A federal court judge in Montana blocked a large project which would have logged or clear-cut more than 10,000 acres of old-growth forest and threatened an iconic bird nesting in the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

In addition to logging 16 square miles, the project would have bulldozed 40 miles of new logging roads into the Little Belt Mountains.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the decision also protects the Northern Goshawk, an old-growth-dependent species which has declined 47% in the last few years. He pointed out the bird has been under constant threat of clear-cut, which Garrity noted allows competitor species to drive it out.

"Even though they're a fairly big bird, they can fly through very tiny openings by pulling their wings in, and they can make very sharp turns," Garrity explained. "If you accidentally come close to a goshawk nest, they are very protective of their nest and they will attack people with their talons and poke out their eyes."

Garrity emphasized the U.S. Forest Service is required by its own rules to tell the public if the goshawk population declines by 10%, and did not. The Forest Service contended the Horsefly project, as it is known, would not affect the goshawk population but its own numbers showed the drastic decline in nesting sites and population.

It is one in a series of lawsuits filed by a coalition of environmental advocates, including the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, to protect species habitat. Garrity stressed the Horsefly ruling is important for the goshawk but the threats do not stop there.

"It's also important for other mature and old growth forest-dependent species, such as pine martin, lynx and forest birds," Garrity outlined. "Which are all in decline."

The court dismissed other parts of the case, including claims roads would interfere with grizzly bear habitat and threaten the elk population.

A bill introduced in Congress is facing backlash from nonprofit organizations, warning it could stifle free speech.

The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would postpone tax deadlines for citizens who are unlawfully detained abroad or held hostage but it would also give the federal government the power to remove the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group it deems to be supporting "terrorist organizations."

Critics of the bill claimed it would give President-elect Donald Trump the power to make decisions about churches, universities, news outlets and more.

Lisa DePaoli, communications director at the Center for Coalfield Justice, said it could be used to stifle the environmental work they do in Pennsylvania.

"The main issue for us is that it could take away our nonprofit designation, and it could take away our First Amendment rights," DePaoli contended. "If stripped of our rights, it'll just make the fight to protect our communities that much harder."

Proponents said it would require the federal government to provide evidence a nonprofit has supported a listed terrorist organization. More than 130 religious, civil rights and other advocacy groups have joined the ACLU in asking lawmakers to vote against the bill.

According to the ACLU, there would be a 90-day period in which a nonprofit group could defend itself against the accusations. However, the federal government might not have to turn over the evidence it would be using to make its case.

DePaoli noted she has concerns environmental groups would be specifically targeted with such powers.

"We obviously don't consider ourselves a terrorist organization but I do know that, in the past, some environmental organizations have been labeled as such," DePaoli pointed out. "It feels like a really slippery slope to me. We don't want our First Amendment rights taken away. We want to be able to speak out and express if we're upset with something they're doing."

The bill passed the House last Thursday, in a vote of 219 in support and 184 against. Fifteen Democrats sided with all but one Republican to support the bill.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana environmental advocates are facing uncertainties following the election.

Changes in federal leadership could shift key environmental protections, creating questions for state policies on coal ash and water quality.

Sam Carpenter, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, noted federal regulations, like those from the Environmental Protection Agency, have helped Indiana manage environmental challenges, including addressing unlined coal ash pits contaminating groundwater. With shifting federal priorities, there is a question of what will happen to the protections.

"The EPA had recently come out with guidelines that require those to be cleaned up," Carpenter pointed out. "There are similar things with coal-fired power plants where we still rely quite a bit on our coal power generation which is dirty."

Carpenter argued the plants are costly and harmful to health and the climate. Supporters of reduced regulation argue scaling back federal oversight could ease economic pressures on Indiana's coal industry and reduce costs for energy providers.

Carpenter expressed concern over Indiana's legislative stance, emphasizing a need for strong regulations to protect the well-being of Hoosiers and natural resources in the state amid increased development.

"What we need to think about is protection of our health, protection of our water, of our natural assets," Carpenter emphasized. "In our statehouse there is a real concern about regulation. We rely on some protection for natural resources."

Despite the challenges, Carpenter urged residents to stay hopeful and engaged, stressing involvement is a powerful antidote to despair. He assured supporters the council would keep pushing for clean energy, water quality improvements and partnerships across political lines to secure a healthier environment.


get more stories like this via email

Hispanic families who fish to put food on the table are disproportionately affected by mercury, which accumulates in seafood in Southern California.

Surveys at 10 piers in Los Angeles and Orange counties found 60% of the anglers were Latino and native Spanish speakers, and 78% of them were fishing to feed their families.

Sofia Barboza, ocean manager for the Hispanic Access Foundation, said the families are exposed to toxins in fish from polluted waters.

"We found that Hispanic anglers in California are actually ingesting an average of 13.9 micrograms of mercury per day via fish consumption that they had caught in local waters," Barboza reported. "This is double the amount of mercury that has been determined as safe by the EPA."

Fish with high mercury levels have also been found in the Bay Area, the Central Coast near Humboldt and Deer Creek. A newly-released report from the foundation about Latinos in U.S. fisheries found 5% of Latinos in California, or about 785,000 people, work in the agricultural, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining sectors. But no research yet exists to determine how many Latinos are in commercial fishing.

Barboza suggested the warning signs about pollution at the piers, as well as government websites, should be translated into Spanish.

"Even though 28% of the California population speaks Spanish, the California Fish and Wildlife Department fishing regulations are not provided in Spanish on their website," Barboza pointed out. "Something we would like to see moving forward."

The report also recommends stronger oversight of commercial fishing companies hiring Hispanic migrant workers on H2B visas to ensure they receive fair wages, safe working conditions and access to safe housing.