProcess and development ofits 4-year and 10-year plans

CPW(coordinationwith CDOT)



● Intra-agencycoordination

Seek TransportationCommission support toamend CDOT PolicyDirective 14.0 to incorporategoals to maintain habitatconnectivity and reduceWVCs


CDOT ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity


● Internal agencypolicy change /administrativeaction

● Potential board/commissionaction

Incorporate priority wildlifecrossings into multi-scaleshort- and long-termplanning products, includingthe Statewide and RegionalTransportation Plans, andStatewide TransportationImprovement Program


CDOT ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity



● Board/commissionaction

● Dependent upon board /commission priorities

Amend CDOTproject-speci�c scoping formto include habitatconnectivity / WVCmortality requirementconcerns for projects inpriority big game habitat

Low Priority /Low Barrier

CDOT (incoordinationwith CPW)



● Internal agencypolicy change /administrativeaction

Consider requiring wildlifeimpacts review andmitigation measureimplementation ofmitigation in all relevanttransportation projectswithin HPH


GA (inputfrom GOV,CDOT)


● Potential adminor legislativeaction



Category 5: Energy Development


Barrier




A. Implementnewly-approvedoil and gaswildlife rules

Implement new O&G highpriority (HPH) wildliferegulations on state andprivate lands


COGCC,CPW, SLB




● Additional sta� resourcesrequired to support newregulatory framework

● May require additionalauthorizations

● Work to incorporateHPH wildliferecommendations intofederal planning and landuse decisions;

● Update inter-agency Oiland Gas MOU

MediumPriority/Low Barrier

COGCC/CDNR




● Planning inputand analysis

● Opportunity to improvefed-state alignment maybe impacted by futureCongressional priorities/political realities

● Acceleration of fedplanning decisions maystrain sta� capacity


7

Promote swift initiation ofBLM statewide big gameresource management planamendment


CDNR,CPW


● Programmatic/Budgetaryprioritization



● Implications for otherBLM land use planningdecisions

● Likely to demandsigni�cant sta� andresource investment

Promote BLMInstructional Memorequiring interim big gamehabitat land use bestpractices


CDNR,CPW

● Existing and/orexpanded sta�capacity

● Externalcoordination andoutreach


● Work to ensure statewildlife recommendationalignment in USFS forestmanagement plans

● Promote ongoingmonitoring and adaptivemanagement provisionsin USFS plans


CDNR,CPW

● Existing and / orexpanded sta�capacity



● Requires signi�cantinvestment of sta� timeand resources

● Sta� capacity may bestrained in light ofparticipation in multiplesimultaneous large-scalefederal planning processes

Work with federal agenciesand CO Congressionaldelegation to advanceprotective federal landdesignations to improvehigh quality habitat andlandscape level connectivity


CDNR,CPW, GOV




● Opportunity to expandprotective Congressionaldesignations may beconstrained by futureCongressional priorities/political realities

Prioritize development of ahabitat mitigation fund tofacilitate compensatory oiland gas rule mitigationrequirements

High Priority /High Barrier

CPW ● Existing sta�capacity


● Board /commissionauthorization

● Potential futurelegislative action

● May require additionallegislative authorizations

B. Strengthenand StreamlineRenewableEnergy Project/TransmissionLine Recs.

Convene interagencyworking group to exploreopportunities to minimizerenewable energydevelopment impacts onwildlife habitat, expanduptake of BMPs


CPW,CDNR,DOLA,PUC, SLB,CEO


● Externalconsultingsupport


● External outreachand coordination

● Potential futureadministrative orlegislative action

C. Improvehabitatcompatibility infederal renewableenergy decisions

Work to initiateprogrammatic EAs toanalyze fed renewableenergy permit procedurestreamlining, lands suitablefor development and oppsto incentivize infrastructuresiting outside of habitat


CPW,CDNR,CEO


● Externalconsultingsupport




● Opportunity to improvestate-federal objectivealignment may beconstrained by competingfederal administrative orCongressional priorities/political realities

Work to strengthen federalrequirements for renewableenergy development, andcreate habitat impactmitigation mechanisms


CPW,CDNR,CEO, GOV

● Existing and/orexpanded sta�capacity


● Potential futureadministrative orlegislative action

● May be constrained bycompeting federal adminCongressional prioritiesand/or political realities


8

Category 6: Conservation on Private Lands


Barrier




A. Streamline theHabitatPartnershipProgram

Pursue legislation toreauthorize and streamlineHPP program to ensurecritical local support for biggame populations


CPW,CDNR,GOV



● Legislative action

● Reauthorization by 2023

Consider potentiale�ciencies of investingunexpended HPP funds inlarge-scale big game habitatprojects through theRESTORE program


CPW, HPPRoundtables




B. Explore theviability ofalternativevaluation modelsto improveparticipation instateconservationeasement and taxcredit programs

Continue to work withexternal partners, Divisionof Conservation andGeneral Assembly todevelop an alternativevaluation method forconservation easementswith the goal ofcompensating privatelandowners for theconservation value ofwildlife habitat or otherecosystem services


CDNR,CPW,CWCB,DOLA




● Legislative orexecutive action

● Improvements to tax creditprogram should expandparticipation, butadditional tools may benecessary to improve�exibility of and demandfor state/private easementprograms

C. Improveuptake ande�ectiveness ofUSDA Farm Billprograms

Work to improvee�ectiveness of 2018 FarmBill programs


CDNR,CPW,CWCB,DWR, CDA




● Coordinate ongoingparticipation in technicalsub-committees

● Coordinate across stateagencies on publiccomment opportunities

Spearhead interagencyworking group to considerinput into 2023 Farm Bill;Integrate local priorities inOutdoor RegionalPartnerships or habitatplans;Champion CO landownerenrollment in 2018 FarmBill programsContinue to work withpartners to ensure e�ectiveconservation titles


CDNR,CPW,CWCB,DWR, CDA(coordination withexternalpartners)



D. Continuesupport forinnovativeprivate landconservationprograms

Support/expand CWHPand RFW programs;Consider revitalizing CHEpartnership


CPW, CDA(cooperationwith externaland localpartners)





9

Category 7: Research Needs and Data Gaps


Barrier



Implied Type ofAction

Considerations

A. Expandanimal researchcapabilities

Prioritize investments inhabitat enhancementprojects, climateadaptation research,animal collaring anddisease studies


CPW ● Existing andexpanded sta�capacity


● Need to ensure appropriateanimal welfare, data privacyand proprietary useprotections

Develop an intra-agency,server-based database forGPS collar data storageand analysis

High Priority/MediumBarrier

CPW ● Existing and newsta� capacity

● Expanded andnew technologicalcapacity, expertise


● Need to ensure appropriateanimal welfare, data privacyand proprietary useprotections

Consider legislation toassure private propertydata privacy protectionswith respect to publiclyavailable wildlife data

High Priority/MediumBarrier

GA/GOV(input fromCPW,CDNR)


● Expanded or newtechnologicalcapacity

● Legislative action

B. Buildcapacity todevelop apriorityhabitat andmovementroute climateadaptationstrategy

Explore partnerships toextend climate resiliencyresearch capacity andknowledgeWork with partners toconsider conservationstrategies for climateresilient wildlifepopulations throughnew modelingtechnologies

MediumPriority/MediumBarrier

CPW(cooperation withCSFS,CNHP,externalpartners)

● Existing andpotentially newsta� resources



Category 8: External Partnerships and Public Outreach


Barrier



Implied Type ofAction

Considerations

A. Expandexternalpartnershipsandcoordination toadvance statewildlifepriorities

Prioritize inter-jurisdictionalresearch e�orts in federalfunding requests, andidentify opportunities toaugment federal supportthrough existing �nancialand sta� resources.


CPW, CDNR,CDOT, otherstate agencies

● Existing sta�resources



Strengthen support forpolicy interventions byengaging a diverse range ofpartners in education andoutreach


CPW, CDNR,CDOT, otherstate agencies

● Existing sta�resources


