Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources [Mar 26, 2026]

Good afternoon. The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will come to order on March 26th. Ms. Jackson, please call the roll.

Senator Henriksen. Here.

Senator B. Pelton. Excused. Senator R. Pelton. Here.

Mr. Chair. Here. All right, we have a quorum, and I know our other senators will be joining us very shortly, but we're going to get started. The first item on our agenda is confirmation hearings for the State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners, and we have Director Ingley here to introduce our nominees. Good afternoon. Whenever you're ready, please go ahead.

All right. Ms. Bonds, please go ahead, introduce yourself, and offer any comments you'd like.

All right, thank you. And did you want to introduce Ms. Martin-Witt? Go ahead.

Ms. Martin-Witt, good afternoon. Please go ahead and introduce yourself and offer any comments you'd like. I think you're on mute, ma'am.

Thank you. Okay, committee, do we have any questions for any of these nominees? All right. Seeing none, I'll just comment and thank our two nominees for your willingness to serve Colorado, serve our state, as well as the brand board and all of the hard work that you've already done. Ms. Bonds, glad you're willing to do another term. And Ms. Martin Witt, thanks for joining the board and thank you for your service. With that, I'll ask Senator Henriksen for a motion.

Yes. Thank you, Senator Hendrickson. That's a proper motion. Ms. Jackson, please poll the committee.

Hendrickson. Aye.

Pelton B. Excused. Pelton R. Aye.

Mr. Chair, if there are no objections, I would recommend the consent calendar.

Thank you. Appreciate it, Director.

Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. It's good to be with you today. I am pleased to be here presenting House Bill 1008, it's kind of ringy, with my colleague, Senator Rich. This is a bill that we brought forward in partnership with CPW and DNR. It may look somewhat familiar as it's conceptually tied to a late bill that was introduced last year. However, we've largely started from scratch here. So this is not the same bill as last year, and while we're hoping to accomplish similar goals, we've structured the concept in a very different way, informed by stakeholder conversations. Throughout Colorado, our outdoors face growing pressures from population growth, increased visitation, and a variety of uses of public lands, including open spaces and waterways. We all remember the spike in outdoor rec during the pandemic, and we all know that there are and will continue to be more visitors and more Coloradans participating in outdoor rec. And by outdoor recreation, we mean hunting, angling, hiking, biking, snowmobiling, boating, all the ways people enjoy and experience Colorado's outdoors. And the breadth of demand is striking. We aren't just talking about skiing and hiking. Disc Golf alone recorded 21.2 million rounds nationally in 2025, up 86% since 2020. A nine-hole course costs as little as $9,000 to build, serves twice as many people per day as a pickle-to-bottle facility, and 89% of courses are free to play. Right here in Colorado, Bear Mountain in Bailey is a nationally recognized course that was designed with a local forester to double as a wildfire defensible fire line. That's the kind of integrated, low-cost, high-access outdoor infrastructure this bill is designed to sport and scale. From the western slope to the eastern plains many communities feel they at an important crossroads in their ability to connect people to the outdoors protect conserve and restore biodiversity keep ag lands working manage growing rec demand and identify the best places on the landscape for conservation and outdoor rec to occur Across the state, individual communities are coming together to foster local partnerships and work towards solutions, including through the Outdoor Regional Partnerships Initiative that elevates community-level perspectives, values, and priorities to inform recreational planning and projects across the state. However, to support local conservation and outdoor rec goals, we also need statewide partnership, coordination, and action. Colorado's outdoor strategy was launched last year in partnership with Oedit's outdoor rec office, Great Outdoor Colorado, the Climate Preparedness Office, and key stakeholders from ag, conservation, rec, and government partners. The strategy advances a coordinated approach to the state's conservation, outdoor rec, and climate resilience efforts. And part of the aim of House Bill 1008 is to build the capacity needed to bring this strategy to life. In sum, the bill formalizes CPW as the lead state agency charged with implementing Colorado's outdoor strategy. And it solidifies CPW's role in outdoor recreation planning, management, and coordination, while ensuring that key local, state, and federal partners are at the table to help shape the discussions. These efforts are important at a time when our public lands and open spaces face increasing pressure from Colorado's growing popularity. I'd now like to turn it over to Senator Rich to share more from her perspective about this bill. Thank you. Senator Rich.

Thank you, Senator. Committee members, any questions for our bill sponsors? okay seeing none we'll get into the witness testimony phase i have a preferred panel list from the sponsors in the department so i'm going to go off of that as best as possible so for our first panel could we please have fletcher jacobs jackie miller and matt nunez we do have quite a few witnesses uh signed up today so we're going to do two minutes for testimony per person, if folks could try to stick as closely to that as possible, that would be appreciated. All right welcome Whoever would like to begin please go ahead and introduce yourself and then your two minutes will start All right Good afternoon Mr Chair members of the committee My name is Fletcher Jacobs Assistant Director of Outdoor Recreation and Lands at Colorado Parks and Wildlife I here

All right, Ms. Miller, Mr. Nunez.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Nunez.

Thank you. Committee, any questions for these witnesses? Senator Callen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this may be for GOCO. I'm not sure. One of the things I was wondering about, is this going to increase the amount of dollars that you have for conservation easements and or fee simple purchases for the state of Colorado? Ms. Miller. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Kallen. To follow up with that quickly, maybe one of the other guys might be able to answer this. So will this allow the state to start identifying areas that they may want to take interest in? Mr. Jacobs. Thank you for the question, Senator.

different places that you may not have them on right now what I worried about is identifying more areas where the State of Colorado may want to take an interest in the titles and or in more conservation easements where we need to be thinking about that. Thank you for the question and for the clarification there.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further questions, thank you all for your testimony. Appreciate it. Okay. Now we're going to go to folks that have signed up in an opposition or amend position. remotely could we have Reese Melton Commissioner Callie Scritchfield and Richard Orff All right, Commissioner, we'll start with you. If you can hear us, please go ahead and unmute yourself and you can begin your testimony. Good afternoon. And can you hear me? Yes. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Roberts and members of the committee.

for a no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Orff. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Excuse me. Any questions for this panel? Senator Pelton.

We are still in an amend position on that one. This amendment that was deftly negotiated by CCI and DNR, with a little bit of our input, definitely does help that language. Originally, some of the language was consult. And to us, to consult a local government could be sending a nice note saying this is what we're doing. Consultation, when it carries legal words and carries statutory basis on that, we needed something stronger than that. The new language of appropriate consideration to a local government, I don't know if I've seen that in statute before, what appropriate consideration may look like, but it is a lot, lot further. We remain in an amend position largely because we wanted to say for the record these are what our concerns are We hopeful that this language gets there but it didn take us off that and make us neutral on the bill I really would like to see an example of what appropriate consideration looks like but again a ton of work was done on this amendment to try to get there. What we're most concerned is just making sure that locals have a voice. In the hallways we talk about, we're certainly never going to get some sort of veto authority over some sort of recreation project. We really don't like But we have to have an honest and fair conversation between local governments, local regional partnerships, and that planning apparatus in the state to come to the best consideration without it just being, here's what's happening.

I distinctly remember maybe a couple of years ago, counties coming to the Capitol and talking to us about having Park County was the example in my mind of how they had to spend about a third of their transportation budget on the county road that was around 11 miles to the reservoir that was a state park. And that road was a complete wreck forever. and is that some of the examples of what you're talking about in your testimony?

Thank you, Senator Catlin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, yes, that's a prime example. I know this has been an issue in Grand County. I know this has been an issue in other counties that you've got a county road accessing a state park. I recreated there myself. And, you know, it does fall to that. There is language in this bill that was taken on in the House to acknowledge that. I think it may be part of the logic. I've got it in front of me. But there does need to be acknowledgement. Every couple of years we run a bill on this very issue within the state of whether it's some sort of sharing through the outdoor program or the license plate program. That was considered earlier this session. But there needs to be some kind of identification. And that is a prime example there when you've got a road accessing something or emergency services or, I mean, even from a local economic development perspective, you've got a grocery store that serves the population there for nine months of a year and then suddenly has a swell and influx during those three summer months. that tends to set things off.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no further questions for this panel, thank you both. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Orff. All right. we will continue with some county commissioners. We have Commissioner Wendell Kuntz, Commissioner Dan Williams. Commissioner, I don't think I see you signed up. Okay. If you're here and would like to testify, you can. Yes, and I know to see Commissioner Marlin. I'm just trying to, yeah, Commissioner Marlin, why don't you come up as well, just balancing. Yeah. Let's just get all the county commissioners up here. Oh, no, there's more online. Yeah. But these are the in-person ones, yeah. Yeah. All right, Commissioner Kuntz, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. All right, Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Mitchell.

I only want to put on the record the impacts to county. I am the one that brought forth SB 059 in 2023 with regard to the impacts. We did finally get a portion of that road chip sealed last year to the tune of almost 50% of our HUTF budget. And that is completely unsustainable. So roads and the other impacts to the counties with regard to restrooms, parking, litter management. We have seven fire districts. Lake George, which is much of Pike National Forest, is all volunteer fire station. And there in the summer, the majority of their responses are to outdoor recreators where no funding is provided by them to help with our fire districts. So I just want to let people know that we are happy. We understand why you want to come recreate in Park County and the rest of Colorado. We welcome you with open arms. But this is a beginning for ongoing conversations about how we can thoughtfully help because we live on property tax. Sales tax does not benefit counties. Property tax is our only means of survival. And we are really stretched thin on how to allow people to have the proper recreation experience they need when they come up to enjoy our county. So thank you very much. I am in support and look forward to ongoing conversations. Thank you so much. Thank you. Commissioner Marlin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is George Marlin. I am a Clear Creek County Commissioner, also speaking on behalf of Colorado Counties Incorporated in support of House Bill 1008. We are grateful for the effort by DNR to hear county voices and for all the changes to the bill that resulted from those conversations. A big part of CCI's interest in this bill was to ask for future planning efforts to focus on the distribution of the economic contributions of outdoor recreation. Counties are unified in our desire to see one another thrive and aware of the fact that many counties in the state experience more service demand than economic value from outdoor recreation as it exists today. Clear Creek County is a poignant example of this dynamic. We have 9 million visitors per year, a 1,000 to 1 ratio of visitor to resident. Our public safety costs are roughly double what they would be without this visitation. The service demand is so astronomical that we are barely able to muster $100,000 per year in housing investments and do almost nothing for wildfire mitigation, in spite of the 1 million people that rely on us to protect their water source. A 2023 economic analysis showed that the front range metro area generates 150% more local revenue from recreation than the entire western slope, where the work to manage this activity largely takes place. A major goal of this bill is to ensure that the next wave of recreation planning and access results in better equity than previous efforts. This bill does a great job of requiring, in statute, that one half of this equity problem be addressed. It also acknowledges that this other half of the equity problem, it acknowledges the other half in the legislative declaration. While we could not get a similar requirement in statute to address how all counties can experience a net benefit from recreational activity, we are grateful for the acknowledgement that this problem exists and the verbal commitment that this issue will be more fully considered in future planning efforts. For those reasons, we ask for your yes vote today. Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions. Thank you. Committee, any questions for this panel? Senator Catlin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Mitchell. I remember your testimony when you brought that idea to us. So this bill will help those kind of problems for your county? Commissioner Mitchell. Thank you, Senator. Unfortunately, no. This bill will give us a seat or at least acknowledge our impact and allow us to talk about recreation, planning of recreation in our county, but it will not provide any funding for any of the resource that is utilized in Park County for outdoor recreation. Maintenance of roads that provide access to our state wildlife areas and the state parks are still completely the responsibility of Park County. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to kind of add on to that a little more, this bill goes through, there's anticipation of even more traffic, which would increase the costs, and any commissioner can answer this. How do you guys plan on, you know, filling that extra void for the extra maintenance? Commissioner Williams. Sure, thank you. Yeah, I'll just give you an example. Senator is in Teller County. One out of three ambulance calls now goes to an uninsured tourist, and most of them are uninsured or we can't get that money. So we eat that search and rescue. We eat that. The sheriff's department, we eat that. So we do have the capability and statute to put a recreation tax in place if we wanted to. We just don't do that as a conservative county. We don't think that's right. But to Ms. Mitchell's point, and we supported her on this one, there will come a time where counties can't do it. I have broken a boat axle on her road, and we're good friends, but it's real. These potholes were the size of Volkswagens, and she's done a great job at their expense. So they did it this time, but we can't do it again. And so the bottom line to your question is there are folks looking for enhanced recreational experiences, and I would remind the honorable members of the Senate here that that comes with an expectation, especially of urban folks, that there's a degree of safety there. So if your child gets lost, you're going to go rescue them. We regularly find dead bodies up there. We can't do it all. So there will come a time, and I think we've all said there's some verbal commitments to George's comment, working with Dan Gibbs and the new director, and over time that says, hey, there's an impact. Can we talk about it? I believe without this bill, we believe we have the authority as a subdivision to say no, but it would be litigated. This goes into a more positive space where we can say, let's talk about it, and as Amy said, come to the table. If you're going to enhance – it's already out of control today. For example, Pipe National Forest, the Pikes Peak Massive. There are more people up there than are in Rocky Mountain National Park with no controls And so doing nothing is not an option So we think this is a great roadmap to start And I meant what I said about the consumptive non Folks that don hunt and fish would like to divide the outdoor recreation community We're not in the division. There's enough of that in this country. We want to have that talk. And so I think there will be a discussion, maybe more bills in future legislation to talk about the economic impacts that George and Amy bring up. Those are very real. Thanks, sir. Yes, Commissioner Kuntz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, one of the things that's got me in support of this is that local governments are now part of the planning process. If a new facility goes in, whether it's a boat ramp, pit toilet, new roads leading somewhere, we are part of the process and we can help guide infrastructure planning and development so that it minimizes impact to the county but also fits within our recreational and master planning processes. It also fits what the local folks need and want for their communities. Right now, we would not have that ability to do so. Senator Pelton. Thank you. And so as a part of that planning process, do you guys envision increasing, you know, asking for some help with the maintenance of these roads or if they need built up or something like that? Could that, in your minds, be a part of this planning process and even resources tied to that? Commissioner Kuntz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Senator, it's not part of this bill, but it certainly is part of the whole planning process. We have said over and over, recreation needs to start paying its way, and this is where we start. I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Yes, Commissioner Marlin. Yeah, thank you. It's my hope that as a result of really looking at where recreation creates tax base and where it doesn't, We can come to conclusions like over here if we're going to expand access, these people need more resources. We do have some counties in this state that can afford to do things like pay the U.S. Forest Service to have recreation management people on the ground. And we have some counties that can't. And so that's one of the outcomes that I think we can get to if we just are willing to talk about this problem in an upfront way. What's in the legislative declaration in this bill is acknowledgments about the equity in this space that we've never seen. And I think that's important. And I do think this is not about more recreation. This is really about more management. The recreation exists. I can take you to my county and show you all over the place. People are going to get out in the woods, and they're going to do what they're going to do, and we do need to find ways to manage that. It just has to be equitable. So, Commissioner Marlin, to your original testimony about the two sides of the equation, and the first half is in the statute, the second half is only in the ledge deck, Can you talk me through a little bit more about what it would look like statutorily if it were that way? And two, what was the verbal commitment exactly that the department made on that aspect? Yeah, I mean, there's a big challenge in anything that has a general fund fiscal note, and I understand that. And so I think a lot of the ideas here could potentially drive that. The conversations weren't able to get mature enough that there was something that we felt could be in statute that could really work and work over the long term. What I have in mind is let's just take a look at data that DNR and CPW has that's better and more precise than anybody else in the state around what recreation visitation specifically looks like. That million number I reported earlier that not all people are actually recreating in Clear Creek It other forms of visitation as well So we need DNR to share that data and just compare it to like what are the tax bases that counties rely on Sales tax, property tax, that's publicly available information already. I think it's actually a pretty easy lift. We just couldn't get to, this is exactly how it should look in statute, something that's expected to live for a long time. And I actually, I've got confidence that those conversations will be fruitful based on those probable commitments that were made. Okay, good to hear. Any other questions for our commissioners? Okay. Thank you all so much for being here. We appreciate it. Okay. Next, could we have Scott Jones, Ken Gart, Mick Daniel, and Corey Satella? Good afternoon. Thanks for your patience. did we have our fourth person all right oh is Mr. Sotella remote okay all right whoever would like to be in here in person please go ahead and introduce yourself and then you can start good afternoon Chair Roberts and committee members I want to say thank you for your consideration on this matter my name is Scott Jones I've been the executive director for the Colorado Snowmobile Association, and we're here to support this piece of legislation. We believe this is an important first step in discussions, not a final step. The Colorado Snowmobile Association has partnered with Parks and Wildlife for more than 50 years. We provide about 3,000 miles of publicly available trails, generally on the Forest Service, but definitely on some state parks. And we've been asked a lot of questions on how do we maintain roads, How do we plow parking lots, that kind of stuff from our clubs? There's 30 clubs across the state, and we generate a lot of volunteer labor to support our efforts. Several of the committee members, we ran legislation a couple years ago to clean up our registration processes and clarify that out-of-state tourists would also have to pay a registration fee to a snowmobile. and we have actually since then increased our registration fee from $30 to $50 annually. It's been a step in the right direction, but we are also aware of the questions that are being faced. We don't have anywhere near enough money to, once we're talking about plowing county roads and stuff like that from our club perspective, we just can't do it. So that's where we've been very involved for several years with CPW through either the co-op or the outdoor strategy and then the development of this piece of legislation to try and start discussions on how do we make all of this sustainable. Because from our perspective, we are very aware the Forest Service has got budget challenges, and we have never seen a Forest Service grader on a Forest Service road. It's always a county grader that goes out and fixes the mess. They've got the dump trucks. They've got the loaders and that kind of stuff. And it doesn't run on good intentions. We know that. And that's where we're really hoping to be able to build partnerships to address these types of challenges, and then we can do it in a sustainable manner that gives everybody a good recreational opportunity in the Colorado outdoors. So thank you for your consideration on this matter, and we vigorously support. Thank you. Mr. Gart. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, and thank you, Senators. I'm here to support House Bill 1008. I'm Ken Gart. Family history is Gart Brothers Boarding Goods Company. Back to my father grandfather I started a business that we sold to Vail Resorts currently we are an investor in Powderhorn Ski Resort outside of Grand Junction and also in Topo Designs which is a business started in Fort Collins It's an outdoor brand. Personally, I'm a skier, hiker, biker, walker. I think I do everything but the frisbee golf that was talked about earlier. I'm not a frisbee golf guy. But I'm passionate about Colorado being a great place to raise a family, And I think the outdoors is a key part of that. That quality of life, I think, is to a great degree why we are all here. And I do think we're at risk of loving Colorado to death. I was thinking about a couple years ago when I took my youngest child to do a 14er, and we got up early and we got to the trailhead and the parking lot was full and the road was full for miles down in terms of parking, and we turned around and went back home. And I think that's kind of a good example of where we're not managing, as someone has said, the outdoors properly. There's issues on trail erosion. There's other issues surrounding the trails and outdoor access. And there's good management across many areas of the state of Colorado as well. And I think this bill would be a good stepping stone towards improving that management. Colorado should be a leader nationally in the outdoors from a business standpoint, but also from a quality of life standpoint, and I think this bill is a good step in that direction. So I would encourage you to support HB 1008. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you. So my name is McDaniel. I'm the Executive Director of San Luis Valley Great Outdoors. We're a regional nonprofit kind of working in the San Luis Valley to expand outdoor recreation and conservation. I also serve on the State Trails Committee and the OREC Advisory Board. I'm here today in strong support of Bill 26-1008. In a rural region like the San Luis Valley, we see both opportunity and the pressure that comes with growing outdoor recreation. Access to the outdoor supports our local economy, our health, quality of life, but without coordination, it can also strain wildlife habitat, working lands, and small communities. We've seen all those pressures and heard of that here today. This bill gets something fundamentally right though and it prioritizes coordination over fragmentation. That's a space that I work in all the time, working between federal agencies, state agencies, counties, municipalities. We're very fragmented and I think the spirit of the bill really is to bring us all together. By strengthening the Colorado Parks and Wildlife role in the statewide and regional planning, the bill creates It's a framework through the Colorado Outdoor Strategy that really allows for local voices to include rural communities like the SLV that are meaningful included. Recreation, conservation, and agriculture are planned together, not in conflict ideally. Decisions are informed by regional data and on-the-ground partnerships. SLV-GO, our coalition, is the regional partner for the six counties of the San Luis Valley. We're already doing this work. We're bringing together local governments, land managers, community members to develop projects like trail systems and stewardship programs. But too often we're navigating siloed system and inconsistent support throughout. This bill helps align those efforts. I especially want to highlight the importance of regional planning and stakeholder engagement. For rural areas, one-size-fit-all solutions don't work. We need approaches that reflect our landscapes, our economies, and our communities. or work in Rio Seco and the Castilla County is a big reflection of this work where trail development and fire mitigation work to improve the health and wellness of that community. I would encourage the continued focus on ensuring rural representation and implementation support so that regions like ours can fully participate and benefit. And I appreciate your time and respectfully urge you to support House Bill 26-1008. Thank you. And then we'll finish up online. Please go ahead. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Yes, my name is Corey Sutella. I'm speaking today in favor of the Colorado Outdoor Opportunities Act. I work for Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates, so we're a mountain biking advocacy organization based in Colorado Springs. And I'm also a volunteer member of the Colorado Mountain Bike Coalition. So we are representing through our members tens of thousands of Coloradans as well as hundreds of our trails every year. We strongly support this in order to vote yes on Bill 106 for a problem. I'm telling you the problem is out there. 36% of Colorado's public lands are owned by the federal government and they are not able to manage those. This bill does not seek to expand recreational access, although don't be surprised if you see me next time asking to expand more recreation. But what this bill does is it gives CPW the management authority to look after and to provide some management oversight on recreation aside from just within state parks. It allows CPW to improve the coordination through the Regional Partnerships Initiative. I'm really happy to say we're having great success with that in the Pikes Peak region through the Outdoor Pikes Peak Initiative, or OP. The Regional Partnerships and the Colorado Outdoor Strategy are programs that we have been very glad to collaborate with DNR and CPW on. We see these programs and this bill as a way to manage the recreation that is happening and continues to increase in our state. We need a way to manage that recreation so that it can be a sustainable economic driver for our state into the future. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and please vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Okay, committee, any questions for any of these witnesses? I was going to ask Mr. Gart or whoever wants to comment on it. In terms of Colorado's standing in the national picture business-wise, how do you think we're doing? You mentioned it a little bit, Mr. Gart, but would this type of coordination help us kind of maybe regain some of the prominence that we'd like to think we have in the outdoor rec space but might be losing to other states? I think it's a step in the right direction. I've spent some time looking at best practices of other states around the country for outdoor recreation and a number of states have stepped up their spend and their structure to encourage business and getting people outside and Colorado has slipped a little bit and I think this is a good step in the direction to fix that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all so much for your testimony and your time this afternoon. All right. Let's go, who else is here in person to testify on this bill? If you here in person and haven testified yet yeah come on up Are you Mr Douglas All right Keith Douglas And then online could we call Brian Webster, Hannah George, and Avra Morgan? Then is Katie first here? Do you still want to testify? You're good. Okay. Come on. All right, Mr. Douglas, we'll start with you, please. Yeah, whenever you're ready, Mr. Douglas. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Keith Douglas. I'm chairman of the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, similar to Mr. Jones that you just heard up here, representing the snowmobile organizations. We represent the other motorized off-road vehicles in the state, motorcycles, ATVs, UTVs, Jeeps, all manner of different conveyances. We are in support of Bill 1008. We are in support of all types of recreation. We do see this as being a bill that helps coordinate that and puts CPW, who has demonstrated their ability to manage this in the past in a stronger position to continue to manage it in the future. So we are very much in support of this and we are more than happy to be involved. We do have dollars that the OHV through the registration process has and we use those as Mr. Jones was talking about with snowmobiles. We do that with the motorized, you know, more summertime oriented things. So I want to thank you for the opportunity to support this bill. and I see it as, again, similar to what other people have said, as a good first step in a process that we'll have a lot of conversations involving local governments and statewide organizations and probably will become a national question as well. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. All right, if you'll stay there, we'll go to our online and then go to questions at the end. Mr. Webster, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brian Webster. I'm the Senior Public Lands Campaign Manager for Conservation Colorado, and I'm testifying today in support of HB 1008. Colorado's growing population and the rising demand for outdoor recreation are placing significant strains on our natural resources. To address this, we must strengthen the state's capacity to build outdoor recreation amenities that are more sustainable, equitable, and responsive to the needs of local communities and wildlife. By formalizing Colorado Parks and Wildlife as the lead coordinator for the state's outdoor strategy and this work, this bill provides the necessary framework to manage these pressures more effectively. Our support for this bill is rooted in its commitment to a balanced approach to planning and management of our recreation and wildlife resources. The requirement for strength and coordination and regional planning ensures that outdoor recreation, wildlife conservation, and climate resilience are treated as integrated components of a shared and coordinated strategy at state and local levels. We appreciate the exceptional and sustainable recreation language in the bill and believe this must serve as an important guardrail, ensuring that as we expand our outdoor recreation footprint, we do so without impairing the integrity of wildlife habitat and landscapes that make Colorado's outdoors so special. Our support is also rooted in the expectation that as Colorado Parks and Wildlife takes on this expanded mandate it will do so in a way that safeguards its core wildlife mission The execution of this act must prioritize avoiding and minimizing impacts on wildlife resources while simultaneously advancing equitable access for all Coloradans We believe the bill in its current form establishes that necessary balance, and we respectfully urge a yes vote. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, Ms. George. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity. My name is Hannah George. I'm here representing Keep It Colorado. Keep It Colorado is a statewide coalition that unites and strengthens Colorado's land conservation community. On behalf of Keep It Colorado, I want to express support for HB 261008. This bill represents a thoughtful, strategic approach to strengthening outdoor recreation planning and coordination across Colorado. And it's an important step in implementing Colorado's outdoor strategy. The strategy laid out a shared vision for climate resilient conservation and restoration alongside exceptional and sustainable outdoor recreation. This bill puts that vision into action, providing a framework for coordination, data-driven planning, and long-term accountability. It strengthens collaboration among conservation partners, local governments, tribal nations, and federal agencies while ensuring that environmental and community needs are considered together in decision making. By codifying outdoor recreation within Colorado Parks and Wildlife, this bill ensures that Colorado Parks and Wildlife can lead statewide outdoor recreation planning, coordination, and management. This means that recreation planning can happen within an agency whose mission is rooted in science, habitat protection, and wildlife stewardship. That That structure helps guarantee that as we expand access and outdoor opportunities, we do so in ways that sustain the very landscapes and species that make Colorado special. For land trusts, open space agencies, and conservation partners across the state, proactive planning is essential. When recreation and conservation are aligned from the start, we ensure that future generations continue to find beauty and inspiration in nature here in Colorado. On behalf of CUPA Colorado, I respectfully urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Morgan. Hello. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and members of the committee. My name is Avra Morgan, and I'm with the Nature Conservancy in the Colorado office. The Nature Conservancy strongly supports the Outdoor Opportunities Act, and this bill represents a critical step in implementing Colorado's outdoor strategy. TNC has been at the table with the coordinating partners since day one in developing the Colorado Outdoors Strategy, which is truly a first of its kind. The strategy serves as an umbrella for Colorado's conservation, wildlife, recreation, natural resource, and climate resilience plans, allowing shared goals to be advanced in an integrated way. The emphasis of the outdoor strategy on coordination, balance, and proactive engagement with partners, including tribal governments, local communities, and a myriad of other partners, is essential to achieving conservation and outdoor recreation goals. CPW is already a proven leader in conservation, restoration, wildlife management, and biodiversity. As Colorado's $65 billion outdoor recreation economy continues to grow, this bill will allow CPW to play an equal role in outdoor recreation planning and management. The Outdoor Opportunities Act formalizes CPW's role in outdoor recreation and supports capacity to coordinate with partners This sets up CPW to successfully lead implementation of this ambitious outdoor strategy With the passage of House Bill 1008 CPW will be well positioned to lead and coordinate diverse partners around the shared goals of the Colorado Outdoor Strategy And for these reasons, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, I respectfully urge a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, committee, any questions for this panel? All right. Seeing none, thank you all so much for your testimony this afternoon. Thank you very much. Okay, let's call up everybody else that's online. We have some more county commissioners. All right. Commissioner Tharp, I saw you come up first. We'll start with you. Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for allowing me to testify today. I am Lake County Commissioner Elsa Tharp, speaking on behalf of my constituents. I've been engaged in the many stakeholder conversations related to this bill, and I am so grateful for the serious thought that the bill sponsors have given to the needs of local governments like Lake County. I am very supportive of this bill as it stands and wish to see the committee vote in its favor. This year's exceptionally warm, dry winter attests to the need for more efforts like this one to consider landscape scale climate resiliency. HB 261008 will allow experts in local needs and vulnerabilities, like local governments, to work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to ensure more holistic planning for outdoor recreation. When we pool our resources and knowledge in this way, we are more prepared to meet the massive challenge of a changing climate and the changing use of our lands. One amendment that I and other commissioners offered on this bill would have specified that recreation planning consider equitable distribution of benefits from outdoor recreation across local jurisdictions. Commissioner Marlin of Clear Creek County spoke to this earlier. Like many other county commissioners testifying today, Lake County is fortunate to offer many recreational activities, but we do not always receive as many benefits because our county has more limited financial resources to begin with. In a state economy so strong in outdoor recreation, I ask that the state collects data that allows CPW and the state to understand counties who create such wealth and how to share those funds equitably. In many cases, the impacts to our roads, trails, workforce, infrastructure, and direct services end up becoming unsustainable. That's why this inclusion of economic benefits and harms in future planning is so important to us. Although it has not been included as a formal amendment, we appreciate that the state has committed to address these issues in their planning efforts. I look forward to that commitment being upheld in implementation of this bill, and I am so grateful for the tremendous amount of work that has been done by bill sponsors, staff, and commissioners. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Waters. Can everyone hear me all right? Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and committee members for this opportunity to testify today.

and then to round us out, Commissioner Linke. You're on mute. There we go. There we go. Technology. So thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and the bicameral, bipartisan sponsors that brought this forth. I will say that because of the Constitution of the United States is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it never does it say something done to the people, when this bill first came out, I was opposed. And that's kind of a deja vu experience from what happened last year when that bill, similar to this, as was mentioned earlier, was brought forth at the last minute without stakeholder input. So I really appreciate the work that CCI has done. And by the way I also on the board of CCI as a Mountain District Rep I also a county commissioner here in Grand County and part of a 143 ranch family that been here for a long time in Grand County So with that being said, that my initial reaction to this was opposition, I will say that because of the amendments and the stakeholdering that went on with this, by the way, Daphne Gervais called me clear back in November to ask for input on this, which was not the case on the bill last year. So and I think that because of that and all the other stakeholders that has been done because the amendments are added to this, I think that addresses all of my concerns on this. And I echo what my fellow commissioners have said on this bill. I strongly urge support on this. I know there's impacts to local counties, to roads, to to sheriff, to EMS and especially possibly to ag. Now, with the bill in its current form, there is a seat at the table so that those entities can have a say in what goes on in terms of the recreation industry. And that is huge in Grand County as it is in some, as Commissioner Waters just mentioned. Grand County is two hours away from five million people. So it does have a big potential impact and a seat at the table will help us to alleviate those concerns. So with that, I would appreciate a yes vote on this on 10-0-0-8. Thank you for your time today, and I would be happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just was going to ask Commissioner Linke for a clarification of who that was that reached out in November.

You know, he's our last witness, and we almost got through the whole hearing. But thank you, Commissioner. Okay, seeing no further questions, thank you all for your testimony, your patience this afternoon. Last call for witnesses on this bill. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Thank you. All right Bill sponsors are back with us and we are to the amendment phase I know L009 has been passed out Senator Hendrickson Mr Chair I move L009 to House Bill 1008 All right Anybody any explanations

Any questions? Is there any objection to L009? Seeing none, L009 is adopted. Any further amendments from the bill sponsors? Any from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. bill sponsors any wrap up comments

Senator Rich?

Thank you. Senator Hendrickson for a motion.

That is a proper motion. Members, any comments before we vote?

Ms. Jackson, please poll.

Henriksen Aye

Elton B Aye Elton R Aye

Mr. Chair Aye

Thank you, committee Thank you, we'll see you in Thank you, everybody Thanks for the conversation this afternoon We have no further business so this committee is adjourned.