A federal judge has told the Forest Service that it needs to revisit the environmental impact of fire retardant drops to fight forest fires. They judge said the current one isn't adequate. The AP reports:
U.S. District Judge Donald 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.
How often does this happen? About 0.01% of the time. But still, the judge ruled:
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.
The Forest Service, for it's part, worries that if they don't do everything necessary to fight a forest fire, they could be liable for someone losing their house or their life. Which sounds like a valid concern.
Luckily the judge hasn't said the Forest Service can't use fire retardant . . . yet. He's given the Forest Service until the end of next year to do a more complete study on the impact of fire retardant. Let's hope the Forest Service can placate the judge (and the environmentalist plaintiffs in the lawsuit that caused all this). Otherwise, some people might lose their houses or their lives to protect a fish or plant.
Environmentalists always have their priorities straight and it isn't humans.


