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.


 

A tanker begins to make a drop on a wildfire burning in California. (ITNNews image)


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.

Views: 242

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I vote for the putting out forest fires and making it safe for the firefighter!
I agree, that there are many instances where fires should be allowed to burn, Prescribed burns are a help(unless it gets away) in this.

Still, What is the actual chemical composition of the retardants in use today?
Thsi is not new.

In the reposne to the 2005 Buncefield Refinery fire in the UK, it was something like 48 hours or longer before the first bit of foam/water was put on the fire as the responding FD's had to put in palce very robust and rigorous control measures (bunding, etc) to contain the run off from foam and other contaminants.

I also raised this as a topic on these forums here:
Are Environmental Concerns As a Result of Fire, Our Problem?
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/889755:Topic:1203068


This is an issue that I think is going to get bigger and bigger and needs to be looked at very carefully....
So, letting all the homes and lumber burn would be better?
Don't forget that most plants will regrow after a fire- in fact in many instances, fire will promote some very healthy regeneration and growth. However, toxic fire retardant will potentially kill everyhting.

Does anyone remember when 3M said they were stepping away from foam manufacture due to the toxic affects of their products to the environment?
chemical composition of the retardants

Fire retardant salts (alone or in combination)
Ammonium sulfate
Diammonium phosphate
Monoammonium phosphate
Ammonium polyphosphate
Preservative or spoilage inhibitors
Corrosion inhibitor(s)
Coloring agent
Thickening agent such as; Guar gum or clay

The phosphate and sulfate salts act as fire retardants and prevent combustion of plant materials. There are also certain proprietary ingredients depending on manufacturer. The above are considered "Long Term Retardants."

Short term retardants such as class A foam, use some of the same ingredients, except for the dyes and thickening agents.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Find Members Fast


Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2024   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service