Forest Service Sued: Toxic Fire Retardant Threatens Wildlife, Endangered Species in 2025

Introduction: The Alarming Truth About Fire Retardants

Wildfires pose a significant threat, consuming vast landscapes and endangering communities. To combat these blazes, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) relies heavily on aerial fire retardants. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that these chemicals, intended to protect, may be causing unforeseen harm to wildlife and the environment. In 2025, a lawsuit has brought these concerns to the forefront, highlighting the toxic impact of fire retardants on endangered species and sparking a critical debate about the safety and efficacy of current wildfire management practices.

The Lawsuit: A Call for Accountability

The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), a group comprising current and retired agency employees and concerned citizens, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Missoula, Montana. The suit names the Forest Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as defendants. This legal action challenges the USFS’s use of fire retardants, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to the detrimental effects on wildlife, people, and waterways.

Andy Stahl, executive director of FSEEE, asserts that a “retardant line on the ground is basically a Superfund site” due to the presence of toxic heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and cadmium. The lawsuit contends that the agencies have failed to adequately consider these harms and that the continued use of these retardants violates the ESA.

The Toxic Composition of Fire Retardants

The red-hued fire retardants dropped from the sky contain a mix of chemicals, including ammonium phosphate, which acts as a fertilizer to prevent plant regrowth. While this prevents the spread of wildfire, both plants and wildlife may be exposed to fire retardant compounds coating the landscape, and these compounds may also enter aquatic systems. Guidance from the U.S. Forest Service specifies that fire retardants should not be applied aerially within 300 ft of water bodies and that the toxicity of ammonium-phosphate-based fire retardants to aquatic species is low. Yet there is concern that drift or accidental application to streams and movement of terrestrially applied retardants into aquatic systems during rain events could cause harm.

However, the primary concern lies in the presence of heavy metals and other hazardous substances. Recent research referenced in the lawsuit reveals that these retardants contain heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and cadmium. A study by the University of Southern California estimates that hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic metals have been dumped onto forests during aerial fire retardant drops during the past decade potentially causing harm to wildlife, specifically endangered and threatened species.

Impact on Wildlife and Endangered Species

The introduction of these toxic substances into the environment poses a significant threat to various species. The chemicals found in some retardants can also be fatal to aquatic life and high concentrations of the metals can be toxic to humans, too.

Aquatic Life: Fire retardants, particularly in concentrated quantities, can spur harmful algae blooms and potentially kill fish, amphibians, and other aquatic organisms. The ammonia in the fertilizer component of retardants damages organs and gills and can hinder reproductive success. Studies have shown that current formulations of Phos-Chek are potentially deadly to rainbow trout. When retardant hits the water, a highly concentrated ammonia plume develops that can quickly kill fish. While that plume becomes less lethal as it diffuses through the water, fish exposure to diluted quantities for longer periods of time can still be deadly. NMFS identified insects, like mayflies, and crustaceans, including crayfish, as among the species vulnerable to the ammonia in retardant, and concluded that this could affect the food supply for fish.
Terrestrial Wildlife: While larger terrestrial animals can often flee affected areas, smaller creatures like amphibians, rodents, and insects face a higher risk. The chemicals can contaminate their food sources and habitats, leading to long-term health problems and population decline.
Endangered Species: The lawsuit emphasizes the potential harm to threatened and endangered species, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act. The introduction of toxins into their habitats can further jeopardize their survival, pushing them closer to extinction.

The Effectiveness Debate

Adding fuel to the fire, Stahl questions the actual effectiveness of fire retardants in stopping fires, suggesting that their environmental harms may not be justified. This raises a crucial question: Are the benefits of using these chemicals worth the ecological cost?

Human Health Concerns

While wildfire retardants are generally considered safe for humans, some argue that the risks are insufficiently understood. The chemicals found in some retardants can also be fatal to aquatic life and high concentrations of the metals can be toxic to humans, too. Exposure to flame retardant chemicals has been linked to harmful effects such as developmental issues, neurological problems, and disruptions in reproduction in laboratory studies of animal models. In humans, a group of flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) has been associated with lower IQ levels, reduced fertility, and an elevated risk of cancer.

Alternatives and Mitigation Strategies

The lawsuit and growing public concern are driving the search for safer and more sustainable alternatives to toxic fire retardants. Some potential solutions include:

Alternative Fire Retardants: Research is underway to develop less toxic and more environmentally friendly fire retardants. These include bio-based flame retardants, which are synthesized from renewable resources and operate through halogen-free mechanisms.
Improved Application Techniques: Implementing more precise aerial application methods can minimize the risk of accidental contamination of waterways and sensitive habitats. The USFS has a 300-foot buffer around national forests’ streams and rivers where they cannot apply the chemical.
Integrated Wildfire Management: A holistic approach to wildfire management that combines prevention, early detection, and strategic suppression can reduce the reliance on chemical retardants.
Natural Materials: Using organic cotton fabric, organic cotton batting, PLA fiber, and steel innersprings in place of memory foam, other forms of polyurethane foam and synthetic fabrics. These natural materials tend to smolder instead of bursting into flames.

The Path Forward

The lawsuit against the Forest Service marks a critical juncture in the debate over wildfire management practices. As the legal proceedings unfold, it is imperative to consider the following:

Comprehensive Risk Assessment: A thorough evaluation of the environmental and health risks associated with current fire retardants is essential.
Transparency and Disclosure: The public has a right to know about the chemicals being used in their environment and their potential impacts.
Investment in Research and Development: Increased funding for research into safer and more effective wildfire management strategies is crucial.
Collaboration and Dialogue: Open communication between government agencies, environmental groups, and the public is necessary to find sustainable solutions.

Conclusion: Balancing Protection and Preservation

The use of fire retardants is a complex issue with no easy answers. While these chemicals can play a role in protecting communities and resources from wildfires, their potential harm to wildlife and the environment cannot be ignored. By embracing innovation, transparency, and collaboration, we can strive to find a balance between protecting our forests and preserving the natural world for future generations. Contact our firm today for a consultation.