Colorado
US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed Colorado’s plan to obtain wolves from Canada nearly two years before the federal agency lambasted the move as a violation of its rules, newly obtained documents show.
In a letter dated Feb. 14, 2024, the federal agency told Colorado state wildlife officials they were in the clear to proceed with a plan to source wolves from British Columbia without further permission.
“Because Canadian gray wolves aren’t listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no ESA authorization or federal authorization was needed for the state to capture or import them in the Canadian province, according to the letter sent to Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager.
The letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun from state Parks and Wildlife through an open records request, appears to be part of the permissions the state received before sourcing 15 wolves. The agency also received sign-offs from the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.
In mid-December, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service pivoted sharply from that position, criticizing the plan and threatening to take control over Colorado’s reintroduction.
In a letter dated Dec. 18, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik put CPW on alert when he told acting CPW Director Laura Clellan that the agency violated requirements in a federal rule that dictates how CPW manages its reintroduction.
Colorado voters in 2020 directed CPW to reestablish gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, a process that has included bringing wolves from Oregon in 2023 and British Columbia in 2025.
The federal rule Nesvik claims CPW violated is the 10(j). It gives Colorado management flexibility over wolves by classifying them as a nonessential experimental population within the state of Colorado. Nesvik said CPW violated the 10(j) by capturing wolves from Canada instead of the northern Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, eastern Oregon and north-central Utah “with no warning or notice to its own citizens.”
CPW publicly announced sourcing from British Columbia on Sept. 13, 2024, however, and held a meeting with county commissioners in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle counties ahead of the planned releases last January. The agency also issued press releases when the operations began and at the conclusion of operations, and they held a press conference less than 48 hours later.
Nesvik’s December letter doubled down on one he sent CPW on Oct. 10, after Greg Lopez, a former Colorado congressman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate, contacted him claiming the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it imported wolves from Canada, because they lacked permits proving the federal government authorized the imports.
That letter told CPW to “cease and desist” going back to British Columbia for a second round of wolves, after the agency had obtained the necessary permits to complete the operation. Nesvik’s reasoning was that CPW had no authority to capture wolves from British Columbia because they aren’t part of the northern Rocky Mountain region population.
But as regulations within the 10(j) show, the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves “is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that encompasses all of Western Canada.”
And “given the demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population and limited number of animals that will be captured for translocations,” the agencies that developed the rule – Fish and Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife – expected “negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.”
So despite what Nesvik and Lopez claim, “neither identified any specific provision of any law – federal, state or otherwise – that CPW or anyone else supposedly violated by capturing and releasing wolves from British Columbia,” said Tom Delehanty, senior attorney for Earthjustice. “They’ve pointed only to the 10(j) rule, which is purely about post-release wolf management, and applies only in Colorado.”
More experts weigh in
In addition to the 2024 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, documents obtained by The Sun include copies of permits given to CPW by the Ministry of British Columbia to export 15 wolves to the United States between Jan. 12 and Jan. 16, 2025.
These permits track everything from live animals and pets to products made from protected wildlife including ivory.
The permit system is the backbone of the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in the three Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, also called CITES. A CITES permit is the confirmation by an issuing authority that the conditions for authorizing the trade are fulfilled, meaning the trade is legal, sustainable and traceable in accordance with articles contained within the Convention.

Gary Mowad, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent and expert on Endangered Species Act policies, said “obtaining a CITES certificate is unrelated to the 10j rule” and that in his estimation, CPW did violate both the terms of the 10(j) and the memorandum of agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because “the 10(j) specifically limited the populations from where wolves could be obtained, and Canada was not authorized.”
Mike Phillips, a Montana legislator who was instrumental in Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction that began in 1995, thinks “the posturing about a takeover seems like just casually considered bravado from Interior officials.”
And Delahanty says “Nesvik and Lopez are making up legal requirements that don’t exist for political leverage in an effort that serves no one. It’s unclear what FWS hopes to accomplish with its threatening letter,” but if they rescind the memorandum of agreement, “it would cast numerous elements of Colorado’s wolf management program into uncertainty.”
Looking forward
If Fish and Wildlife does as Nesvik’s letter threatens and revokes all of CPW’s authority over grey wolves in its jurisdiction, “the service would assume all gray wolf management activities, including relocation and lethal removal, as determined necessary,” it says.
But Phillips says “if Fish and Wildlife succeeds in the agency’s longstanding goal of delisting gray wolves nationwide,” a proposition that is currently moving through Congress, with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Pet and Livestock Protection Act bill, the agency couldn’t take over Colorado’s wolf program. That’s because “wolf conservation falls back to Colorado with (its voter-approved) restoration mandate.” And “the species is listed as endangered/nongame under state law,” he adds.
If the feds did take over, Phillips said in an email “USFWS does not have staff for any meaningful boots-on-the-ground work.” Under Fish and Wildlife Service control, future translocations would probably be “a firm nonstarter,” he added, “but that seems to be the case now.”
A big threat should Fish and Wildlife take over is that lethal removal of wolves “in the presence of real or imagined conflicts might be more quickly applied,” Phillips said.

But it would all be tied up in legal constraints, given that gray wolves are still considered an endangered species in Colorado, and requirements of the 10(j) and state law say CPW must advance their recovery.
So for now, it’s wait and see if CPW can answer Fish and Wildlife’s demand that accompanies Nesvik’s latest letter.
Nesvik told the agency they must report “all gray wolf conservation and management activities that occurred from Dec. 12, 2023, until present,” as well as provide a narrative summary and all associated documents describing both the January 2025 British Columbia release and other releases by Jan. 18., or 30 days after the date on his letter. If they don’t, he said, Fish and Wildlife “will pursue all legal remedies,” including “the immediate revocation of all CPW authority over gray wolves in its jurisdiction.”
Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis’ office, said Colorado disagrees with the premise of Nesvik’s letter and remains “fully committed to fulfilling the will of Colorado voters and successfully reintroducing the gray wolf population in Colorado.”
And CPW maintains it “has coordinated with USFWS throughout the gray wolf reintroduction effort and has complied with all applicable federal and state laws. This includes translocations in January of 2025 which were planned and performed in consultation with USFWS.”
Colorado
Colorado lawmakers duel over data centers: Grant millions in tax breaks or regulate them without incentives?
Colorado lawmakers are deciding this year between two disparate approaches on data centers — one that aims to lure them to the Centennial State with millions of dollars in tax incentives and another that would implement some of the strictest statewide regulations in the country on the booming tech industry.
Either of the two competing bills would create the state’s first regulations specific to data centers. Sponsors of both bills say they hope to minimize environmental impacts from the power and water demands of the centers, while also ensuring that the cost of new infrastructure they need doesn’t wind up on residents’ electric bills.
Both bills are sponsored by Democrats but differ widely in what they’d do.
The bill supported by the data center industry — House Bill 1030 — would incentivize companies to comply with regulations in exchange for large tax breaks. The legislation would not regulate data centers whose owners forgo a tax break.
The other bill — Senate Bill 102 — would offer no incentives, instead imposing regulations on all large data center development across the state. It is supported by environmental and community groups.
“We want to make sure that as data centers come here, they come on our terms,” said Megan Kemp, the Colorado policy representative for Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain office.
The bills have landed as debate over the future of data center regulation intensifies across the state. Data centers house the computer servers that function as the main infrastructure for the digital world. They crunch financial data, store patients’ health information, process online shopping, register sports betting and — increasingly — make possible the heavy data demands of artificial intelligence.
Several companies have begun construction on large data centers across the Front Range in recent years. A 160-megawatt hyperscale facility is under development in Aurora and could consume as much power as 176,000 homes once completed.
The construction of a 60-megawatt data center campus in north Denver has angered those who live by the site and prompted Denver city leaders last week to call for a moratorium on new data center development while they craft regulations for the industry. Larimer County and Logan County have enacted similar moratoriums.
Hundreds gathered Tuesday night at a community meeting about the northern Denver campus owned by CoreSite. Frustration in the crowd — which filled overflow rooms and the front lawn of the building that hosted the meeting — erupted as residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the center expressed concerns about how it would impact their air quality, power and water supplies.
Attendees said they did not know the data center was being built until they saw construction underway.
CoreSite leaders had planned to attend the meeting. But they pulled out of participating the day before because of safety concerns, company spokeswoman Megan Ruszkowski wrote in an email. She did not elaborate on the concerns. A Denver police spokesman said the department did not have any record of a police report filed by CoreSite in the days prior to the meeting.
CoreSite’s absence left officials from the city and utilities to answer the crowd’s questions and field their frustrations. City leaders told attendees that they had no say in whether the data center could be built because there are no city regulations specific to the industry.
“Data centers are proliferating quickly and we don’t know all the impacts,” said Danica Lee, the city’s director of public health investigations. “That’s why we need this moratorium.”
Promises of future regulation meant little to the residents of Elyria-Swansea, where the data center is scheduled to go online this summer. More than an hour into the meeting, a man took the microphone. He noted that so much of the conversation had focused on technicalities — but the information provided had not answered a question on many residents’ minds.
“How do we stop it now?” he asked, to a loud round of applause from the room.
Transformative opportunity?
Some in the state Capitol think more data centers would be beneficial for Colorado.
Supporters of the tax incentive bill in the legislature said luring the industry to Colorado would create high-paying jobs, help pay for electrical grid modernizations and strengthen local tax bases.
“This could be transformative for the state,” said Rep. Alex Valdez, a Denver Democrat who is one of HB-1030’s sponsors.
In exchange for complying with rules, data center companies would be exempted from sales and use taxes for 20 years for purchases related to the data center, like the expensive servers they must replace every few years. After two decades, the companies could apply for an extension to the exemption.
To earn the tax break, data center companies would have to meet requirements that include:
- Breaking ground on the data center within two years.
- Investing at least $250 million into the data center within five years.
- Creating full-time jobs with above-average wages, though the legislation doesn’t specify how many jobs would be required.
- Using a closed-loop water cooling system that minimizes water loss, or a cooling system that does not use water.
- Working to make sure the data center “will not cause unreasonable cost impacts to other utility ratepayers.”
- Consulting with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources about wildlife and water impacts.
While the bill would exempt data centers from sales tax on some purchases, they would still be on the hook for all other taxes, Valdez said, and would bring both temporary and permanent jobs. The bill does not specify how many permanent jobs must be created to qualify for the tax break.
Dozens of other states have enacted tax incentive programs for data centers. Such incentives are a key factor that companies weigh when deciding where to build, said Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry group.
“Colorado is not competitive right now,” he said.
Figuring out the projected impact of the bill on the state’s finances gets complicated.
The legislature’s nonpartisan analysts estimated that the state would miss out on $92.5 million in sales tax revenue in the first three years, assuming a total of 17 data centers would qualify for the tax breaks in that time period.
But Valdez said that is revenue that the state otherwise wouldn’t see if the data centers weren’t built here. And the companies would still pay all other state and local taxes, he said.
“We see it as unrealized revenue, rather than a tax cut,” he said.
Some of that lost tax revenue would be offset by an increase in income taxes paid by low-income families, according to the bill’s fiscal note.
That’s because the projected decrease in sales tax revenue in the first year of the program would decrease the amount of money available for the state to provide its recently enacted Family Affordability Tax Credit. State law ties the amount available for the family tax credit to state revenue growth and whether the state collects money above a revenue cap set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. TABOR requires money above that level to be returned to taxpayers.
If the state doesn’t have excess revenue, it can’t fund that tax credit.
In the next fiscal year, which begins in July, data center companies would avoid paying $29 million in sales taxes, which would trigger a change in the family tax credit. Low-income families would be made to pay a total of $106 million more, the fiscal note estimates.
Bill sponsors are planning to address the fallout for the tax credit in forthcoming amendments, Valdez said.
“We’re not out to trigger any negative impacts to low-income families,” he said.

Baseline guardrails
Forgoing tax dollars during a state budget crisis is a hard sell to Rep. Kyle Brown, a Louisville Democrat sponsoring the regulatory bill. He and other supporters of SB-102 aren’t convinced tax incentives are necessary to bring data centers to the state.
Major construction projects are already underway, he said. In Denver, CoreSite chose not to pursue $9 million in tax breaks from the city but continued construction on its facility regardless.
“The point of our policy is (putting) reasonable, baseline guardrails on this development so it can be smart,” Brown said.
Brown last session co-sponsored a failed bill with Valdez that offered tax incentives to data centers. Since then, however, he’s seen other states that offer tax incentives express buyers’ remorse, he said.
Brown pointed to concerns in Virginia about rising electricity costs due to data center demand and a proposal by the governor of Illinois to suspend the state’s tax credit so that the impacts of the data center boom it sparked could be studied.
His bill this session — co-sponsored by Sen. Cathy Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat — requires that data centers over 30 megawatts:
- Draw as much power as possible from newly sourced renewable energy by 2031.
- Pay for any additions or changes to the grid needed to serve the data center.
- Adhere to local rules about water efficiency.
- Limit the use of backup generators that consume fossil fuels; if such generators are necessary, they must be a certain type that limits emissions.
- Conduct an analysis of the data center’s impacts on local neighborhoods, engage in community outreach and sign a legally binding good-neighbor agreement if the community is disproportionately affected by pollution.
Owners of data centers would also need to report metrics annually to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. They would cover the center’s annual electricity consumption, how much of that power came from renewable sources, the total number of hours backup generators were used and annual water use.
Utilities, too, would face additional requirements.
The legislation would ban utilities from offering discounted rates to large data centers. It also would prohibit them from supplying electricity to a data center if doing so would affect the utility’s ability to provide power to its other customers — or its ability to meet state emissions reduction goals.
Environmental groups supporting the bill say the state needs regulations to make sure the increased electrical demand generated by data centers doesn’t expand the state’s use of fossil fuels or slow the retirement of fossil fuel-powered plants.
If not done thoughtfully, the groups said, the increased electrical load could imperil the state’s climate goals.
“What we need to avoid is a race to attract data centers that turns into a race to the bottom,” said Alana Miller, the Colorado policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and energy program.
If the legislature enacts SB-102, it would implement the strictest data center regulations in the country and would ward off future data center development, Diorio said. He sees many of the rules as unattainable.
“It would make it nearly impossible to develop a data center in the state of Colorado,” he said.
Conversations between the sponsors of the two bills are underway, Valdez and Brown said. Both expressed hope that a consensus could be found between the two pieces of legislation.
Neither bill had been scheduled for a committee hearing.
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
Colorado
Colorado family pushes for change after rare disease clinical trial abruptly ends
Colorado
Evacuation warning issued for area near wildfire in southwest Boulder
Authorities have issued an evacuation warning for homes near a wildfire that broke out in southwest Boulder on Saturday afternoon.
Just before 1 p.m., Boulder Fire Rescue said a wildfire sparked in the southwest part of Boulder’s Chautauqua neighborhood. The Bluebell Fire is currently estimated to be approximately five acres in size, and more than 50 firefighters are working to bring it under control. Mountain View Fire Rescue is assisting Boulder firefighters with the operation.
Around 1:30, emergency officials issued an evacuation warning to the residents in the area of Chatauqua Cottages. Residents in the area should be prepared in case they need to evacuate suddenly.
Officials have ordered the DFPC Multi-Mission Aircraft (MMA) and Type 1 helicopter to assist in firefighting efforts. Boulder Fire Rescue said the fire has a moderate rate of spread and no containment update is available at this time.
Red Flag warnings remain in place for much of the Front Range as windy and dry conditions persist.
-
World4 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts4 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Denver, CO4 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana7 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
