Sierraville Ranger District

What: The Forest Service is proposing to spray synthetic chemical herbicides (triclopyr—Garlon 4, manufactured by DowAgroSciences and glyphosate—Accord, manufactured by Monsanto) on approximately 13,000 acres of native vegetation growing among conifer trees planted or reseeded naturally after the Cottonwood Fire.

Why: The 1994 fire burned approximately 46,800 acres of east side Jeffrey pine/mountain sagebrush, causing a germination flush of the fire-dependent shrub snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus) along with a lesser component of green leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) and a variety of other native herbs and shrubs. In June 1995, the Cottonwood Fire Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed, calling for the planting of approximately 20,000 acres of the burned area with conifer seedlings. Trees have since been planted 16 to 18 feet apart on approximately 20,000 acres, and another 10,000 has reseeded itself naturally. Labor crews have subsequently done manual pruning and digging of the vegetation in the immediate root zone of some of the trees in order to increase tree growth.

History:

The Forest Service initiated scoping in 1998 for the use of herbicides on 21,000 acres of vegetation “competing” with seedlings in the Cottonwood area. The subsequent environmental assessment (EA) for the Cottonwood Fire Vegetation Management Project was opposed vigorously by the environmental community, with the result that the FS began the process over again, scaling down their proposal. In February, 2000, the Tahoe NF issued another EA for herbicide use on approximately 11,000 acres. In May, a Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was released. In June, a joint appeal was filed by the Forest Issues Group (FIG), Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs) and the California Indian Basketweavers Association (CIBA). Our appeal was subsequently rejected by the Regional Office.

In September, 2000, FIG was again joined by CATs and CIBA in filing a lawsuit to stop the flawed project. CATs was the lead plaintiff on this case with the lead lawyers, Sharon Duggan and Julia Olson.

The decision: The case was heard in Federal District Court of the Ninth Circuit by Judge Lawrence Karlton, and was decided in August 2001 in our favor. Karlton ruled against the Forest Service and enjoined the agency from implementing the Cottonwood Project "until they have complied with the requirements of NEPA as detailed in this order.” The following are the NEPA issues that the FS must comply with under that order:

¨ Failure of the FS to address the potential for herbicides to increase the spread of "noxious weeds," when used to kill native vegetation;

¨ Failure to support FONSI relative to the “endocrine-disrupting properties, immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity caused by the herbicides to be used in the Cottonwood Project area”;

¨ Failure to support FONSI with “respect to the effects of the metabolites of the proposed herbicides”;

¨ Failure to take a “hard look” at the cumulative effects of the proposal relative to other projects in the region, such as the QLG Pilot Project;

¨ Failure of the FS to provide a detailed “No Action” alternative under NEPA.

In October 2002, the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe NF announced its decision to re-issue another proposal, including an Environmental Impact Statement for the herbicide project. The current proposal has now been increased to approximately 13,000 acres. Under NEPA, an EIS can show that the project may result in significant impacts, but the effects must be displayed, analyzed, and mitigated.

In addition, the Forest Service national office contracted with the Syracuse Environmental Research Associates in New York to complete a literature review relative to some of the “unknowns” regarding the herbicides proposed by the FS in California. The report,“Neurotoxicity, Immunotoxicity, and Endocrine Disruption with Specific Commentary on Glyphosate, Triclopyr, and Hexazinone: Final Report” will be used by the FS in its present and future efforts to sidestep the will of the public and to promote herbicide use throughout the forests of the state.

Background History of Forestry Herbicide Use in the Region:

After decades of reckless use of deadly poisons (including atrazine and 2,4,5-T) on our national forest lands the Forest Service finally stopped their use in 1984, as a result of several court rulings in Oregon brought by citizen activists. A successful double appellate court victory[1] led the FS in California to place a moratorium on the use of herbicides for forestry in 1983. In 1988, the FS was back with a revised environmental impact statement and a record of decision giving the stamp of approval for the use of a suite of “new” herbicides that would supposedly be less toxic (including 2,4-D, hexazinone, triclopyr, and glyphosate).

Since then, several California forests have embraced the return to herbicide use whole-heartedly (the Stanislaus, the Eldorado) while others have chosen not to use herbicides at all, due to strong public dissent coupled with rejection of the chemical paradigm by foresters on their staffs (the Shasta-Trinity, Tahoe, Klamath, Six-Rivers, Modoc, the Plumas, and most of the Lassen National Forests). Today, several forests are now proposing to “bring back” the chemicals—the Tahoe National Forest, for example—in spite of strong public opposition.

[1] SOS v. Clark and Merrell v. Block Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #83-3908, #83-3918, #83-3887, #83-3916. 1984.