When Congress created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), it did not exempt the U.S. Forest Service from its review and environmental protections. In general, any activity with significant environmental impact in the Tahoe Basin requires a TRPA permit application, review, and approval. In some cases, TRPA has created agreements that exempt certain activities, such as routine work, from permitting. For example, its agreement with the Forest Service allows up to 50 acres of work on watershed restoration or erosion control without a permit. But any more than 50 acres requires review and approval.
With watershed restoration having an exemption cap of 50 acres, does it make sense that the Forest Service plans to spray glyphosate — a probable carcinogen that the EPA has found likely harms over 90 percent of endangered species — across up to 3,600 acres of Lake Tahoe watershed without a permit or TRPA review? Why would the drafters of TRPA’s Forest Service agreement have exempted such large-scale herbicide spraying? I would suggest that they didn’t. Rather, they almost certainly never contemplated the possibility of herbicide being sprayed across thousands of acres of the Lake Tahoe watershed. That’s probably why the word “herbicide” doesn’t appear anywhere in that agreement. Neither does “pesticide,” “chemical,” or “spray.” So this looks less like an exemption than an omission. And if that’s the case, then the Forest Service’s herbicide plan isn’t exempt, and a permit is required.
When TRPA says they have no jurisdiction over the Forest Service’s spray plan, what they probably mean is: we think this falls under an exemption in our agreement. But that’s a claim about the agreement, not about jurisdiction. And that exemption they’re referring to was written for planting trees and other vegetation. Nothing in its wording suggests it was meant to cover spraying thousands of acres with chemicals that kill native vegetation providing erosion control in Tahoe’s watershed.
At TRPA’s August 26 meeting, a board member mentioned the harm wildfire smoke does to Lake Tahoe. That made me wonder what impacts smoke from herbicide-treated vegetation might have. What becomes of glyphosate’s breakdown products like AMPA when treated vegetation burns? Could that have impacts on lake health, or on human health? In a well-populated basin whose water carries the Clean Water Act’s highest protection, these questions seem worth answering before spraying thousands of acres here. I didn’t see these questions addressed in the project documents.
Of course, that’s just one example of why large-scale herbicide spraying in the Tahoe Basin should require a TRPA permit application and review process. This time the plan is 2,400 to 3,600 acres. What if next time it’s 50,000 acres, or more? At what acreage has TRPA determined that spraying won’t have a substantial effect? If TRPA eventually chooses to add an actual exemption for unlimited herbicide spraying by the Forest Service, then the public should be part of that amendment process — because the consequences will fall on the public.
We’ve all seen how extensive the forest thinning around Tahoe has become. Fewer trees may well reduce fire risk in the near term. But with more sun on the ground comes more ground vegetation. And although that could be managed manually, the Forest Service now has the option of significantly reducing costs by spraying chemicals instead. So wherever you are in Tahoe, don’t assume that this bypassing of a permit requirement near Meyers is purely that community’s problem. What starts near Meyers won’t stay near Meyers.
-Reid Reichardt
Reid Reichardt lives in South Lake Tahoe and has hiked the Caldor area since 2012. He maintains HealthyTahoe.org, a resource on the herbicide plan and how the public can participate.