Lawsuit takes on feds' herbicide use

Forest Service: Plaintiffs demands of 'absolutely zero impact' unrealistic

By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI

Capital Press

PORTLAND -- An environmental group claims the federal government should have reduced grazing instead of relying solely on herbicides to battle invasive weeds in an Oregon national forest.

The group has asked a federal judge to block a herbicide spraying project on more than 20,000 acres of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, which was approved by the U.S. Forest Service in 2010.

The League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project challenged the project in federal court, claiming it unlawfully failed to analyze the impact of increased herbicide use on fish.

The Forest Service counters that the group is overly restrictive in its understanding of regulations aimed at protecting aquatic species.

Under the environmental group's interpretation of the rules, the agency would be unable to take on any restoration project with even the slightest effect on fish, said Jason Hill, an attorney for the agency.

"Plaintiffs are trying to argue that you should have absolutely zero impact," he said. "It would basically bar the agency from doing anything. You could never get to the point of zero impact."

During oral arguments on Jan. 23, the environmentalists requested that U.S. District Judge Michael Simon halt the herbicide project and order the agency to reconsider the plan.

The agency should have evaluated ways to deter the spread of invasive weeds, such as excluding livestock from parts of the national forest, said Tom Buchele, an attorney for the group.

"The Forest Service just wrote prevention out of this analysis," said Buchele, adding that "grazing is the number one cause" of invasive weeds.

Cattle introduce and reintroduce weeds into sensitive areas through their manure, which then leads to further spraying, he said.

Hill disputed the characterization that the Forest Service ignored prevention of invasive weeds.

The herbicide project is just one component of a larger effort, he said. As for the role of livestock, such factors are considered as part of grazing allotment permits.

"This is a restoration project that's trying to undo the effect of invasive weeds," said Hill, noting that the plaintiffs complain about herbicides while "completely ignoring the adverse impact of the invasive species themselves."

Scott Jerger, an attorney for the environmental group, said the Forest Service only looked at the effects of increased herbicide use on entire watersheds.

The agency should have evaluated the consequences for specific streams and riparian areas, he said. "Taking that 30,000-foot view of the problem is going to dilute the impact."

The group alleges that herbicides will kill plants surrounding waterways, raising stream temperatures to the detriment of salmon and trout.

Grazing by cattle, which congregate near streams, will aggravate the problem, according to the group.

Buchele said the plaintiffs recognize the danger posed by invasive species and are not entirely against herbicide use, but want the agency to explore additional alternatives.

"We think there is a middle way to look at this," he said.

For example, the Forest Service could eliminate aspects of the plan that call for aerial spraying and particularly toxic chemicals like picloram and triclopyr, Jerger said.

"They can do that. It's just a question of money," he said.

Hill argued that the agency took a "hard look" at the project and its cumulative effects, as required by federal environmental law.

"They've looked species by species, area by area and chemical by chemical," he said.

Online

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest: www.fs.usda.gov/wallowa-whitman

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project: www.bluemtnsbiodiversityproject.org