BRECKENRIDGE, Colo. - In western states including Colorado, party lines practically disappear in a new poll about balancing renewable-energy development with protection for public lands.

Nearly three out of four voters in 11 states favor producing wind and solar power on federal lands. An even bigger majority agrees it should be done responsibly, says Chase Huntley, clean-energy policy director for The Wilderness Society, which commissioned the poll.

"The view of most Western voters - more than seven out of 10 - is that wind and solar make sense on public lands. But overwhelmingly, nearly eight out of 10 believe revenues from development should be returned to local communities and to the land, as with other forms of energy development."

Systems are in place to funnel some rents or royalties from oil and gas, coal and even mineral development on federal land to local governments - but not solar or wind.
Pending legislation to change that has bipartisan support from Colorado's congressional delegation.

Three bills in Congress - HR 5991, HR 6154 and S 1775 - would allow money now going to the feds to be used by counties and states instead, to be used for boosting conservation and recreation.

In Summit County, where more than half the economy is based on recreation and tourism, County Commissioner Dan Gibbs says it would be an important change.

"I really believe that these three bills pending in the House and Senate - to me, they look really common-sense, how local severance money might trickle down to communities to offset those impacts, just like what the oil and gas industry have right now."

If money were set aside for conservation, the pollsters also asked how it should be used - for parks and refuges, restoring fish and wildlife habitat, or creating new hunting and fishing areas. Support ranged from 72 percent to 85 percent, and pollster Christine Matthews of Bellweather Research says politics didn't appear to play a role.

"There's no daylight whatsoever between Democrats, independents and Republicans on creating new fishing and hunting areas to replace those impacted. Whatever damage is done, they feel strongly that they want that to be corrected; they want it to be fixed."

The poll of almost 2,000 voters was taken jointly during the first week in August by two polling firms, one Republican and one Democrat. Poll information is online at wilderness.org.


get more stories like this via email

Conservation groups are rejoicing over the decision Friday by the Biden administration to reject a proposed mining road in Alaska.

The 211-mile Ambler Road would have sliced through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, severing the migration route for a Western Arctic Caribou herd.

Alex Johnson, interior Alaska director for the National Parks Conservation Association, said it was important for the feds to take a stand in Alaska so mining interests do not start eyeing other national parks.

"This is a very expensive, destructive and just highly speculative project that does not in any way support our clean energy goals as a country," Johnson contended. "And ultimately would permanently threaten the health and well-being of local communities and the tribes."

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski slammed the decision, warning it could limit jobs and tax revenues for Alaska by preventing exploration for minerals she said are important to national security, like copper, cobalt, gallium and germanium.

Jayme Dittmar, a photographer and filmmaker from Fairbanks, said the road would have been very disruptive to the 66 Native American villages along the proposed route.

"That'd be 168 trucks passing through close vicinity to the villages," Dittmar pointed out. "There would be hundreds of bridges built. It would dismantle a subsistence livelihood that's been in place for thousands and thousands of years."

The road was seen as a negative for tourism to the Brooks Range area. According to the Alaska Travel Industry Association, Californians make up 9% of visitors to Alaska.

Arizona conservation groups and sportsmen alike say they're pleased the Bureau of Land Management will now recognize conservation as an integral part of public lands management.

The agency's new rule puts protecting the environment on par with other land-use priorities.

Scott Garlid, executive director of the Arizona Wildlife Federation, said historically the BLM has done what he termed a "pretty good job," not only managing about 12 million acres of public lands in Arizona, but also protecting natural resources.

"They've got a tough job," Garlid acknowledged. "I think this rule helps make their job a little bit easier because it gives them some tools to balance those different demands on the 12 million acres that they manage."

Garlid predicted the rule will raise what he terms "harder-to-quantify conservation values" to the same level of importance as more extractive land uses like oil and gas exploration and mining. He thinks most Arizonans will recognize the new rule as a positive. A solid majority of Arizona voters across party lines say they are conservationists and use public lands for recreation.

To Garlid, the rule makes it clear the BLM is recognizing certain parts of federal lands, in Arizona and around the West, have been degraded. He contended restoration leases will be a good tool, allowing the BLM to lease acres to groups specifically to improve the conditions on a given landscape. He noted opponents of the new rule might see the leases as a way to "lock up" land but he argued it is not true.

"One example could be a nonprofit, like the Arizona Wildlife Federation," Garlid pointed out. "We could get a conservation lease from the Bureau of Land Management to do riparian restoration work, or work to remove invasive species along a creek bank."

According to the BLM, while a restoration or mitigation lease is in place, casual uses of the leased lands like recreation, hunting, fishing and research activities would generally continue.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

State and federal agencies are collaborating to increase the use of prescribed fires in the Northwest.

Prescribed fire is the controlled use of burns to minimize the larger risks of wildfires and smoke. It is seen as an increasingly important strategy as wildfire seasons pose greater threats to the Northwest.

Casey Sixkiller, Northwest regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said authorities want to work together to maintain forest habitats.

"Prescribed burn is one of the best tools we have for making our forests more resilient against catastrophic wildfires and they help to manage and target hazardous fuels and make for healthier forests," Sixkiller explained.

Sixkiller pointed out the EPA is involved because wildfire smoke poses risks to people's health. The collaboration is between federal agencies, departments in Oregon and Washington, and tribal governments.

Sixkiller noted the collaboration needed a formal agreement to move forward.

"That is what we've been able to do here with this agreement," Sixkiller emphasized. "To get federal land managers and states and us all in the same room, making sure that we're all on the same page about what success looks like."

Sixkiller added the collaboration has another advantage: It helps drive engagement with communities potentially in the path of prescribed burns.

"They have the confidence that the effort that's gone into planning that activity has been thought out from soup to nuts," Sixkiller acknowledged. "And that they have a seat at the table and are being engaged and their concerns are being addressed as we go forward with that activity."


get more stories like this via email