When dead fish turned up in a section of Maria Ygnacio Creek running through Robert Bjorklund’s property during the first week of May 2009, few were concerned. Most people in town had their attention turned toward the then-raging Jesusita Fire, which fire agencies were battling hard to keep it from ripping toward Goleta. Bjorklund, however, noticed that the fish he saw floating belly-up in the creek-which were tinted orange from dropped fire retardant-happened to be endangered steelhead trout. So he made a few calls in order to get someone up to his property to investigate. Within a few days, scientists from UCSB and the National Marine Fisheries Service were on site collecting samples. In all, they found more than 40 dead steelhead and ammonia levels that were 100 times higher than normal.
Numbers were crunched and reports were filed, but nothing happened until December 16, when the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE)-an environmental nonprofit focused on protecting whistle-blowers and pushing reform of the Forest Service’s land use policy-announced that it had filed notice with the U.S. Department of Commerce outlining plans to file suit against the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. FSEEE maintains that the two fire protection agencies used a toxic fire-retardant material that killed endangered steelhead trout during the Jesusita Fire last May. “I’m not in this thing to make the fire department look bad,” said Bjorklund. “I just thought it was my duty to report it.”
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, FSEEE must wait 60 days before it can actually file a lawsuit. “That is to give the Department of Commerce an opportunity to do what this lawsuit would do, and that is enforce the Endangered Species Act. This lawsuit goes forward only if the government chooses not to enforce this law,” said Andy Stahl, FSEEE’s executive director, explaining that the Department of Commerce can request that the fire agencies implement a habitat conservation plan setting up specific guidelines regarding where and how fire retardant can be dispersed. Scott Cooper, the UCSB scientist who measured high ammonia concentrations in Bjorkland’s run of Maria Ygnacio Creek, said that the Forest Service already has such guidelines in place, requiring that fire retardant be kept at least 300 feet from creeks. “The terrain here is tricky. It’s difficult to see where the streams are,” he said, noting that dense foliage often obscures streambeds from the view of fire aircraft.
Captain David Sadecki, a spokesperson for the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, said that he could not comment on the effects of fire retardants, as the agency itself doesn’t actually use it, relying instead upon retardant drops by CalFire and the Forest Service. In a report on his May 11 investigation of Bjorklund’s property, National Marine Fisheries Service steelhead recovery coordinator Mark Capelli said that CalFire officials supplied him with maps corroborating that retardant had been dropped just east of Maria Ygnacio Creek. A materials safety data sheet on the retardant (called Phos-Chek) included in the report indicated that it is “practically nontoxic” to several species of birds and fish, including rainbow trout. Although Cooper found that the level of ammonia was at less than toxic levels when he arrived, it was still 100 times higher than normal. But he maintains that because it tends to dissipate quickly, levels were likely much higher when the retardant had been dropped six days before he took his readings.
Recently, Bjorkland has noticed that steelhead have already started to repopulate the creek near his house. Although the fish are coming back, the legal fallout surrounding the ones that died during the fire has a way to go. Daniel Berlant, a CalFire spokesperson, said that his outfit doesn’t yet know enough about FSEEE’s claims to comment, adding that since the investigation took place in May, no one from the Marine Fisheries Service has contacted either fire agency.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
If given the chance, Javier Onaindia and his goats would have loved to have worked on this area to clear all brush and weeds. Let us know if you need us.
Javier Onaindia 1(661) 619-3850
Email: AnitaOnaindia@aol.com
As always, we always support out firefighters and all the hard work they do for us all. Thank you firefighters!
AnitaOnaindia (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the fish are naturally repopulating but we should have just let the fire rage on unchecked because some of them were casualties?
Try telling that to the people that lose their homes and/or lives in the next fire when "effective fire retardants are not allowed"...
The fish, as the article clearly indicates, come back.
Show me one structure or one human casualty of a fire that naturally does the same thing.
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2009 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did Bjorkland lose his house? How dare he start this nonsense. I'm all for saving animals, but this is rediculous. The fish are repopulating and the case should be tossed out as soon as it hits the courthouse! Bad Mr. Bjorkland! BAD! WHO saved YOUR house? I'm sure the guy sticks a fishing pole in that there crik and that's why he's got a bee in his britches! Steelhead Trout taste good Mr. Bjorkland? He doesn't really seem like a wildlife activist does he? He counts trout? He EATS the trout! Now people are going to be watching you Mr. Bjorkland... You pretty much screwed your future dinner plans... Unbelieveable! Some thanks for the fire fighters!
MuddyPuppet (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2009 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Endangered Species Act of 1973: 1-authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; 2-prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; 3-provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water conservation funds; 4-authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 5-authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and 6-authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or any regulation issued there under.[1]
I copied this out of the wiki encyclopedia. This won't go far I don't think. #6 is CHA CHING for Bjorkland. He isn't in this to make the fire department look bad but he's looking to fatten his bank account.
MuddyPuppet (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2009 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Some commenters are being a bit out of line. No one is saying that flame retardant should not have been used, but that it should have been used more cautiously where there are permanent streams. Guidelines apparently even are in place to avoid such action. Obviously some retardant may get unintentionally dropped into such locations, especially during the 'heat' of the firefight, but the ammonia levels found suggest that massive amounts entered Maria Ygnacio Creek. No one is saying the pilots should be blamed, and it is very likely they did not receive instructions to avoid stream areas because it would not be that difficult to largely avoid them if they had been instructed to do so.
tdudley (anonymous profile)
December 25, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
this appears to be quite a heated subject. i realize that i cannot pretend to know what the motives were for reporting the dying fish, but i think that knowing the effects of the fire retardants is important in order to prevent further damage and develop more safe and effective retardants. of course people and homes are of the utmost importance, but i do not see the harm in protecting our environment whenever possible.
nginther (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just one "accident" after another. Get over it, learn from it, save the money for fighting bigger issues and move on... it was an unfortunate by-product of fighting a nasty fire in complicated terrain. Anyway, are these fish really steelhead trout or just the offspring of coastal rainbows, many of whom are not native anymore due to past stocking. As the saying goes, "there's bigger fish to fry".
surfrmom (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey. I bet tdudley must be a very experienced fire fighting pilot to suggest it's a "simple" fix to change the course of flights to fight fires in smoke filled skies that are heading towards homes and lives.
Sure, we can always develop retardants down the road that are more enviro friendly, but if it boils down to my home or some damn fish. The hell with the fish
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is plenty of environmentally friendly flame retardant around here. It's called water.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not a tree hugger story. There are a number of chemicals on the market that are environmentally safe and actually extinguish fires.
This is a story of a chemical company that had the vision, about 9 years ago, to hire a 36 year veteran of the US Forest Service (fire science laboratory leader). Shortly after this ex-US Forest Service person was hired, the visionary company patented a retardant formula. Once the patent was perfected the US Forest Service changed the retardant specification. Certainly, unknown to the US Forest Service, the US Forest Service's new specification could only be met by the company that had just patented their retardant formula.
On March 24, 2006 the National Interagency Fire Center issued a document titled "2006 Wildland Fire Talking Points". Page 19 of this document has a heading called "Retardant". The first sentence under this heading states: "Retardant does not put out fires."
A spokesperson from the Santa Barbara County Fire Department said that although County Fire works with Cal Fire and other agencies during wildland fire suppression efforts, the county itself does not use flame retardant.
Interestingly, the California Department of General Services entered into a contract with this visionary chemical company that makes it mandatory for Calfire to purchase its retardant, gel and Class A foam.
ecoenergy (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2009 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice agenda, "ecoenergy," with the misleading quote:
>
Oh.
By the way, the rest of that paragraph reads:
"Retardant does not put fires out. It blocks oxygen from the fire. It slows down the rate of spread to give crews on the ground a chance to build a line around the fire. In some situations it can help protect structures, especially when dropped from helicopters with pinpoint accuracy hovering directly above the fire or building."
God (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)