The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Federal Judge Orders Tougher Look At Fire Retardant Drops
JEFF BARNARD
AP Environmental Writer
GRANTS PASS, Ore.- A federal judge Wednesday ordered the U.S. Forest Service to take a tougher look at the possibility that routinely dropping toxic fire retardant on wildfires from airplanes will kill endangered fish and plants.
Related
U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy in Missoula, Mont., ruled that the current environmental assessment is inadequate in light of federal biologists' findings that fire retardant that lands in creeks and on rare plants jeopardize the survival of endangered species and their habitat.
Molloy did not restrict the use of fire retardant this summer, but in a sternly written order gave the Forest Service until the end of 2011 to do a tougher environmental impact statement. He warned the agency could be found in contempt for failing to meet the deadline and refused to hear further arguments on the issue.
He also sent environmental analyses in support of the Forest Service assessment, known as biological opinions, back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The judge wrote that they violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to put any real limits on firefighters from calling in retardant drops, despite finding that the mix of water and fertilizer could poison fish and their food and kill rare plants.
Andy Stahl of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, which brought the lawsuit, said half the 20 million gallons of fire retardant dropped by the Forest Service in 2008 was dropped in California, where it has become a public relations display for television cameras that is rarely effective because it is used in windy conditions that cause it to be widely dispersed.
"If a farmer took a 3,000-gallon truckload of liquefied fertilizer and dumped it in a creek, that farmer would be in jail in a heartbeat," Stahl said. "But when the Forest Service does it, everybody looks the other way because it is a war on fire."
Millions of dollars go to private contractors to dump fire retardant, Stahl added. "So there is developed a fire industrial complex between the government and these contractors that keeps the money flowing. And it's led to a quintupling of Forest Service firefighting expenses in the last 10 years."
The judge cited an e-mail from a Fish and Wildlife Service official to conclude the agency's findings were arbitrary and capricious. The e-mail said the agency could not restrict the use of fire retardant because it might be blamed for the loss of a home or someone's life.
"This determination is not scientific, it is a political decision-making by the Fish and Wildlife Service," Molloy wrote.
Noting that only 14 of the 128,000 retardant drops over a period of eight years had killed protected fish or plants, Molloy said it was still necessary to avoid harming protected species.
The judge also found Fish and Wildlife and the fisheries service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to include an "incidental take permit" in the biological opinion that would allow killing some endangered species. The agencies had argued they would consider permits on a case-by-case basis.
Molloy rejected arguments from the conservation group that challenged the Forest Service's entire approach to fighting wildfire as harmful to the environment.
The case stretches back to 2003, when the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics originally challenged the Forest Service's use of chemical fire retardants without properly considering the harm to the environment. Molloy ordered the Forest Service to look at the issue more closely, and in 2007 threatened the Bush administration's top forest official with jail for failing to meet the deadline.
After the Forest Service issued an environmental assessment in 2008, Molloy dismissed the lawsuit. But Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics filed again three weeks later claiming the document was inadequate.
Janet Sears, a spokeswoman for the fisheries service, which is a unit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, said officials had not seen the ruling and could not comment. The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service did not immediately respond to calls for comment.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JOSEPH MONTONDO on
-
i guess they can stop using the fire retardent and just let the endangered plants and animals burn up. I wonder how the tree huggers will like that. Whats the worst of the evils here?
-
Permalink Reply by John L. Odom on
-
I guess they would rather the wildlife die from fire or ash/mud washed into the streams.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
It depends on the retardant's toxicity and solubility. It can persist in the environment without immediate degradation and contaminates surface waters from runoff. While ash and mud can settle out fairly quickly (relatively speaking) the retardant can persist longer in the water column and travel further downstream.
There's a certain toxicity from the retardant alone but as it degrades from sunlight and reactions with acidic or basic soils other chemicals are freed, cyanide being one of them, which can then be introduced into surface waters as runoff.
It's really a question as to which environmental insult is the lesser; damage from the fire in the affected area or damage further downstream in unaffected areas from the use of retardants.
-
-
What are the chemicals used i fire retardants for aerial drop nowadays? Back in the dark ages we used a slurry of bentonite, a natural clay, a pink dye and water. Bentonite is an approved additive for oral pharmaceuticals and is inert.
The ash and mud settle in the stream and make permanent changes to the stream bed habitat.
-
Permalink Reply by sacramento fire buffs on
-
I bet if any one of the people in the law suit had their house in dabger of burning p from a forest fire and they did not make the drop and they lost their house they would firle a law suit for not droping the load to save it
long term damage from fire is wose than that of fire retardent
your choise
red trees or no trees just ash
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Powers on
-
Bentonite is also used as a lubricant in the drilling of water wells for rural homes. Perhaps this study will put us back in the dark ages. It is funny how technology doubles back on itself sometimes.
-
-
Forests evolved in concert with wild fires. While a fire may change the habitat as we see it (and prefer to see it) it's all part of the way nature works. The reason for such massive and hot fires is a result of extinguishing all wild fires for years. Detritus that builds up was not burnt off, allowing for the hotter fires.
As for long term damage, the forests regenerate. Under natural conditions most fires would be considerably cooler and lower to the ground. The damage to the environment from retardants is still being studied. But retardant applied to an area that survives a fire may find that it lacks a wide range of former inhabitants, killed off from the retardant. Likewise downstream pollution can have equally long lasting effects on the entire aquatic food chain.
I don't remember seeing or reading about any deleterious effects to the rivers or lakes in Yellowstone from the fires in the late 80's. And recent pictures show the area rebounding quickly. The following year ground cover was extensive throughout the area which is amazingly beneficial to wildlife. Sufficient water flow will wash the mud (and suspended silts) downstream. Where the rivers are wide, meandering and slow moving the bottom is already silted, it's where the silt in suspension settles out. Ash is a good source of plant nutrients and acts as a fertilizer, promoting fresh growth.
To me it isn't an issue of using or not using retardants but rather, using it judiciously. As the judge pointed out, he wasn't banning retardants, only requiring the USFS to complete an environmental impact study. He was most upset with the response (and lack of previous action) by the USFS, The judge cited an e-mail from a Fish and Wildlife Service official to conclude the agency's findings were arbitrary and capricious.
As for tree huggers, Molloy (the judge) rejected arguments from the conservation group that challenged the Forest Service's entire approach to fighting wildfire as harmful to the environment.
It seems to me that the judge is simply following (and requiring to be followed) the present rules and laws. There doesn't appear to me to be any tree hugging on the judge's part, only that the requisite studies be performed. It could be that the present retardants are actually the best product out there and the most efficient and worth any collateral damage. Or there could be other, better options or the long term effect on the environment may be worse from the retardants than without. That is what studies are for, to make those determinations.
-
Permalink Reply by Barry on
-
OMG....give me a break! Lets see now...we have TREE HUGGERS going stupid, because something designed to SAVE forests, including plants and animals, might be a problem for some unsuspecting plant? WOW! I'm amazed we didn't see this before! Of course it is MUCH better to let the forests BURN! That way, the poor plants can burn up now, rather than die later! What a novel idea!
Oh wait...did I miss something? If we don't use the retardant, might we also burn down peoples houses?????
Idiots!
-
-
Nice to see you have a grasp of all the facts, or rather, not. I wouldn't let them get in the way of having an opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Of course it is MUCH better to let the forests BURN! That way, the poor plants can burn up now, rather than die later!
Forests evolved in concert with wild fires. While a fire may change the habitat as we see it (and prefer to see it) it's all part of the way nature works
Jack is right here. Forest fires have occurred long before man and is a natural occurrence and how fires help rebuild life. This was basic science class from grade school. The reason we see man intervening in wildfires is to protect man's property and prevent life loss because of living close to such natural events. People chose to live in such areas, people chose to build houses on cliffs subject to mudslides, etc. Nature will always find a way to recycle itself.
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
That was my thought exactly which is the worst evil here.....hummmmmm... if we dont drop the retardent, the fire burns out of control and destroys the plants, which then puts ash and mud in rivers killing the fish.....or put the retardent down stop the fire and save pretty much everything but maybe a couple of fish or plants......hope they know what they are talking about!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Mackie on
-
Geeze, Jack, that guy simply could not buy a clue about forest fires, natural evolutions and .. oh wtf am I wasting time commenting on that for lol
Barry, I suggest you start some inquiring into forest fires, etc etc etc..
Can't believe he was actually thinking he knew! lol
Wonder if he got the word retardant mixed up? ;)
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
