The Alliance for the Wild Rockies wants the project stopped.
“I think the people of Libby have been poisoned enough,” Michael Garrity, executive director of the alliance, said in a news release announcing that a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court in Missoula seeking to halt the spraying.
It also says the primary causes of the weed problem are the Forest Service's own land management activities, including logging, road-building and cattle grazing.
Even if herbicides are applied to thousands of acres, the lawsuit says the Forest Service has admitted its land management activities will continue to cause noxious weed infestations in the national forest.
Steve Kratville, acting director of the agency's Northern Region Public and Government Relations staff, said no one with the agency could comment directly on the lawsuit.
But he did ask Dan Leavell, the forest ecologist with the Kootenai National Forest who oversees the noxious weed program, to explain the project.
The ground-based spraying began in the late 1980s, Leavell said, and currently covers roughly 2,000 acres a year.
“Invasive weeds are the greatest threat we have to biological diversity in the forest,” Leavell said. “It's shocking how pervasive and extensive it is. Native plants don't have a chance. The weeds just wipe them out. In trying to curb the threat to native diversity, we've sought the safest, best, cleanest way we possibly can, and it has strict monitoring protocol.”
The 1994 environmental assessment of the program was due for an update, Leavell added.
“It was a great opportunity to make it better and more versatile,” Leavell said, “and allowed us to take a more holistic and integrated approach” to the weed problem.
The new plan includes biological controls such as weed-eating insects, revegetation efforts and hand-pulling.
But the lawsuit says those alternatives cover a tiny portion of the 94,000 acres - 375 acres for biological controls, hand-pulling on 5 acres and reseeding on 1 acre to 3,000 acres.
The plan continues hand- and truck-spraying on 45,000 to 55,000 acres over the next 15 years, and opens up 30,000 to 35,000 acres to aerial spraying.
The latter especially concerns the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Garrity said aerially sprayed herbicides “will drift from their target and could potentially land on people,” and they could also have an adverse effect on a dwindling grizzly bear population.
“The project allows aerial herbicide application by low-flying helicopters over thousands of acres of grizzly bear habitat,” Garrity said. “Grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem can't take much more. It is time to start recovering this population instead of constantly displacing it.”
Leavell called aerial spraying “one tool in the toolbox, just in case we need it,” and said that no aerial spraying is currently scheduled.
“We wanted to make sure we had the option” to spray from helicopters, Leavell said, “but a lot of stars would have to fall into place,” including funding, for it to happen.
“So far, we're not there yet,” Leavell said.
“The Forest Service should have considered an alternative in the (environmental impact statement) that prescribed preventive measures that actually stop the spread of noxious weed infestations by addressing the causes of the problem,” Garrity said, “rather than risk spraying the people around Libby with poison.”
Garrity's statement that those people “have been poisoned enough” refers to the ongoing battle over old asbestos-contaminated vermiculite mining operations in Libby by W.R. Grace & Co. that led to the illnesses and deaths of hundreds of residents over the years.
Grace has agreed to pay up to $140 million to settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from its use of vermiculite. (See related story.)
The herbicide lawsuit says the Forest Service's design criteria allows aerial spraying over the Kootenai National Forest when wind speeds are less than 6 mph, but adds “the most recent aerial herbicide drift study cited by the Forest Service in the final EIS recommends applying aerial herbicides as a last resort, and at speeds no greater than 3 miles per hour, not applying during an inversion, and not applying when there is rain forecasted in the next 24 hours. None of these measures were incorporated into the design criteria for the project.”
It also charges that the Forest Service failed to candidly disclose the physical effects of herbicides on humans, and misleads the public by implying the only people who may experience adverse health effects from herbicide exposure are “sensitive” individuals and workers in occupational exposure scenarios.
The lawsuit claimed “overwhelming” public opposition to the project. It cited 12 of 14 letters from individuals that commented on the project as being opposed to it, as were six of 10 organizations that submitted comments.
It also noted a petition signed by 90 local residents was against the herbicide spraying.
Reporter Vince Devlin can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at vdevlin@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)
Peace and Love wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:05 PM:
" Why doesn't Mr. Garrity volunteer to pull weeds?
Oh yeah, I forgot, he's too busy adopting orphaned children. "
Oh yeah, I forgot, he's too busy adopting orphaned children. "
JD wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:49 AM:
" I am sick and tired of these so called "groups" speaking for what they believe is the majority of Americans. For the most part they collect government funds and fight the organizations "we the people" pay to over see our lands and interests. Its a clear waste of our tax dollars. Look at the logging industry, lay-offs, closed mills, diseased forests, and now a shortage of building supplies and jobs, and now we learn the Spotted Owl was never really in danger. You talk about special interest groups! "
CM wrote on Dec 8, 2008 5:00 PM:
" JD, you are seriously mis-informed. There is no shortage of building suplies (i.e. wood products). Much of our public land has been poorly managed (hence catastrophic wildfires, insect infestation, disease, and noxious weed invasions). Cattle grazing is a big culprit. Cattle transport weeds on hoof from one region to another when trucked across country. Overgrazing has created serious erosion and ecological shifts. Perhaps you should educate yourself so you'll see both sides of the issue. Incidentally, only a small fraction of wood products originate from public lands. Most wood comes from private land. "
Jen wrote on Dec 9, 2008 6:29 AM:
" The residents of Libby should devise a plan to go and hand pull the exotic invasives. After a couple of hours, they will be in favor of spraying herbicides. Trust me.
Sounds to me like they learned they could make money via lawsuits so now they are suing over anything.
Most wood products come from private lands these days because the public won't let the forest service harvest timber any more. Although they (the public) continue to use wood products on a daily basis...hmmmm.
It's like raging against coal while sitting in your air-conditioned home. "
Sounds to me like they learned they could make money via lawsuits so now they are suing over anything.
Most wood products come from private lands these days because the public won't let the forest service harvest timber any more. Although they (the public) continue to use wood products on a daily basis...hmmmm.
It's like raging against coal while sitting in your air-conditioned home. "
RF wrote on Dec 10, 2008 6:03 AM:
" Noxious weeds left unchallenged will change the landscape and out-compete native vegetation. Usually, herbicides are the only cost effective option.
National forests were originally set aside to ensure a timber supply; recreation, wildlife, and clean water values were added later.
There has been very little "management" of these valuable resources over the last 15 years due to lawsuits that have crippled any efforts by state and federal agencies. Once management was halted, the wildfires were a known consequence; although the cries of natural resource managers fell on deaf ears.
As I continue to remind children in the classes I speak to, my current definition of an "environmentalist" is someone who knows very little about the environment. Love of trees and hiking does not give you any expertise. "
National forests were originally set aside to ensure a timber supply; recreation, wildlife, and clean water values were added later.
There has been very little "management" of these valuable resources over the last 15 years due to lawsuits that have crippled any efforts by state and federal agencies. Once management was halted, the wildfires were a known consequence; although the cries of natural resource managers fell on deaf ears.
As I continue to remind children in the classes I speak to, my current definition of an "environmentalist" is someone who knows very little about the environment. Love of trees and hiking does not give you any expertise. "
Philip T. Ross wrote on Dec 23, 2008 10:46 AM:
" Fifty-five years of vegetation management research by Drs. Bramble and Byrnes, of Purdue University, have proven that herbicide applications are much more likely to benefit wildlife populations than other control methods. Attempting to frighten the public by using the word "poison", claiming that the herbicides will drift onto people, drawing parallels to asbestos contamination, etc. is dishonest. "
R.L.D. wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:18 PM:
" Why is it that so many with so little(facts or knowledge), sound out, so loud and so often; against the people that are hired for their knowledge and expertise, to take care of those problems????????? The one's who cry the loudest should be given the task(s) of solving those problems. By physical labor preferably! Or, perhaps they would like to get educated and apply for one of those positions so they can get a taste of their own ignorance! "
Wowza wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:56 AM:
18 comments against is considered overwhelming? This is so laughable I almost drenched my computer with coffee from my mouth. "