The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, an Oregon-based nonprofit group, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Missoula.
The lawsuit is part of the group's campaign to reform the Forest Service's wildland firefighting mission.
The lawsuit accuses the Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service of failing to fully evaluate the environmental impact of the aerial retardants.
Studies show the ammonium-based retardants are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, and promote the spread of flammable invasive weeds.
FSEEE won an earlier retardant-related lawsuit against the Forest Service when U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the agency had violated federal law by failing to properly review the environmental impact of retardants on national forests.
That lawsuit - which was filed in 2003, a year after a retardant airdrop killed 20,000 fish in an Oregon stream - was dismissed in February when the Forest Service complied with Molloy's order to complete an environmental assessment of aerial retardants.
FSEEE's latest lawsuit challenges the Forest Service's assessment, which found that the chemical red slurry has no significant environmental impact.
In their biological opinions, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service said retardants jeopardize 45 endangered or threatened fish, plant, insect, mussel and amphibian species and their critical habitats.
The lawsuit includes those two agencies because they said the Forest Service could avoid jeopardizing the environment if it followed “reasonable and prudent alternatives” when dropping retardants.
The Forest Service agreed to the alternatives, which include expanded testing and monitoring of retardants, but do not change the way retardants are used.
Under interim guidelines that the Forest Service agreed to make permanent, retardant airdrops are prohibited within 300 feet of waterways unless people, property, infrastructure and critical natural resources are threatened.
The new lawsuit challenges the three agencies' environmental analyses, conclusions and decisions, saying they violate the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws.
FSEEE said the Forest Service should be forced to complete an environmental impact statement, which is more detailed than an environmental assessment, and that the “reasonable and prudent alternatives” do not prevent harm to the protected species and their critical habitat.
The Forest Service, which spends nearly 50 percent of its budget on fire suppression, has used an average of 26 million gallons of aerial retardant annually on federal lands since 2000, a figure projected to increase by more than 500,000 gallons a year at the current pace.
Andy Stahl, FSEEE's executive director, said he expects a ruling on the lawsuit within a year.
“This kind of reform campaign doesn't just happen in the legal arena,” he said. “It also happens in the political arena. Within a year, we'll have a different White House administration that perhaps will be more sensible when it comes to wildfires, reducing costs and protecting forest health and our communities.”
Ed Nesselroad, public affairs director for the Forest Service's Northern Region, declined to comment Wednesday, citing the pending litigation.
Reporter John Cramer can be reached at 523-5259 or at john.cramer@missoulian.com.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)