DENVER -- As the nation grapples with charges of systemic racism in the wake of George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police, a new report shows that communities of color are three times more likely than communities identified as white to live in areas considered to be nature deprived.

Report co-author Shanna Edberg, director of conservation programs for the Hispanic Access Foundation, says people of color, who are disproportionately suffering from COVID-19, can't access the health benefits of green spaces.

"Access to nature promotes an active lifestyle," she states. "Greenery absorbs pollution, and pollution is found to be one of the risk factors for COVID-19. So, it's not just this kind of ideal that we'd like to have, it's people's health and mental wellness."

The report by Edberg's group and the Center for American Progress found that families in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color do not have adequate access to safe, close-to-home parks and other green spaces.

Across the country, 70% of low-income communities live in nature-deprived areas.

In Colorado, Hispanic and Latino communities are more likely to live in the shadows of power plants, refineries, and oil and gas operations than any other racial or ethnic group.

Co-author Jenny Rowland-Shea, a senior policy analyst with the Center for American Progress, says the data confirms that the stark disparities are not a result of chance, but decades of systemic inequalities and environmental racism.

"Including practices of redlining, a long history of prioritizing parks in white neighborhoods, siting factories and energy projects in communities of color," she states. "Even literally paving directly through or over diverse neighborhoods."

Rowland-Shea says state and local governments can help reverse inequities by prioritizing new parks and greenway projects in communities of color, and changing hiring practices so that staff in related government agencies, nonprofit groups and foundations better reflect the nation's diversity.

The report's recommendations also include protecting at least 30% of natural landscapes in the U.S. by 2030.

The number of mining claims on U.S. public lands is growing. A 27% increase since 2019 has brought the total to nearly a half-million.

A new study showed many are in close proximity to, and could threaten, national parks. In Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, more than 15,000 mining claims are within 30 miles of a national park or monument, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.

Beau Kiklis, associate director of landscape conservation and energy policy for the association, said claims are easy to get, based on a system dating back to 1872. He added a bill now in the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources could make it even simpler.

"We're seeing agencies and institutions being dismantled and protections for landscapes being reviewed and compromised," Kiklis pointed out. "When we look at this data, our parks and our monuments, they are threatened from the possibility of future mining."

Kiklis noted mining claims are not held to the same standards of review and public process as other public land uses, and residents receive no royalties from the claims. According to the report, holders of mining claims in 2023 paid less than $10 per acre.

Kiklis emphasized it takes, on average, just three years to permit a mine.

"That's pretty fast when you think about the potential threats that are associated with mining, like impacts to groundwater and water supply for communities, wildlife migration and habitat, air impacts," Kiklis outlined. "You think about other public land uses, like recreation and conservation and so forth."

Across the northern Rockies, there are 141 mining claims within the boundaries of national parks and monuments, including Yellowstone National Park and Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area.

Months after the nation's highest court declined to hear a Utah case about ownership of public lands, a Montana House committee will debate whether to support it.

The Committee on Energy, Technology and Federal Relations is scheduled to hear a resolution today about "supporting Utah" in its 2024 lawsuit against the United States.

Utah claimed it's been deprived of "sovereign powers" because of the federal government's "indefinite retention of unappropriated public lands" there.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in January, but the suit could be refiled.

Kearstyn Cook - program director with of Montana Conservation Voters - said that could set what she calls a "dangerous precedent."

"The State of Montana showing support for such a motion," said Cook, "is just a blatant slap in the face to public land owners and lovers."

The federal government owns nearly 70% of the land within Utah's borders, and 30% in Montana's.

Still, 68% of Montana voters have said they oppose giving states control over national public lands, according to the latest poll.

Montana Conservation Voters collected over 1,000 signatures asking state lawmakers to denounce Utah's efforts. Cook said people want to make their voices heard.

"People who use our public lands," said Cook, "for recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking, for agriculture, for ranching - this in some way, shape or form would impact a majority of Montanans."

The same committee on Tuesday will hear Senate Joint Resolution 14, which would release federal Wilderness Study Areas from their protected status - across more than 1 million acres of Montana public lands - opening them to "multiple uses" including agriculture, timber and mining.

For decades to come, South Dakotans can make use of an expanded wilderness in the southeastern part of the state, as a new land deal will keep hundreds of acres off limits to developers at a time when resource protections are challenged.

The forest land in question sits next to Newton Hills State Park, south of Sioux Falls. The Conservation Fund helped facilitate a deal involving state and federal agencies, where the organization first purchased and secured more than 200 acres of a former Boy Scout campground site. Through the collaboration, those acres were eventually put under the state's control.

Clint Miller, vice president of the central Midwest region for The Conservation Fund, said it means the section of wilderness is no longer at risk of turning into something which does not align with enjoying nature.

"What this prevented is conversion to some other use," Miller explained. "The most likely use that this property may have been converted to would be rural residential homes, multimillion-dollar rural residential homes."

Instead, Newton Hills will take on another 36 acres for things like hiking, and another 176 is set aside for wildlife protection and hunting. For federal public lands, there is new concern about spending cuts under the Trump administration affecting national parks. There is also political pressure to sell off public lands for fossil fuel-related production, with Republicans arguing America needs to reassert its energy independence.

Miller noted a donation and a federal grant from last year helped push the deal across the finish line, key steps since the state lacked funds to cover all the costs. Beyond recreation, he added there is an ecological benefit, describing the unique piece of land as a "forested island" along the Big Sioux River.

"When you look at it from above, you can see this ribbon of green, usually inside of a big land of cropland of corn and beans," Miller observed. "The migratory pathways for the birds, for other animals to move along there is absolutely essential."

Polling has indicated most Americans, no matter their political beliefs, prefer to conserve public lands, not develop them. In a new poll from Colorado College, which reached out to voters in eight Western states, 72% of those surveyed preferred conservation.