Federal court hears arguments over U.S. Forest Service use of fire retardant near water
A federal court in Missoula Monday heard oral arguments in a case that could restrict the use of fire retardant near lakes, rivers and streams.
The case brought by Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics argues that the U.S. Forest Service dumped nearly 800,000 gallons of fire retardant into waterways between 2012 and 2019, despite a previous court ruling preventing the agency from doing so.
Executive Director Andy Stahl says retardant is a known pollutant that can harm fish and people. He says the case seeks to block the Forest Service from using fire retardant near waterways while the agency applies for a permit from environmental regulators.
“You can certainly dump retardant on the hayfield next door to the water, just keep it out of the water,” Stahl said.
The Forest Service declined to comment on the latest case, but the agency recentlytold congressit’s working with regulators to obtain a permit to use fire retardant near waterways. That could take three years. The agency also said less than one percent of retardant drops impact waterbodies and that it’s an essential tool for protecting life and property from destructive wildfires.
A decision in the case is expected before the summer wildfire season.
Federal court halts work on timber sale in Cabinet-Yaak
A federal court Monday halted work on a timber sale in the northwest corner of the state. Environmental groups say the project would hurt grizzly bears.
The Knotty Pine project on the Kootenai National Forest totals about 56,000 acres and would include roughly 2,600 acres of commercial logging.
A handful of environmental groups argued in Missoula District Court that would negatively impact the roughly 55 bears that live in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem and that the U.S Forest Service failed to assess the logging project’s impact on the threatened population.
The court ordered the U.S. Forest Service to halt all work on the project while the case plays out.
The U.S Forest Service declined to comment on the case.
