TRPA Public Comments

My error, please include what I sent before for item 12, General Public Interest comments (and item 5)

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 2:55PM Al ****** <********************> wrote:

Please include the following comments in the public record for agenda items 5 and 9.

Interested Person's

Peggy Boarland writes a column in the Tahoe Mountain News where she often comments on the foibles and follies of the TRPA and other agencies on the South shore.

[Column banner image: "Keeping It Real by Peggy Bourland"]

In the September 2026 edition she only had a brief comment concerning glyphosate. It is reproduced in the screenshot below in case you missed it.

The same Tahoe Mountain News had a 2-page spread titled,
"USFS Explains Glyphosate Use"

The same person who participated in the dog-and-pony show by TRPA Peggy commented on was interviewed.

And the article includes this:

What the TRPA "hearing" and the TMN article left out without so mach as a mention is that Aubrey Sibr sits on the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission. She is a double-agent representing both TRPA and USFS to double-team against the public.

And as far as "Gold Medal Science" goes this is what little we know from the US Geological Survey:

Dodgeball indeed. To be continued . . . INDEED.

Alan ******, Professional Engineer

Dear Chair Williamson and Members of the Governing Board,

Attached is a letter that was published in South Tahoe Now on September 16, concerning the Caldor herbicide plan and why I don't believe it falls within any exemption in TRPA's agreement with the Forest Service.

Please include the attached PDF in the record for the September 23 Governing Board meeting.

The published version is here:
https://southtahoenow.com/09/16/2026/letter-whats-starting-where-the-fire-was-stopped

Additionally, I request that the Board give the organization Protect Tahoe presentation time comparable to what the U.S. Forest Service was given during the August 26 Environmental Improvement Program Committee meeting. Synthetic herbicide use is an important issue for forest, lake, and human health in the Tahoe Basin, and asking advocates to explain the science against spraying in two or three minutes, when the Forest Service was given over thirty, is unfair to the people and the environment that will bear the consequences. Please schedule a presentation by Protect Tahoe as its own agenda item as soon as possible.

Thank you,
Reid *********
South Lake Tahoe, CA

---

ATTACHMENT: Reichardt-Written-Comment-TRPA-Governing-Board-2026-09-23.pdf

What's Starting Where the Fire Was Stopped
by ReidReichardtbr>Published in South Tahoe Now, September 16, 2026:
https://southtahoenow.com/09/16/2026/letter-whats-starting-where-the-fire-was-stopped

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 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.

Dear Board,

We should not be spraying glyphosate on our forests. This is a terrible "solution" that will cause many more problems than it solves. I think most of you understand the environmental impact, there has to be a better, safer, more thoughtful and less destructive option. This will poison wildlife, beneficial plants and OUR WATER.

Please consider the future of Tahoe.

Alyssa **********
Nevada County Resident

Dear TRPA,

Please reconsider allowing the Forest Service to spray glyphosate on the hillsides above Meyers. I am a resident of Meyers living with Stage IV breast cancer. While it might be too late to prevent cancer in my body, I have a family, including a daughter who is at high risk of developing cancer due to our family history of cancer. Adding toxins to her environment only increases her risk even more, and it's well documented that glyphosate is a carcinogen. My family and I also frequently recreate in the forests around Meyers. Being in clean, fresh nature is an immensely important part of my recovery from my ongoing chemo treatments which currently occur every three weeks indefinitely, with the occasional brain radiation when lesions pop up. I've somehow been able to live for 6 years with this cancer, and I'm convinced that living where I do is a major part of the reason. I can't understand how spraying glyphosate is an option at all in our fragile ecosystem, especially when there are fragile lives which will definitely be affected. On behalf of my family and the whole community, please take my concerns to heart and do not allow the spraying of glyphosate. I am happy to speak with TRPA members further about my concerns, if desired.

Thank you,
Adrienne *******
206-607-####

I'm writing to oppose the Forest Service's planned glyphosate spraying above Meyers without a TRPA permit or formal environmental review.

The Lake Tahoe watershed is too sensitive for herbicide application without thorough scrutiny. A 3,600-acre project sets a precedent—what stops the next application from being 50,000 acres? TRPA should require a formal permit process and environmental impact assessment before any such spraying occurs in the basin.

Glyphosate's effects on water quality, soil microbiota, and aquatic ecosystems deserve scrutiny, especially here. I urge the Board to require the Forest Service to obtain a TRPA permit and complete a public review before proceeding. The same chemical has been banned in numerous countries due to its carcinogen so why are we spraying it in our precious forest above all of our vital waterways?

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Please see the attached comments for the record in item re Plans for Herbicide (Glyphosate) Use In the Caldor Fire Burned Area; agenda item 5.A., TRPA Environmental Improvement Committee meeting of August 26, 2026.

Thank you, Alan ******, Professional Engineer

---

ATTACHMENT: Comments on Glyphosate Project - EIP Comm item 5.A.,mtg 8-26-26.pdf

Public Interest Comments on USFS Herbicides Use, TRPA EIP Committee, Meeting of 8/26/26, Agenda Item 5.A.

General Public Interest Comments USFS-LTBMU Plans for Herbicide (Glyphosate) Use In the Caldor Fire Burned Area; agenda item 5.A., TRPA Environmental Improvement Committee meeting of August 26, 2026

To publiccomment@trpa.gov

August 25, 2026

Comments Opposing Use of Glyphosate Under the TRPA Memorandum of Understanding with US Forest Service-Lake Tahoe Basin

Interested persons and EIP Committee members,

I am a civil and environmental engineer with a background water quality regulations. These comments follow my May 2026 letter and testimony to TRPA's Governing Board in this matter. I will be brief, and assert my contentions are fully backed up in the law and the public record.

1. The Compact gives TRPA the authority and duty to issue a permit to the USFS or any other person for any activity that may affect the natural resources of the Tahoe region, unless that activity is designated as exempt from a TRPA permit. The duty to issue a permit is after a public meeting and a vote of at least Governing Board members in the CA delegation and nine votes overall of the 14 potential votes.

2. The Compact grants the authority for TRPA to enter into lawful agreements with other public agencies has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with US Forest Service-Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit as cited in and linked to today's item 5.A. The MOU does not cover the use of glyphosate as proposed by US Forest Service-Lake Tahoe Basin for the Caldor Fire recovery activities in accordance with provisions for "EXEMPT ACTIVITIES" in MOU section III.F. "Vegetation Management"; the activities are designated as subject to application review in section IV. "PROJECTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD."

3. The MOU specifies that where activities that may affect the natural resources of the region are neither exempt or covered by the MOU, or at the discretion of TRPA, the Governing Board shall require an application for review and make required findings at a public meeting to support or deny permit issuance.

4. The US Forest Service-Lake Tahoe Basin has not provided an application to TRPA for review of the proposed activities with glyphosate nor has TRPA required an application as is its legal duty for the proposed activities. Therefore I request that TRPA implement the binding provisions of the MOU and require an application for review and permit consideration, with public participation as required. In the alternative, the TRPA and US Forest Service-Lake Tahoe Basin may propose changes to the MOU for review and consideration by the Governing Board, with public participation as required and the "5 and 9" voting procedure described above for any changes.

I looked on TRPA's website for evidence that the MOU was approved by the Governing Board and did not locate any relevant information other than the MOU, which does not disclose the approval process. The Governing Board has delegated authority to the Executive Director to act on its behalf in executing the MOU. If a letter requirement to the USFS-Lake Tahoe Basin is not timely forthcoming in this matter requiring an application for review, I intend to request any available public documents under the California Public Records Act and/or federal Freedom of Information Act relating to use of glyphosate or other herbicides by the USFS-Lake Tahoe Basin.

I do not believe the required findings to support the proposed use as required by the Compact and TRPA Code of Ordinances exist in the public record and a public records request in the public interest could likely confirm that.

In closing, I urge TRPA to fulfill its duties and requirements under the Compact and Code of Ordinances unless the USFS-Lake Tahoe Basin cancels its proposed use of glyphosate in the Caldor Fire area. Persons aggrieved by a failure of the TRPA to abide by the provisions of the Compact and/or MOU may initiate litigation against TRPA under the provisions of law outlined in the Compact and provisions stated above, or may litigate against the USFS-Lake Tahoe Basin for failing to obtain a permit as required for the proposed activities involving use of glyphosate, as necessary. These are basic administrative requirements that are not being fulfilled by TRPA based on the agenda item. Consult an attorney, as I am not providing any specific legal advice.

Alan ******, Professional Engineer

Disclosure: I am a Tahoe Vista resident whose household drinking water is supplied through a North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD) intake from Lake Tahoe. I submitted public comment on this matter to TRPA on May 27, 2026. That comment does not appear in the posted meeting materials; my request that it be entered into the record appears at the end of the original public comment.

*****

Lake Tahoe receives approximately 15 million annual visits. Tourism and outdoor recreation drive the Tahoe Region's approximately $5 billion annual economy, according to TRPA. [TRPA, Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Partnership RFP, June 14, 2021, p. 6; TRPA, Sustainable Transportation Funding Initiative: Revenue Options Report, May 2022, p. 3.]

People who live here drink this water, recreate in it, and depend on it for their homes, gardens, businesses, and public water systems. The condition of Lake Tahoe and its tributaries is a public-health, environmental, and economic issue.

I grew up on this lake. Summers at Sand Harbor. Fishing for crayfish from the rocks at Speedboat Beach. Tahoe was my first love. I finally moved here a year ago. The water from my tap is drawn directly from Lake Tahoe through an NTPUD intake at the end of National Avenue in Tahoe Vista.

After learning in April 2026 that herbicides could be used in connection with the Caldor Fire Restoration Project, I began researching the issues facing this lake and reviewing the project record. I have obtained and reviewed primary documents — the agency's own files — that contain findings not addressed in today's staff report.

This comment distinguishes among three separate actions: the Caldor Fire Restoration Project authorization at issue before this committee; reported glyphosate treatments in the Eldorado National Forest near Plummer Ridge and Leoni Caldor Road, whose connection to Lake Tahoe tributaries has not been established in the materials reviewed; and the separate June 25, 2026 invasive-plant treatment near Kiva Beach. The Kiva Beach treatment is discussed only as a documented example of the Forest Service's notice practice, not as part of the Caldor Fire Restoration Project.

The Forest Service's March 27, 2026 Decision Notice for the Caldor Fire Restoration Project authorizes herbicide use in specified treatment areas over a 10- to 15-year period. [Decision Notice, p. 1.] As described, the authorization does not require a pre-application, project-specific baseline against which the public and decision-makers could assess whether treatment-related changes occurred in receiving-water quality.

According to the Caldor Fire Restoration Project Recreation Effects Analysis, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) receives approximately 7.7 million recreation visits each year. The analysis identifies the Corral Trail, Sierra Sidewinder, Twisted Cedar Trail, Armstrong Pass Trail, Saxon Creek Trail (also known as Mr. Toad's Wild Ride), and a portion of the Pacific Crest Trail among the recreation resources in the project area.

Forest Service public affairs specialist Lisa Herron confirmed in a July 10, 2026, email that the authorization does not require advance public notice before individual herbicide applications. The authorization contains no requirement for notice identifying when an application will occur, where treatment will take place, or what herbicide will be used. [Lisa Herron email, July 10, 2026, available on request.]

The staff report states that no herbicide applications will occur during the 2026 or 2027 field seasons. It does not address the separate glyphosate treatments reported in the Eldorado National Forest near Plummer Ridge and Leoni Caldor Road. A Tahoe Daily Tribune report, citing the Forest Service's own FAQ, stated that some areas had been treated and could receive treatment over the next five to 10 years. [Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 29, 2026.]

The materials reviewed for this comment do not include a Forest Service treatment-unit map or watershed analysis identifying the locations, receiving drainage, and hydrologic connection of those reported treatment areas to Lake Tahoe tributaries. Administrative boundaries do not answer that question. Before treating any Eldorado area as relevant to Tahoe Basin water quality, the Forest Service should identify the treatment area, receiving drainage, and hydrologic connection in the public record.

Glyphosate was applied in the Lake Tahoe Basin on June 25 in a separate invasive-plant treatment near Kiva Beach. The Forest Service said an aquatic formulation of glyphosate was spot-applied to 10 yellow toadflax plants approximately 20 feet from waterways under the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit's Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Environmental Assessment. The agency said a treatment sign was posted on June 25 and required to remain in place for at least 48 hours. That is an on-site notice to visitors during and after treatment. The public record does not show advance notice to nearby residents, trail users, water purveyors, or the broader community before the application occurred. (Petra Molina, "Forest Service explains glyphosate caution sign after online speculation," Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 23, 2026.)

In a model of a child's potential drinking-water exposure, Stantec calculated hazard quotients above 1 for all three herbicides: 162 for triclopyr, 23 for hexazinone, and 8 for glyphosate. Stantec described these as conservative screening estimates unlikely to occur because the same locations would not be treated with herbicides every year. These are model estimates, not measurements of actual exposure in the field. The assessment does not identify a more location-specific analysis of those higher-end scenarios. [Stantec Consulting, Human Health Risk Assessment, March 2026, pp. 10–11.]

The assessment's characterization of those scenarios as unlikely rests on the assumption that the same locations will not be treated annually. Before any future herbicide application in Tahoe-connected treatment areas, TRPA should request a public, location-specific monitoring and reporting plan so the board and public can evaluate actual conditions, not models alone.

The risk assessment cites Williams, Kroes, and Munro (2000) in its evaluation of polyoxyethylene tallow amine, or POEA, a surfactant associated with some glyphosate formulations. That article was retracted in November 2025, nearly four months before the Forest Service signed its March 27, 2026 Decision Notice, and the record reviewed for this comment does not identify a post-retraction review addressing whether the retraction affects the specific POEA-related proposition for which the assessment cites the article. The retraction notice states that the article's conclusions about glyphosate carcinogenicity relied on unpublished Monsanto studies; omitted other available long-term cancer and toxicity studies; and included contributions from Monsanto employees who were not identified as authors. It further states that the authors may have received undisclosed financial compensation from Monsanto.

Lisa Herron confirmed in writing on July 10, 2026, that the risk assessment was not updated after the retraction. In the same email, Herron stated that the assessment "drew from a wide range of peer-reviewed research and EPA-reviewed information that remains valid" and that the retraction "didn't change the broader scientific understanding or the regulatory standards we follow, so the assessment didn't need to be revised." [Stantec, March 2026, p. 8; retraction notice; Herron email, July 10, 2026.]

The Forest Service stated that it "did not identify a realistic way for herbicide to reach areas used by Lahontan cutthroat trout" and therefore did not add a chemical-monitoring requirement. The authorization does not require pre-application baseline sampling or post-treatment downstream monitoring that could establish whether treatment-related residues reached receiving waters or whether later conditions differed from pre-treatment conditions. On downstream effects, the agency stated that it "did not identify a need for additional downstream analysis" given the small treatment areas, distance from water, and existing safeguards. [Herron email, July 10, 2026.]

Portions of the Caldor burn scar drain into Lake Tahoe via the Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek; from there, the Truckee River carries water from the lake through Reno to Pyramid Lake, the terminus of the watershed and the home of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. The Tribe holds Truckee River water rights that include federally reserved rights under the Winters doctrine and rights established and administered under the river's governing decrees and agreements. The cui-ui and Lahontan cutthroat trout, culturally and spiritually important to Tribe members, depend on habitat and water-quality conditions in the Pyramid Lake–Truckee River system, which receives Lake Tahoe outflow. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Numana Dam Fish Passage Project," Sept. 19, 2023.]

Lahontan cutthroat trout were extirpated from Lake Tahoe and are the subject of an active multiagency and tribal reintroduction effort. In June 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began stocking 100,000 fish into the lake, with releases continuing through the summer. In 2024, researchers documented Lahontan cutthroat trout exhibiting spawning behavior in Third Creek—described as the first unassisted spawning attempt in Lake Tahoe in nearly 90 years. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Lake Tahoe to Receive 100,000 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout This Summer," June 3, 2022; Carson Now, Oct. 29, 2024.]

In 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awarded the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe $8,292,215 in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding for the Numana Dam Fish Passage Project. The Tribe and FWS broke ground on September 13, 2023, on a project intended to open 65 additional miles of Truckee River habitat for cui-ui and Lahontan cutthroat trout. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Numana Dam Fish Passage Project," Sept. 19, 2023; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Numana Dam Fish Passage Project" project page.]

Herron confirmed in writing on July 10, 2026, that no downstream analysis of potential herbicide effects on Pyramid Lake waters was conducted and that the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe was not consulted. The records reviewed for this comment do not identify what information, if any, the agency considered about downstream tribal waters or fishery resources when reaching its no-pathway determination. [Herron email, July 10, 2026.]

The problem is not that the lake cannot dilute what enters it. The problem is that dilution cannot replace a baseline. Without a documented pre-treatment baseline, there is no project-specific reference condition against which post-treatment measurements can be compared to assess whether conditions in receiving waters changed after treatment. The Forest Service's Decision Notice authorizes treatment over a 10- to 15-year period on up to 3,600 acres. [Decision Notice, p. 1.]

Glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), its primary breakdown product, strongly adsorb to soil particles, though residues can move with eroded soil or sediment in runoff. USGS reports that AMPA has, on average, a longer half-life in soil than glyphosate. [U.S. Geological Survey, Occurrence, Fate, and Transport of Aerially Applied Herbicides, Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5039, 2021.] The authorization remains in effect for future treatment seasons. A pre-treatment baseline must be collected before the first application; once treatment begins, that opportunity is lost. That baseline would provide the clearest project-specific record of preexisting conditions and would strengthen the ability to distinguish any later treatment-related change from background conditions in these watersheds.

TRPA's 2023 Threshold Evaluation does not include glyphosate or AMPA among its 41 water-quality threshold parameters. No glyphosate- or AMPA-specific standard, monitoring requirement, or threshold-based response trigger currently applies under TRPA's framework.

As of August 25, 2026, SB 1370 remains pending after being ordered to third reading on August 13. AB 2410 was held under submission in the Appropriations Committee on August 13 and has not advanced. This comment does not rely on either bill as a basis for TRPA action; it asks TRPA to address the monitoring, mapping, notice, and disclosure gaps identified in the existing Caldor authorization and the record before this committee. [SB 1370 legislative history; AB 2410 legislative history.]

The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact gives TRPA authority to adopt environmental thresholds and enforce its own ordinances. TRPA does not permit this Forest Service project, but it can identify the monitoring and disclosure necessary to protect basin thresholds, place those requirements in the public record, and seek written commitments from the Forest Service and responsible state agencies.

I am asking this committee to direct TRPA staff to take the following actions, grouped by function:

Monitoring — Direct staff to formally request baseline water-quality testing for glyphosate and AMPA in receiving waters and tributaries associated with LTBMU treatment areas in the Saxon Creek, Trout Creek, and Upper Truckee River watersheds before any application begins.

Direct staff to obtain, publish, and evaluate the sampling plan that the Sierra Sun reported on May 28, 2026, was being developed in coordination with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The plan should identify sampling locations, timing, analytical methods, reporting limits, upstream and downstream comparison sites, glyphosate and AMPA analytes, and public reporting deadlines. [Sierra Sun, "Glyphosate, Regional Plan Development Tracking and Transportation Projects: TRPA Governing Board Updates," May 28, 2026.]

Direct staff to request a site-specific treatment map and watershed analysis for the Plummer Ridge and Leoni Caldor Road areas. If that analysis identifies any area draining toward Lake Tahoe, request compound-specific baseline and post-treatment testing at appropriate upstream and downstream locations.

Initiate a staff and scientific review of whether glyphosate and AMPA should be added to TRPA's water-quality threshold parameters or otherwise incorporated into the basin's monitoring and response framework.

Accountability — Formally request that the Forest Service update its Human Health Risk Assessment to evaluate and explain whether, and if so how, the November 2025 retraction of Williams et al. (2000) affects its POEA analysis before any further herbicide application under the authorization proceeds.

Direct TRPA staff to formally request that the Forest Service identify what alternatives to herbicide use were evaluated for Tahoe Basin treatment areas, including mechanical removal and other non-chemical methods, and explain on what basis those alternatives were determined to be inadequate or infeasible.

Seek written Forest Service commitments to advance public notice at trailheads and principal access points serving treatment areas before any application, with direct notice to NTPUD, South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID), and other affected water purveyors.

Direct TRPA staff to formally request a written downstream analysis of potential effects on the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe's fishery and waters supporting interests protected by the Tribe's reserved water rights. The Forest Service confirmed in writing that no such analysis was conducted and that the Tribe was not consulted. [Herron email, July 10, 2026.]

Authority — Direct staff to seek, before any LTBMU herbicide application, a written interagency agreement or written Forest Service commitments addressing baseline monitoring, downstream analysis, advance public notification, public reporting, and species protections.

Direct TRPA staff to formally notify the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of this proceeding and request that the Forest Service initiate government-to-government consultation before any further herbicide application proceeds.

Procedural record request — I ask that my May 27 public comment and its supporting documents be entered in full into the record for this proceeding. I submitted the comment at 9:08 a.m. on May 27 as a general public comment, before the advance-submission deadline for the May 28 session. The herbicide authorization was not an agenda item at the May 27–28 meeting; I submitted it to establish the findings in the public record. The comment does not appear in the posted meeting materials for either day. I received no notice that the submission had failed to transmit. I followed up on June 1, June 5, and June 10, including a June 10 email copying Executive Director Julie Regan and asking why the comment had not been included. I received no response.

The time to put protections in place is before treatment begins. The window for baseline monitoring is still open, but it will narrow as winter conditions limit access and sampling.

Sources available upon request.

Katherine ****
Tahoe Vista, California
*************************
415-515-####

Greetings,

I am writing to you with utmost concern about the use of Glyphosate in the form of Round-Up weed killer sprayed in our national forests, especially here in my home state of California. I urge you to stop the practice of suppressing new plant growth after forest fires with Round-up or any weed killer. Round-up contains Glyphosate which is widely acknowledged to be a known carcinogenic. It will end up in our ground water and our food and will stick around to haunt us for generations. Another reason NOT to spray weed killer on new plants is that this fore succession of plants is the natural cycle of recovery after fires. Any time we humans try to improve on what nature does, we create a host of unintended and possibly far reaching negative consequences.

So I urge you to please listen to my voice and the voice of my whole family. We all live, work and recreate in these forests.

Sincerely,
Barbara ******
Lee Vining, CA

To the TRPA Board of Governors,

My name is Jenna and I'm writing as a full time resident who cares deeply about the Lake Tahoe Basin. I'm urging the Board to amend the Code of Ordinances to prohibit conventional herbicide spraying, including glyphosate, in the Tahoe Basin.

The U.S. Forest Service has authorized glyphosate spraying across 2,400–3,600 acres of the Caldor Fire scar, part of an 11,700-acre restoration project with an authorization that runs for 10–15 years. This decision was made through an Emergency Action Determination that bypassed the standard public objection process.

Glyphosate was classified by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015, and California lists it under Proposition 65 as a known carcinogen. The 2000 Williams study long cited to support its safety was retracted in December 2025 after it was revealed to have been ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, and the 9th Circuit Court vacated the EPA's "not likely carcinogenic" determination in 2022.

Tahoe's watershed is uniquely vulnerable. This is a steep alpine basin with thin granitic soils feeding directly into the clearest lake in North America — a clarity that has already declined from 102 feet to 72 feet since 1968. Glyphosate has been detected in the majority of U.S. streams tested by USGS, and it persists in water for months. Spraying it uphill from Heavenly, Sierra-at-Tahoe, and Meyers puts drinking water, endangered species like Lahontan cutthroat trout, and the soil microbiome that burned forests need to recover directly at risk.

There are proven alternatives that don't require poisoning the ecosystem we're trying to heal: manual and mechanical thinning, prescribed herbivory (goat/sheep grazing), mulching, and native seeding.

I'm asking TRPA to use its authority to prohibit herbicide spraying in the Basin and require restoration projects to rely on non-chemical methods instead. Please record my strong opposition in the official record.

Thank you for your time and for protecting the lake we all love.

Jenna *******
Truckee, CA

Please see the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group's attached comments on the use of glyphosate in the Tahoe Basin.

Tobi *****
Vice Chair, Tahoe Area Group

---

ATTACHMENT: Glyphosate Ltr to TRPA and LTBMU 8.24.26.pdf

August 24, 2026

Via email to: publiccomment@trpa.gov and aaron.gagnon@usda.gov

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
128 Market Street
Stateline, NV 89449

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Aaron Gagnon, Acting Forest Supervisor
35 College Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

Re: TRPA Governing Board Meeting Public Comment – Opposition to the Use of Glyphosate and Other Herbicides in Tahoe Basin Forest Restoration Projects

Dear Governing Board Members and Acting Forest Supervisor Gagnon,

The Tahoe Area Group of the Sierra Club encourages the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) of the US Forest Service to eliminate the planned use of glyphosate and other herbicides in LTBMU's Caldor Restoration Project for 2028 and other Lake Tahoe Basin Projects on US Forest Service land. We offer the following comments as the basis for this elimination.

There are effective, safer, and more regenerative alternatives to herbicide application, including manual vegetation management and allowing natural ecological succession. These approaches restore forest resilience without introducing toxic chemicals into one of the nation's most environmentally sensitive watersheds.

The primary advantage of glyphosate and other herbicides is economic – it reduces short-term vegetation management costs. However, cost savings alone do not justify the environmental risks associated with its use as described below. Glyphosate and other herbicides are not necessary for successful post-fire forest recovery. Research has shown that tree seedlings often benefit from the shelter provided by shrubs and other early-seral vegetation, which moderate temperature extremes, retain soil moisture, and protect young trees during establishment. Allowing forests to regenerate naturally over time produces a more diverse and resilient ecosystem than artificially creating even-aged stands of trees. "Post-wildfire recovery of forest vegetation, soil, and hydrological responses: A review." Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 277, June 2026, 105452.

A forest composed primarily of trees of the same age is not a healthy, functioning ecosystem. Such monocultures are characteristic of timber production rather than ecological restoration. The Lake Tahoe Basin should be managed to maximize biodiversity, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and long-term ecosystem resilience – not to create timber plantations.

The potential scale of herbicide application is also concerning. According to reporting by the Center for Biological Diversity, between 2017 and 2020, the U.S. Forest Service applied 938,732 pounds of pesticide products across approximately 1,467,944 cumulative acres of National Forest lands, averaging roughly 0.64 pounds per acre. Applying that average rate to approximately 3,600 acres that could be treated in the Tahoe Basin suggests that more than 2,300 pounds of herbicide could be applied. Because President Trump recently issued an Executive Order invoking the Defense Production Act to expand domestic production of glyphosate, actual future application rates could be substantially higher if increased availability leads to expanded use.

Monitoring herbicide use, while important, is not an adequate safeguard. Agencies cannot manage what they do not measure, but measurement alone does not prevent environmental harm. Monitoring will not prevent glyphosate and other herbicides from entering streams, wetlands, or groundwater. It will not prevent damage to soil microbial communities and mycorrhizal fungi that are essential for healthy forest recovery. It will not prevent the loss of root systems that stabilize soils and reduce erosion, nor will it prevent reductions in carbon sequestration resulting from the elimination of native vegetation. Finally, monitoring cannot eliminate potential human health risks associated with exposure to a chemical that continues to be the subject of significant scientific and regulatory debate regarding carcinogenicity.

Equally concerning is the absence of robust accountability measures. As stated in an article in Capital Weekly, "No western state currently ties restoration bond expenditures to compound-specific baseline monitoring requirements," indicating that agencies are spending public restoration funds without establishing comprehensive baseline conditions against which the environmental effects of herbicide applications can be evaluated. Without baseline monitoring and long-term ecological assessment, agencies cannot credibly demonstrate that herbicide use is consistent with restoration objectives or that it avoids long-term harm.

LTBMU has shown that it is inadequately equipped or prepared to design and implement a robust monitoring plan for 3,600 acres. Numerous water quality violations issued by the Lahontan Water Quality Control Board over the last 20 years have proven this. Also, see Thomas Suk's comments dated July 21, 2026, which are herein incorporated by reference.

The Lake Tahoe Basin is internationally recognized for its exceptional water quality, biodiversity, and ecological significance. Forest restoration should strengthen these values, not compromise them through the unnecessary use of herbicides. Before any chemical vegetation management is authorized, agencies should demonstrate that non-chemical alternatives have been fully evaluated and found infeasible, and that any proposed herbicide application is supported by rigorous, site-specific scientific analysis.

Environmental Risks Associated With the Use of Glyphosate and Other Herbicides

1. Loss of Native Biodiversity — Glyphosate is non-selective and kills most broadleaf plants and grasses. While intended to suppress competing vegetation, it also eliminates many native species that stabilize soils after a wildfire, produce berries and seeds for birds and mammals, provide nectar and pollen for native bees and butterflies, contribute to diverse forest structure, and shift forests toward conifer monocultures with reduced understory diversity. "Experimental evaluation of herbicide use on biodiversity, ecosystem services and timber production trade-offs in forest plantations." Journal of Applied Ecology, 29 May 2021.

2. Harm to Pollinators — In burned forests, flowering shrubs are often among the first plants to recover and are especially valuable for pollinators. Glyphosate removes flowering plants that pollinators depend upon, thereby reducing native bee and butterfly abundance, lowering habitat quality, and decreasing food resources for native species. "Sublethal glyphosate exposure reduces honey bee foraging and alters the balance of biogenic amines in the brain." Journal of Experimental Biology, Volume 228, Issue 9, May 2025.

3. Wildlife Habitat Degradation — Removing shrubs and flowering plants, such as ceanothus, manzanita, bitterbrush and willow that provide nesting habitat, thermal cover, forage, and insect production negatively affects songbirds, deer, black bears, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Post-fire "competing vegetation" species are actually important components of healthy forest succession. Furthermore, modern forest ecology recognizes that post-fire shrubs are not simply weeds. Species such as ceanothus fix atmospheric nitrogen, improve soil fertility, shade young conifers, reduce erosion, and provide wildlife habitat. Removing them can interrupt natural recovery processes.

4. Soil Health — Research indicates glyphosate can affect soil biology by altering microbial communities, reducing mycorrhizal fungi, altering nitrogen cycling, and reducing decomposition rates. Healthy soil fungi are particularly important for conifer regeneration.

5. Water Quality Risks — Water quality risks in watersheds include contaminant transport as glyphosate attaches to eroded soil and sediment and moves into streams that drain to Lake Tahoe. Meadows, wetlands, and ephemeral drainages can also become contaminated. Accidental overspray into waterways can also occur. Although glyphosate generally binds to sediment, post-fire landscapes often experience severe erosion, increasing transport potential. The phosphorus in glyphosate has also been found to stimulate growth of harmful algal species. For watersheds such as Lake Tahoe – where protecting exceptional water clarity is a primary management objective – even small increases in pollutant loading warrant scrutiny.

6. Aquatic Species — Glyphosate formulations often contain surfactants that can be more toxic than glyphosate itself. If overspray or soils contaminated with glyphosate erode into waterways, aquatic species can also be affected, causing amphibian mortality, impacts to aquatic invertebrates, and reduced food sources for fish. Even though the Caldor project prohibits the use of aquatic formulations near streams, drift and contaminated soil runoff remain significant concerns, warranting the use of other alternatives.

7. Carbon Storage — Many shrubs removed with herbicides continue storing carbon and contribute organic matter to soils. Eliminating them reduces aboveground biomass, slows soil carbon accumulation, and decreases ecosystem resilience. Although herbicide use may accelerate conifer growth, the net carbon benefit depends on site-specific conditions and remains an area of scientific debate. Thus, alternatives other than chemicals should be used.

8. Increased Fire Concerns — Removing green understory vegetation can also increase the abundance of dry grasses, increasing the risk of fast-moving fires. Exposed soil reduces moisture retention, further exacerbating future fire risks in the area.

9. Human Health Concerns — In July 2017, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals "known to the state to cause cancer". Under California law, OEHHA was required to add the chemical after the World Health Organization's IARC labeled it a "probable carcinogen". Although human health remains one of the most debated aspects of glyphosate, there is no doubt that it is not a suitable restoration alternative for the Lake Tahoe Basin.

10. Worker Health and Environmental Justice — The occupational health impacts on workers tasked with mixing, handling, and applying glyphosate and other herbicides must also be considered. Forest restoration projects frequently rely on seasonal or contracted labor, where levels of training, supervision, and experience may vary considerably. These workers often perform physically demanding jobs under extreme heat, steep terrain, and remote conditions, all of which increase the likelihood of mistakes, equipment failures, and chemical exposure. Forest and conservation work is already recognized as having one of the highest occupational injury and illness rates in the United States.

Although pesticide labels and regulations require personal protective equipment (PPE), the effectiveness of that protection depends on rigorous training, proper equipment, careful supervision, and consistent compliance. Federal and California pesticide safety regulations recognize that pesticide handlers require specialized instruction, appropriate PPE, medical evaluations when respirators are required, and ongoing oversight to reduce occupational exposure.

LTBMU should not assume perfect compliance with label requirements. Real-world forestry operations occur in windy conditions, rugged terrain, and remote locations where spray drift, equipment leaks, spills, and dermal or inhalation exposure are possible. Occupational exposure to glyphosate has been documented among forestry workers, demonstrating that applicators represent the population at greatest potential risk of exposure.

The agencies should also recognize that contract crews may be economically vulnerable. Workers paid by the acre or under tight production schedules may feel pressure to continue spraying despite equipment failures, inadequate protective gear, fatigue, or unsafe weather conditions. Such pressures can undermine the assumptions of safe chemical handling that underlie regulatory risk assessments.

The burden of these risks falls disproportionately on the workers performing the restoration – not on the agencies authorizing herbicide use. A true restoration program should not depend on exposing workers to avoidable chemical hazards when effective non-chemical alternatives, including manual vegetation management and natural forest regeneration, are available. The safest exposure is the one that never occurs.

Summary

Peer-reviewed ecological research increasingly recognizes that post-fire shrub communities are an essential component of forest recovery rather than an obstacle to restoration. Early-seral vegetation stabilizes soils, reduces erosion, moderates microclimate, fixes nitrogen, supports pollinators and wildlife, and often facilitates conifer establishment. Conversely, intensive vegetation removal through herbicide application can alter soil microbial communities, leave glyphosate and other herbicide residues in runoff sediments, reduce native plant diversity, and simplify naturally recovering ecosystems. Rather than accelerating ecological restoration, broadcast herbicide application risks replacing a diverse, climate-resilient post-fire landscape with an artificially managed, even-aged conifer plantation that more closely resembles a timber production system than a naturally functioning Sierra Nevada Forest.

LTBMU must prioritize the protection of Lake Tahoe's exceptional water clarity. The increased sediment transport, risks to municipal water supplies and groundwater, effects on rare Sierra Nevada plant communities, potential conflicts with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) objectives, and compliance with the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact's requirement to maintain or improve environmental threshold carrying capacities requires LTMBU to choose other alternatives.

Because the Tahoe Basin contains one of the world's most sensitive alpine watersheds, herbicide use should be used only where there is clear evidence that non-chemical alternatives are infeasible. Forest managers can often use integrated vegetation management approaches, including manual cutting or grubbing, targeted grazing where appropriate, mulching, and prescribed fire under suitable conditions. Glyphosate and other herbicide use converts a biologically rich early-seral landscape – one that supports many native plants and wildlife – into a more homogeneous plantation. True ecological restoration should maintain native biodiversity, natural successional processes, and watershed functions, rather than focusing primarily on timber production or conifer stocking.

For these reasons, I urge the responsible agencies to prohibit the use of glyphosate and other herbicides listed for use in the Caldor plan and in other Tahoe Basin Forest restoration projects and instead prioritize restoration methods that protect water quality, preserve biodiversity, support natural forest regeneration, protect workers, and ensure the long-term health and resilience of this unique and cherished ecosystem.

Sincerely,
Tobi *****
Tahoe Area Group, Sierra Club

Cc: Rosalie Herrera, Deputy Forest Supervisor (rosalie.herrera@usda.gov)

To the TRPA Governing Board,

I am writing to urge the TRPA to update its Code of Ordinances to ban synthetic herbicides, including glyphosate, throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Relying on chemical sprays is a short-sighted financial shortcut that sacrifices long-term ecological health for operational convenience. The Lake Tahoe Basin is an exceptionally fragile alpine ecosystem and a premier recreation destination; it is no place for mass chemical applications that risk our watersheds, soil microbiomes, and local wildlife.

Instead of cutting corners with synthetic sprays, resources should be allocated toward labor-intensive, mechanical, and hand-crew management strategies that actually protect the landscape rather than dousing it in chemicals.

Please take decisive action to keep synthetic herbicides out of the Basin.

Sincerely,
Jonathan *******
Soda Springs, CA

--
-Jonny

Hi,

I am a local that loves to hike, ski and play in the outdoors. I garden and farm in the area.

Glyphosate has been PROVEN to cause cancer and disrupt the endocrine system. I want to be able to hike/swim/eat from/on the land - when I filed a complaint with the CA EPA, they dismissed my complaint saying 'it's only toxic if you touch it'. Well - when it's dry, the dust blows around and you breathe it, when it rains, it goes into our waterways. It will be in our air, in our soil, our local food system, on our babies and animals when we play outside.

Childhood cancer and infertility are skyrocketing. We need to protect ourselves, our kids, our pets and our wildlife from this KNOWN toxin.

TRPA has been complicit with allowing this, as has our governor. We need other fire mitigation methods like supervised burns, fire barriers etc to aid in fire prevention. THIS IS NOT OKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am begging you to help stop this and save future lives and suffering. Spraying this WILL cause untold harm, ruin people's lives, and destroy our community.

The breastmilk of Intuit women who have never touched plastic in their lives tested positive for microplastics - this WILL get into our bloodstreams - please help us keep one more toxin out.

Abby
Abby ******** Design
www.abbylichtman.com @abbylichtmandesign

Please enroll the service of CCC and other agencies such as Growlersberg, etc. Please do not use poison.

Sent from my iPhone

Hello TRPA,

Thank you for collecting comments on the herbicide use on the Caldor Fire scar. Please see comment/letter attached for your public comment.

Best,
Renna ****** (she/her)
Regional Organizer, Sierra Nevada
California Environmental Voters & California Environmental Voters Education Fund
559-281-####

---

ATTACHMENT: PC on herbicide to Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.docx

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
128 Market St.
Stateline, NV

Dear TRPA,

As the Sierra Organizer at California Environmental Voters, we echo the community outcry against herbicide use and its impact on protected natural lands. Although the Caldor Fire Restoration Project has meaningful intentions, we oppose the inclusion of targeted herbicide use.

The Caldor Fire was devastating to witness, especially due to personally knowing families in Meyers and South Lake Tahoe that were evacuated. The drive up Route 50 is an ecological scar reminding us of the lasting damage and cost to our community due to neglecting the ongoing climate crisis. The project to combat overgrowth can be more intentional with science-based and more natural solutions. The use of Glyphosate continues to try and solve a problem without the appropriate tools for the moment we are in; and only stands to further damage our wild spaces and jeopardize the ecological and public health of our small community. Glyphosate doesn't stay where you spray it, especially in natural downstream alpine watersheds that collect snowmelt, which contradicts the effectiveness of the proposed "100-foot buffer of any stream channel". The product has also been linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma by the World Health Organization, one of the most common cancers in the nation, and will risk thousands of nearby residents, tourists, and recreationalists that are promised clean alpine water.

The moment we are in right now requires working with rural and local communities to provide jobs as we build resilience in the Sierra in sustainable ways that will keep us all safe from wildfires and toxins. We urge TRPA to prioritize science-based solutions over chemical contamination, including targeted grazing, manual thinning, native seeding, and mulching to support natural recovery and wildfire prevention. Please consider this letter as opposition to allowing herbicide, such as glyphosate, to be sprayed in our beloved forest, near our pristine waters, and our community's resourceful areas. Thank you for time and consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,
Renna ******
Sierra Organizer
California Environmental Voters

Dear Members of the Environmental Improvement Program Committee of the TRPA Governing Board,

On behalf of EARTHDAY.ORG, we write to urge the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to amend its Code of Ordinances to prohibit the aerial and ground application of conventional, synthetic herbicides, especially those including glyphosate, anywhere within the Lake Tahoe Basin. We submit this comment in advance of the August 26 Governing Board meeting and ask that it be entered into the official record.

EARTHDAY.ORG has spent more than five decades building the movement that grew out of the first Earth Day in 1970, and we know Lake Tahoe as one of the irreplaceable landscapes that the movement exists to protect. The clarity of this lake, the health of its watershed, and the resilience of the forests that ring it are not amenities — they are the ecological inheritance of everyone who lives in, works in, or simply loves the Sierra Nevada. That inheritance is now on the table.

We Share the Goal of Restoring the Caldor Fire Landscape — But Herbicides Are the Wrong Tool

We recognize, and do not dismiss, the real challenges facing post-fire recovery in the Caldor Fire burn scar. Restoring this landscape matters, and EARTHDAY.ORG supports that goal. We do not, however, support the conclusion that spreading a synthetic herbicide across thousands of acres of this watershed is the way to solve these challenges.

The premise that herbicide treatment meaningfully reduces wildfire risk is far less settled than the Forest Service's Environmental Assessment suggests. In its most recent update to its report on hazardous fuels and wildfire mitigation, released earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service cautioned that herbicides leave dead fuels on the surface that still need to be physically removed to reduce overall fuel loading. In other words, spraying vegetation converts living, moisture-holding plants into dead, dry fuels which remain in the landscape until they decompose, are mechanically removed, or are burned. Herbicide use is directly contrary to the Project's stated goal to improve resiliency to future wildfire impacts.

This finding is supported by research from the authorities responsible for stewarding the Lake Tahoe Basin. Forest Service-affiliated studies on herbicide-treated shrub fields in the very same fire-scarred landscapes of the Sierra Nevada that this project is modeled on have reached a similar conclusion: converting live vegetation to dead vegetation through herbicide application shifts the fuel matrix in ways that can leave a treated stand drier and more combustible. A restoration strategy that trades a live-fuel problem for a dead-fuel problem, in a Basin already primed for catastrophic fire, is not a strategy TRPA should endorse or permit.

Herbicide Application Threatens the Water That Defines This Basin

Lake Tahoe's defining feature is its water clarity, and TRPA has long recognized herbicide runoff as a threat to it, with TRPA's existing Code of Ordinances stating that "No detectable concentration of any [herbicide] shall be allowed to enter any stream environment zone, surface water, or ground water." Glyphosate does not stay where it is applied. Nationwide monitoring by the U.S. Geological Survey has detected glyphosate contamination in 94.3% of streams and rivers. In a steep, granitic, snowmelt-driven watershed like Tahoe's, chemicals applied to burned hillsides are positioned to move downslope into tributaries that feed directly into the lake. A substance the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as probably carcinogenic to humans has no place being applied uphill of a drinking water source and a lake. This basin has spent decades trying to keep blue.

Herbicide Application Undermines the Forest's Own Capacity to Recover

The stated purpose of this project is to help the forest heal. Yet the same broad-spectrum herbicides proposed for this project are toxic to the soil microbes and mycorrhizal fungi that tree seedlings depend on to establish root systems and take up nutrients; glyphosate destroys the crucial soil microbiome that makes forest regeneration possible in the first place. The Environmental Protection Agency's own draft biological evaluation acknowledges that glyphosate use is likely to adversely affect roughly 93 percent of the endangered species and 96 percent of the critical habitats it analyzed, and independent research has documented harm to amphibians and aquatic invertebrates at concentrations well below typical application rates. Tahoe's watershed already supports stressed and sensitive species in the wake of the Caldor Fire; it should not also absorb a broad-spectrum toxicant.

Proven, Non-Chemical Alternatives Exist

TRPA does not have to choose between a recovering forest and a chemically treated one. Land managers across the West already use non-toxic methods to control competing vegetation and reduce fuels after fire, including: manual and mechanical thinning of competing brush, which creates local jobs and leaves mulch that retains soil moisture instead of drying it out while also preserving a healthy soil microbiome; carefully planned prescribed burns, a widely recognized forest management tactic which mimics the low-intensity fire this landscape evolved with, to safely remove fuel sources while recycling nutrients back into the soil instead of introducing a synthetic toxicant; mulching and wood chipping of dead and down material on-site, which suppresses weed regrowth, reduces erosion into the watershed, and speeds nutrient cycling; and dense native seeding and biocontrol to help desired species outcompete invasives without altering the soil chemistry or watershed.

These approaches directly address the regeneration and fuel-accumulation challenges the Forest Service has identified without introducing a probable human carcinogen into an alpine watershed.

Our Request

EARTHDAY.ORG respectfully requests that the Governing Board amend the TRPA Code of Ordinances to prohibit the application of conventional, synthetic herbicides — including but not limited to glyphosate-based formulations — within the Lake Tahoe Basin, and to require that any vegetation management or post-fire restoration project within TRPA's jurisdiction rely on manual, mechanical, biological, or other non-chemical methods. TRPA has authority over land use and environmental standards within the Basin, and this Board can set a Basin-wide standard that keeps synthetic herbicides out of this naturally and culturally significant watershed.

We urge the Governing Board to support the healthy recovery of the Caldor Fire burn scar and protect the Lake Tahoe Basin in perpetuity by amending its Code of Ordinances to prohibit the use of conventional herbicides in the Basin.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued stewardship of this irreplaceable landscape.

Respectfully submitted,
Evan ******, National Campaign Manager, EARTHDAY.ORG

References: 1. Congressional Research Service, Hazardous Fuels and Wildfire Mitigation: Background and Congressional Considerations, R48779 (2026). 2. McGinnis, T.W., et al., "Fuel buildup and potential fire behavior after stand-replacing fires, logging fire-killed trees and herbicide shrub removal in Sierra Nevada forests," Forest Ecology and Management 260 (2010): 22–35. 3. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, threshold monitoring reports on Lake Tahoe clarity. 4. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances Section 60.1.7. 5. U.S. Geological Survey, "Influence of Land Use and Region on Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Streams in the United States." 6. International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization), IARC Monograph on Glyphosate, Volume 112 (2015). 7. Van Bruggen, A.H.C., et al., "Indirect Effects of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Plant, Animal and Human Health Through Its Effects on Microbial Communities," Frontiers in Environmental Science (2021). 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Biological Evaluation for Glyphosate (November 2020). 9. See, e.g., studies collected in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry on the toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations to North American amphibian species.

Evan ******
National Campaign Manager
1752 N Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036
#OurPowerOurPlanet

Public comment under general public comment item #2

On your agenda item 5.A is proposals of herbicide use in the Caldor fire. I am wholeheartedly against the use of roundup or related pesticides in restoration of the Caldor fire burn scar. Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, has faced thousands of lawsuits alleging that Roundup caused cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the cases that actually went to trial, plaintiffs have won several major verdicts, including the first major case in 2018 involving Dewayne Johnson, plus later cases involving awards of hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. As of 2026, there are 11 verdicts for plaintiffs against Bayer/Monsanto.

It is incredibly difficult to impossible to link an environmental toxin to a disease and yet this has been done many times concerning glyphosate.

Lake Tahoe is the drinking source for millions of people per year. We should not be using something known to cause cancer near this source of water where once contaminated is impossible to reclamate.

I personally do not want anything to do with glyphosate and go out of my way to avoid it due to my own health research. There is a reason there is a growing organics movement worldwide and avoiding it has improved my own health! I don't want to have to start filtering my "Tahoe Tap" Even if the dilution factor is large, I find the intentional use of glyphosate in the basin very concerning given what we know.

The proponents of glyphosate talk about it not impacting human health but ignorantly ignore the microbiome. The human's can live without their microbiome and pesticides alter and disrupt this microbiome.

I support natural succession with some seeding over the use of pesticides.

Aaron **********

To the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Environmental Improvement Committee,

I am writing to oppose the proposed use of herbicides in the Caldor Fire burn scar. While I understand the desire to manage post-fire vegetation and prevent erosion or invasive species, herbicide application in a sensitive post-fire landscape carries significant ecological, public health, and water-quality risks that are not justified by the information currently available.

Please do not approve any herbicide plan for the Caldor burn scar unless TRPA provides, in advance of any vote, a complete and specific public record addressing at minimum the following:

1. Clear purpose and necessity — What problem herbicide use is intended to solve (erosion control, invasive suppression, fuel reduction, etc.) and why non-chemical alternatives are insufficient. Why herbicides are the least-toxic, most effective option compared with targeted mechanical treatment, reseeding with appropriate native species, mulching, erosion control blankets, or other site-specific measures.

2. Active ingredients and application details — Exact chemical(s), concentration, surfactants/adjuvants, and formulation type. Application method (e.g., foliar spray, wick application, cut-stump, granular), timing (season/month), and frequency. Treatment area boundaries, buffer distances, and how drift/runoff are prevented — especially in areas near waterways, wetlands, springs, and steep slopes.

3. Water-quality and Tahoe Basin protections — A detailed analysis of potential impacts to streams, tributaries, groundwater, and downstream receiving waters. How the proposal complies with TRPA/Regional water quality requirements and the Tahoe Basin's unique sensitivity. Monitoring plans for nutrients, vegetation response, and potential contamination.

4. Ecological and wildlife impacts — How application will protect aquatic habitat, pollinators, threatened or sensitive species, and soil biology. Any expected short- and long-term impacts on native plant regeneration and forest recovery.

5. Alternatives analysis and adaptive management — A comparison of herbicide use against non-chemical or lower-risk strategies with a clear justification. A commitment to adaptive management based on monitoring results, including a stop-work trigger if impacts exceed predicted outcomes.

Given the scale and visibility of post-fire restoration in the Tahoe region, I urge TRPA to apply the precautionary approach: avoid herbicides in burned areas unless there is compelling, evidence-based necessity and a comprehensive risk-reduction plan. If the objective is invasive species control or vegetation management, TRPA should prioritize methods that protect water quality and support native recovery.

I request that the Environmental Improvement Committee: reject the proposed herbicide authorization at this time, and/or defer any action until TRPA provides the full documentation above for public review, including maps, chemical/product specifics, risk assessments, and a robust alternatives/monitoring plan.

Thank you for considering my comments. Please include this letter in the public record for the committee's deliberations.

Sincerely,
Mary *******
Alpine Meadows, CA

Mary *******
Olympic Valley, CA
T: 530-583-####
E-mail: *********************

Dear Chair and Members of the Committee,

I am a resident of South Lake Tahoe, and I recreate routinely in the Caldor burn. I have watched this ground come back over the past several years, and I know these units well enough to have opinions about which of them a hand crew could reasonably work. I am writing about the proposed herbicide use in the Caldor Fire Restoration Project.

I want to be clear about where I stand, because I think it differs from much of what you are hearing. I am not asking you to oppose all herbicide use. I understand what happens when montane chaparral captures a burn scar and holds it for forty years. I understand that hand grubbing on steep, unstable post-fire slopes carries its own erosion cost, and that we are trying to get conifers established before this ground burns a second time. Limited, targeted application by trained Forest Service crews with backpack sprayers, in places where crews genuinely cannot work by hand, is a defensible tool.

What I am asking is that this stay small, and that the limits be written down and enforceable rather than described as current intentions. Contingencies drift toward defaults when the default is cheaper. That is the real risk here, and it is the one I would like this Committee to close off.

The drinking water standard is the wrong test. The Forest Service has said that if glyphosate reaches water, concentrations would remain below federal drinking water standards. For most watersheds, that would be a reasonable answer. For this one, it is not the question.

Lake Tahoe is designated an Outstanding National Resource Water under the Clean Water Act. That designation carries Tier 3 antidegradation protection, which requires that existing water quality be maintained and protected. It does not ask whether a pollutant stays under a threshold. It asks whether we are degrading the water at all. An assurance built around a maximum contaminant level does not answer a Tier 3 standard, and I would ask the Committee not to accept it as though it does.

This matters practically, not just legally. Post-fire soils go hydrophobic. Runoff after a high-severity burn does not behave the way it does under intact forest. A one hundred foot buffer measured from mapped water bodies says nothing about the ephemeral drainages and snowmelt channels that actually move water off that hillside in May.

What I am asking the Committee to recommend:

1. No application in the Basin portion until the interagency review is complete and public. Executive Director Regan requested a meeting with the Forest Service and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board before any implementation. That request should become a condition, and the outcome should be published, not summarized.

2. A written Tier 3 antidegradation determination from Lahontan before any herbicide is applied in the Basin. Lahontan, not the Forest Service, is the agency charged with protecting this designation. Ask them to put their analysis in writing and make it public. If the answer is that this use is consistent with Tier 3, we should all be able to read why.

3. A hard acreage cap, annual and cumulative, expressed as a share of the Basin portion of the project. Any proposal to exceed it returns to the Governing Board in a public hearing. Without a ceiling, "only where manual removal is infeasible" is a statement of intent, not a limit.

4. A written, public, unit-by-unit infeasibility determination before any unit is authorized for treatment. If hand crews cannot do the work, the record should say why, for that unit, before the spraying and not after.

5. Backpack and spot application only, permanently, in writing. Aerial and broadcast application should be prohibited in the Basin portion as a condition, not described as not currently planned.

6. Buffers extended to ephemeral drainages, snowmelt channels, and springs, not only to mapped water bodies, and widened on slopes above thirty percent.

7. POEA-free formulations only. The surfactants in a tank mix receive far less scrutiny than the active ingredient and are considerably more toxic to aquatic life. Approving glyphosate is not the same as approving every formulation of it.

8. Fourteen days of advance public notice with unit maps and treatment dates, in addition to on-site signage, and an annual public report to the Governing Board listing acres treated, product and volume applied, and monitoring results.

9. A five year sunset on any herbicide authorization in the Basin, renewable only after a public hearing.

I know TRPA has no permitting authority over a federal project, and I am not asking you to pretend otherwise. But this Committee's recommendation carries weight with the Forest Service, with Lahontan, and with the public, and TRPA's longstanding policy discouraging terrestrial herbicide use in the Basin means something. Whatever is approved here becomes the precedent for the next burn scar, and there will be a next one.

I would rather see this done carefully and narrowly than see it fought to a standstill and then done badly under pressure. Give the Forest Service a clear ceiling and a clear process, and hold them to it.

Thank you for your work and for taking public comment on this.

Sincerely,
Lauren *******
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Lauren *******
512-573-####

If you are a potential client looking for availability, pricing, and package information, filling out the contact form on my website is the fastest way to get that. If you request the appropriate service, all that information will auto-send because the internet is magic. When I return to my computer, I assure you that I will respond to everything in absolutely no specific order and will likely play favorites, per usual.

Chair Faustinos and Members of the Committee,

Attached is my written public comment for the August 26 Environmental Improvement Program Committee meeting, regarding Agenda Item 5.A, herbicide use associated with the Caldor Fire Restoration Project.

I'd appreciate its inclusion in the record for this item.

Thank you,
Reid *********
South Lake Tahoe, CA

---

ATTACHMENT: Reichardt-Comment-EIP-Item-5A-Aug26-2026.pdf

To: Environmental Improvement Program Committee, TRPA Governing Board
From: Reid *********, South Lake Tahoe
Date: August 24, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 5.A, Herbicide Use Associated with the Caldor Fire Restoration Project

Thank you for placing this item on the agenda. I'm a Tahoe resident who has hiked the Caldor area since 2012 — nine years before the fire, and every year since. I'm extremely concerned about the impacts the Caldor Fire Restoration Project will have on Tahoe Basin forest health, as well as the long-term health of regular forest users and nearby communities.

This project was approved under an emergency action determination that eliminated the public's formal opportunity to object before implementation, and its Human Health Risk Assessment cites a safety review retracted in December 2025 as ghostwritten by Monsanto employees. The World Health Organization classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, and in 2021 the EPA found it likely to adversely affect over 90% of endangered species.

I've read the project's Environmental Assessment, Biological Assessment, and Human Health Risk Assessment, along with the MOU attached to the staff report.

I'm writing about four things: an observation, an unanswered question, an obligation that applies regardless of the answer, and a request.

1. My direct observation in the Caldor.

What I see on the ground in the Caldor area includes abundant natural conifer regeneration — seedlings and saplings one, two, and some even three feet tall. The EA models roughly 4,900 acres as unlikely to regenerate naturally, at under 40% probability. But that is modeling. What I'm seeing doesn't match that estimate, and I'd encourage the Committee to ask when those figures were last checked against conditions on the ground.

This abundant regeneration also raises a practical question. Where natural seedlings are already established among the shrubs targeted for herbicide, it isn't clear how they are protected during spraying, and who verifies it afterward. The chaparral itself is also doing real work — holding burned soil and preventing watershed erosion.

2. The staff report does not state whether this activity is exempt.

The report describes the MOU as identifying certain activities as exempt from TRPA review, and states that activities not exempt are reviewed under the Regional Plan and Code. But it does not say which category this project's herbicide application falls into.

TRPA's website lists this Forest Service MOU among its Exempt MOUs — under which certain agencies are given authority to review their own projects for conformance with TRPA standards. That makes the scope of each listed exemption consequential: where an activity falls outside what the MOU specifies, the self-review authority does not apply. So the question is whether herbicide application across thousands of acres falls within what this MOU specifies.

The MOU caps its exemptions carefully: erosion control and watershed restoration at fifty acres, heavy-equipment tree removal at 100 acres, excavation at 200 cubic yards. Section III.F.3 says nothing about herbicides. It exempts "reforestation or revegetation of land" with no limit — but interpreting that to cover chemical treatment across thousands of acres, when the document's other exemptions carry clear limits, should be examined closely rather than assumed.

Section V is also relevant. It requires the Forest Service to make protective findings before disturbing Stream Environment Zones under exemptions in Sections III B, G, H, I, and J. Section F is not among them. If the drafters had understood F.3 to encompass chemical application near sensitive lands, leaving it off that list would be difficult to explain.

Two more important points from the document itself. First, Section III.G.3, one subsection later, exempts "fuel management through prescribed burning, chipping, lop and scatter, and other techniques." When the drafters wanted an exemption to cover a range of methods, they enumerated them and added a catch-all. Section III.F.3 does neither — and shouldn't be treated as though it did. Silence is not permission for any method at all.

Second, as the staff report notes, the MOU exempts specified activities. The question is whether chemical application across thousands of acres is among those exempted activities. If it is, what would not be covered? Would 100,000 acres be exempt? The document sets no limit — and that, I would suggest, is because chemical treatment at this scale was never contemplated when the MOU was written. There are no herbicide provisions anywhere in it. And Section V's protections for Stream Environment Zones skip Section F entirely. So this reads much less like a deliberate exemption for mass herbicide application than like a gap that no one ever anticipated. Either way, this needs to be resolved now, before thousands of acres are sprayed.

I searched the full Code of Ordinances for provisions addressing herbicide use. Aside from a paragraph about toxic or hazardous waste, the words "herbicide" and "pesticide" appear only in Section 60.1.7. "Glyphosate" appears nowhere. I also reviewed the titles of the Code's amendments and found none addressing herbicide or pesticide use. If TRPA has made findings that herbicide application at this scale has no substantial effect on the region's resources — the standard the Compact sets for exempting an activity from review — I have not been able to locate them, and I would ask the Committee where they are.

If the activity is not exempt, Section II.A.4 requires the Forest Service to provide TRPA with a complete application for review.

3. The Code applies either way — and the alternatives question is unanswered.

MOU Sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 commit the Forest Service to conduct even exempt activities in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan and Code. So Code section 60.1.7 applies to this project whether or not review is required.

As the staff report notes, 60.1.7 discourages pesticide use and calls for consideration of alternatives to chemical application. TRPA's own May 27 letter invokes this policy directly.

The Forest Service has adopted much the same logic voluntarily. Its public FAQ states that where manual methods can be used and are effective, that is the preferred approach. So there is no disagreement about the standard. The question is whether it has been applied, and how anyone outside the agency would know.

The FAQ gives reasons that manual methods won't work: steep slopes, distance from existing roads, sensitive soils, wildfire concerns, and the difficulty of clearing shrubs immediately around planted seedlings. What I cannot find is the analysis behind the reasons — which acres, what slope threshold, how much of the 2,400–3,600 acres each constraint accounts for. A determination is not an evaluation, and these reasons appear in public messaging rather than in the project's environmental documentation.

The whitebark pine exception is also telling. The Forest Service committed to manual site preparation within whitebark pine stands, which occur above 7,800 feet — at the upper elevations of the project area and well above the roads that serve it. If manual crews can work there, distance from roads cannot by itself explain where manual methods are ruled out elsewhere.

Having hiked this area for many years, much of it off trail, I'd add that most of the burn area is not especially rugged. More importantly, the herbicide methods described are themselves hand-applied, using backpack sprayers on foot. Access alone, then, cannot account for the full 2,400–3,600 acres. The Committee may wish to ask how much it does account for.

If 60.1.7 means anything, the acreage where manual methods are genuinely infeasible should be identified and documented — not assumed. The FAQ states that herbicide is "proposed only on a subset of the area proposed for reforestation," which means that subset has presumably been identified. The Committee should be able to see it. So should the public.

4. Requested direction.

The staff report asks the Committee to direct staff on next steps. I would respectfully suggest three:

a) Direct staff to make a written determination as to whether herbicide application at this scale falls within the MOU's reforestation exemption, and to return that determination to the Committee.

b) Direct staff to obtain the confirmation requested in TRPA's May 27 letter — that no herbicide treatments will be applied within the Basin portion of the project prior to interagency review — and report whether it has been received.

c) Direct staff to return with options for amending Code section 60.1.7 to prohibit rather than discourage synthetic herbicide use within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Thank you for taking the time to give close scrutiny to the Caldor Fire Restoration Project. Given its potential environmental impacts and long-term risks to Tahoe forest users and nearby communities, it would be a mistake to let this project proceed under an exemption that was almost certainly never intended to cover it.

With no herbicide application scheduled until 2028, there is time to get this right.

Respectfully submitted,
Reid *********
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Glyphosate is toxic to plant and animal life. The studies saying it's safe were ghostwritten by the manufacturers of the chemical as pointed out in the article (Mother Jones, April 2026).

The herbicides can affect the ecosystem for decades, according to the Forest Service's own 2025 report, which found many native plants will be replaced by invasive species after large-scale herbicide spraying. A study published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management in 2010 found that herbicide use for reforestation resulted in fewer native plants growing back and instead resulted in "significantly greater" invasive species taking root in the replanted forests.

"This is a particularly destructive way to manage the forest," says Jun Bando, executive director of the California Native Plant Society, who holds a PhD in ecology from University of California, Davis. "There is long-term ecological damage."

By removing native plants, she explains, the Forest Service is harming wildlife that depend on them, including mammals, birds, and insects. It also might be increasing wildfire risk, she says, because many of these invasive species, such as the French broom shrub, are what fire experts refer to as "flash fuels," meaning they are more likely to catch fire and kill the replanted trees. This idea is backed up by the 2010 study, which found that the most common invasive grass to take root after herbicide spraying is cheatgrass and that this invasive plant burns nearly 10 times more frequently in Western ecosystems than the native shrubs that normally repopulate after forest fires.

Furthermore, if as planned the surviving trees and plants are killed to make way for lumber replanting these fire resilient plants are removed from the gene pool.

The Forest Service inadequately posts signage on sprayed areas, where we forage food, hike, ski, camp, bike and swim. The public needs to know where and when areas have been sprayed for the long term so we can decide how we want to interact with the area. If the plant life that supports animal life is killed, there will be more pressure on bears, coyotes, mountain lions forcing them into our neighborhoods and causing problems.

We need to stop the use of herbicides in our forests now!

Sincerely,
Charles *****

It is absolutely absurd that this is a plan of action. There have been fires for millions of years in the world, and the native plants are there still surviving. It is a harebrained idea that people think they can do better than letting nature take care of itself. How much money did Monsanto give the tRUMP campaign? Would lumber be an issue if the Orange Blob knew what he was doing with tariffs, and not pissed off Canada. I am sure that there will be a class action lawsuit from this travesty that will contribute to the National, State, and County deficit. STOP THE SPRAY!

Charles *****
Shingle Springs, CA

To whom it may concern:

I strongly oppose the spraying of herbicides in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Although I am a Bay Area resident, I visit Lake Tahoe often and can't imagine having to worry about glyphosate contamination. I might not be able to continue coming to this beautiful region if the use of the herbicide is allowed. I am sure other visitors feel the same, and allowing this might negatively impact not just the environment but also the local economy.

Please prohibit glyphosate herbicides in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Thanks,
Katja ****

Glyphosate is toxic to plant and animal life. The studies saying it's safe were ghostwritten by the manufacturers of the chemical as pointed out in the article (Mother Jones, April 2026).

The herbicides can affect the ecosystem for decades, according to the Forest Service's own 2025 report, which found many native plants will be replaced by invasive species after large-scale herbicide spraying. A study published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management in 2010 found that herbicide use for reforestation resulted in fewer native plants growing back and instead resulted in "significantly greater" invasive species taking root in the replanted forests.

"This is a particularly destructive way to manage the forest," says Jun Bando, executive director of the California Native Plant Society, who holds a PhD in ecology from University of California, Davis. "There is long-term ecological damage."

By removing native plants, she explains, the Forest Service is harming wildlife that depend on them, including mammals, birds, and insects. It also might be increasing wildfire risk, she says, because many of these invasive species, such as the French broom shrub, are what fire experts refer to as "flash fuels," meaning they are more likely to catch fire and kill the replanted trees. This idea is backed up by the 2010 study, which found that the most common invasive grass to take root after herbicide spraying is cheatgrass and that this invasive plant burns nearly 10 times more frequently in Western ecosystems than the native shrubs that normally repopulate after forest fires.

Furthermore, if as planned the surviving trees and plants are killed to make way for lumber replanting these fire resilient plants are removed from the gene pool.

The Forest Service inadequately posts signage on sprayed areas, where we forage food, hike, ski, camp, bike and swim. The public needs to know where and when areas have been sprayed for the long term so we can decide how we want to interact with the area. If the plant life that supports animal life is killed, there will be more pressure on bears, coyotes, mountain lions forcing them into our neighborhoods and causing problems.

We need to stop the use of herbicides in our forests now!

Sincerely,
Belinda ******

Dear TRPA,

As a former EPA scientist and researcher who has long term studies ongoing in the Meyers area, I urge you to reconsider the use of glyphosate in the area and Tahoe Basin generally.

In addition to the known harms of glyphosate to both human and ecological health, our research projects in areas targeted for glyphosate application indicate that small mammals are contributing to post fire forest recovery via seed dispersal and the dispersal of fungi on which the seedlings and mature conifer trees depend.

The application of glyphosate will disrupt active seed dispersal and recovery by depriving small mammals of cover and seed caches. Glyphosate will also negatively impact recovering pollinator communities which depend on flowering shrubs and herbaceous vegetation.

Lastly, from my own work at the US EPA, it is well know that glyphosate has harmful impacts on amphibians and other aquatic life as it enters the waters through run off.

The potential harms of such an application in vulnerable ecosystems such as the Tahoe Basin far outway any beneficial impacts.

Please reconsider introducing this unnecessary and toxic substance into these delicate and recovering wildlife habitats on which we all depend.

Sincerely,
Evon *******,
Professor and Chair,
Department of Biological Sciences
Fordham University

Dr. Evon R. ******* (she/her)
Professor and Department Chair, Director of the Conservation Certificate Degree Program
Department of Biological Sciences
Fordham University
441 East Fordham Road, NY 10458
917-478-####

TRPA please help stop glysophate spraying.

Thank You! 💙

Sincerely,
Shivon *******
TahoeNanny.com

Committee Members:

I strongly oppose the use of herbicides in the Tahoe Basin for any reason, including Caldor Fire restoration.

These chemicals are proven poisons that injure all human and non-human members of the ecosystem.

Alternative methods can and should be implemented as needed.

The fact that this is even being considered by a group tasked with protecting the environment is incredulous.

It is no wonder faith in government is as low as it is measured to be.

Please use your authority to block this.

Kathryn *******
Tahoe Douglas resident

Hi, Please change the Code of Ordinances and prohibit conventional herbicide spraying in the Tahoe Basin Watershed.

Thank you,
Albert and Tammy *******
Incline Village, NV

To the TRPA Governing Board:

I am writing in strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's plan to apply glyphosate across thousands of acres in the Lake Tahoe Basin as part of the Caldor Fire Restoration Project.

TRPA's founding mission under the 1980 Bi-State Compact is to preserve, restore, and enhance the unique natural and human environment of the Lake Tahoe Region. The Compact specifically directs TRPA to "ensure an equilibrium between the region's natural endowment and its manmade environment." Permitting widespread herbicide application directly contradicts that mandate.

TRPA's Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities were established to protect the basin across water quality, soil conservation, vegetation, and fish and wildlife. Glyphosate application in proximity to the Upper Truckee River, Trout Creek, and other sensitive waterways puts those thresholds at real risk.

The public was told no spraying would occur in 2026 or 2027. That assurance has now been walked back. This pattern of incomplete disclosure undermines community trust and TRPA's role as an accountable steward of this basin. TRPA has lost the trust of the community, and even backpack spraying, as detailed in the newsletter, is highly suspect.

TRPA's own regulations discourage terrestrial herbicide use. I urge the Board to go further and formally oppose this plan, demand the Forest Service explore non-chemical alternatives, and use every tool available under the Compact to protect Tahoe's water quality and ecosystem from this threat.

Thank you.

Amanda ******
South Lake Tahoe, CA

I live in Crystal Bay, NV. I lived in Incline Village for 20 years before that. In October of 2023 I was diagnosed with a rather rare form of lymphoma called Mantle Cell lymphoma (MCL).

My doctor, Dr. Daniel Peterson in Incline (now retired), told me that he had seen seven cases of MCL over 40 years in only his small practice. He said he would expect to see zero to one case of MCL during that time. That is just one small medical practice. It surely seems like something out of the ordinary is going on here.

Glyphosates used on lawns and golf courses certainly drain into the lake. Drinking water intakes for basin communities draw lake water from underwater locations not far from the lake shore.

There have been several class-action lawsuits against the manufacturers of Roundup alleging that exposure to glyphosates causes lymphoma. Of course the manufacturers, fearing huge financial liability, deny this link between glyphosates and lymphoma, and it's almost impossible for lymphoma patients to put together an unassailable body of evidence to prove this link.

But the idea of spraying thousands of acres of land with glyphosates that will certainly end up in the lake, and in the drinking water supply, is absolutely reckless and unconscionable.

On behalf of myself and my fellow MCL patients, most of whom have already died from this disease, I ask TRPA to ban USFS and all other public-sector entities from spraying glyphosates in the Tahoe Basin. Thank you.

Tom ******
775-720-####
******************

Sent from my iPhone

Dear Honorable Members of the TRPA Governing Board:

I am writing to you once again regarding a serious health and environmental risk facing the Basin and its environs'.

I am resubmitting my July 15, 2026, comments below in opposition to the use of glyphosate in the Caldor Fire area or anywhere else in the Tahoe Basin for the stated reasons.

The safety of our health and protection of our environment are not partisan issues. Safety must always come first, and TRPA must always take stands that protects our health and protects our wildlife and environment.

I ask that these comments be made part of your official record and transmitted to Board members for your August 26, 2026, meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
David

David *******, MPA
Good Government Advocate
South Lake Tahoe Resident

Opinion expressed here is mine alone

---

On Jul 15, 2026, at 5:52PM, ******************** wrote:

Dear Honorable Nevada Leaders and Neighbors:

Thank you for your service to your State and the Tahoe Basin that we share.

I am writing to you regarding the decades old practice by the USFS to applied glyphosate (Roundup) to burned forest areas in order to kill the quickly growing ground cover plants (manzanita, etc.) arguably so the new forest trees can have a better chance of surviving and becoming a forest again. All of us want to see new forest growth.

I am informed that this practice has taken on new scrutiny with the Caldor fire forest recoveries and applying glyphosate in areas that could potentially reach Lake Tahoe via streams and runoff. I know that we share a common interest in protecting Lake Tahoe, people, and animal life that populate the area from serious harm

I am not a scientist, but I am a long-term resident of the Basin and a past and present public official who has grave concerns about the safety of this product on humans, animals, and sensitive environments,

Online resources say that EPA approves of its use, but I found the following disturbing potential dangers of the product:

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans." A University of Washington review found glyphosate exposure may increase non‑Hodgkin lymphoma risk by up to 41%. Pediatricians and environmental health advocates warn that post‑fire spraying may pose risks to children, wildlife, and watersheds, especially when used at large scale. Tahoe residents have raised strong concerns about transparency, water quality, and cumulative exposure, prompting TRPA to expand water‑quality monitoring for glyphosate downstream of burn areas."

I urge our Nevada State partners and their representatives on TRPA to take appropriate action to see that the product is not used in the Caldor Fire burn area or other sensitive areas in the Basin until it is proven safe for animals and human contact. In the alternative, the USFS should find a substitute safe product. I have faith that they can do so and respect in general the work they do to protect our forests.

Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Respectfully,
David

David *******, MPA
Good Government Advocate
City Council Member
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Comments made here are mine alone.

I strongly oppose the use of glyphosate in the Tahoe National Forest. Spraying a broad-spectrum herbicide in a forest environment can expose wildlife, plants, water sources, and nearby communities to an unnecessary chemical risk. Forest ecosystems are complex and interconnected, and protecting biodiversity, soil health, and clean water should take priority over short-term vegetation control. There are safer, less harmful methods of managing unwanted vegetation that should be considered before resorting to herbicides. The Tahoe National Forest is a precious natural resource, and we have a responsibility to protect it for future generations rather than introducing chemicals whose long-term effects on forest ecosystems remain a concern.

Brigitte *******
Davis, CA

Sent from my iPhone

I grew up in Tahoe and graduated from Southlake Tahoe, high school. Although I don't live there now, I live two hours away and I visit Tahoe. Every chance I get. I am outraged that the forest Service and TRPA are considering using this poison in our forest, the reasoning does not justify the use of this glyphosate. As you know, as the research has shown, this will stay in the ecosystem for years to come affecting our children and our grandchildren, wildlife, drinking water and the clarity of Lake Tahoe and surrounding lakes.

Do not use this poison. The end does NOT justify the means.

Signed,
Traci ******
(916) 832-####

Sent from my iPhone

Please do not spray this herbicide in Tahoe. Please keep this pristine beautiful lake the way it is naturally. There are ways to mitigate fire risk without resorting to carcinogenic herbicides. Our children swim in and drink from this lake.

Dear Members of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,

I am writing to urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reject the use of glyphosate and other chemical herbicides within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Lake Tahoe is not just another forest. It is one of the clearest alpine lakes in the world, a source of drinking water, a thriving wildlife habitat, and one of California's greatest natural treasures. Generations of people have dedicated immense time, effort, and public resources to protecting this extraordinary watershed. Introducing chemical herbicides into such a fragile ecosystem is a risk that I do not believe we should be willing to take.

I fully support responsible forest restoration. Our forests need active management after years of catastrophic wildfire, drought, and changing climate conditions. But restoration should never come at the expense of the very environment we are trying to protect. The goal should be healthy, resilient forests while preserving the purity of our water, the health of our wildlife, and the well-being of the communities that call Tahoe home.

One of my greatest concerns is that we are being asked to accept assurances of safety despite the fact that the scientific conversation surrounding glyphosate is far from settled. I do not believe that sufficient independent, long-term longitudinal research exists to confidently conclude that chronic, lifetime exposure to glyphosate poses no long-term risks to people, wildlife, or sensitive ecosystems. The absence of definitive evidence of harm should not be mistaken for definitive evidence of safety. When the health of an irreplaceable ecosystem like Lake Tahoe is at stake, uncertainty should compel greater caution—not justify moving forward as though the risks have been fully understood.

History has repeatedly taught us that substances once defended as safe were later found to have profound consequences for human health and the environment. Asbestos, leaded gasoline, DDT, PFAS, and countless other chemicals were widely accepted before science fully understood their long-term effects. We should learn from those mistakes instead of repeating them.

I am also deeply concerned about the role financial interests can play in shaping the public conversation surrounding glyphosate. The companies that manufacture and profit from this product have enormous financial incentives to defend its continued use. When billions of dollars are at stake, the public has every right to ask difficult questions and expect that decisions affecting public health and our environment are based on truly independent science, not influenced by corporate interests. The burden of proof should not fall on the public to prove a chemical is dangerous. The burden should rest on those proposing its use to demonstrate, through transparent, independent, long-term evidence, that it is truly necessary and that no safer alternatives can accomplish the same restoration goals.

We also do not have to look far to understand why so many Californians are concerned about widespread pesticide use. In the Pajaro Valley, one of the most heavily sprayed agricultural regions in California, residents, physicians, and community organizations have raised concerns for years about unusually high rates of childhood cancer and the potential role that chronic pesticide exposure may play. While scientists continue to study these relationships, the concerns voiced by those communities should not be ignored simply because every question has not yet been answered. They serve as a reminder that once chemicals are introduced into our environment, we often spend decades trying to understand the consequences.

I do not want Lake Tahoe to become another place where we look back years from now and ask ourselves why we ignored the warning signs when we had the opportunity to choose a different path.

Supporters of herbicide use often point to mitigation measures such as backpack application, stream buffers, and trained personnel. While those practices may reduce risk, they cannot eliminate it. Equipment can fail. Wind shifts unexpectedly. Storms arrive without warning. Snowmelt and runoff move materials in ways that cannot be perfectly predicted. Once a chemical enters a watershed, there is no practical way to remove it.

Perhaps the simplest question is also the one I find most compelling: if this chemical is truly safe, would any of us willingly bathe in water immediately after it had been treated with glyphosate? Would we encourage our children to swim in it? Would we feel completely comfortable drinking from streams downstream of treated areas?

If the answer is no—or even if there is hesitation—that hesitation should matter. It reflects a basic instinct that we should not ignore. If we would not willingly expose ourselves or our children to it, why should we expose one of the most pristine ecosystems in the world?

Lake Tahoe has spent decades earning a reputation as one of the cleanest and most carefully protected lakes on Earth. Millions of people visit each year because they believe they are experiencing an environment that has been safeguarded with extraordinary care. That trust is part of what makes Tahoe so special. Once it is compromised, it cannot easily be restored.

Tahoe should represent the highest standard of environmental stewardship. If there is any place where restoration efforts should prioritize manual vegetation management, prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, grazing where appropriate, and other non-chemical approaches—even if they require greater investment—that place is here.

Some decisions cannot be undone. Once contaminants enter a watershed, we cannot simply reverse that decision. The cost of preventing potential harm is almost always less than the cost of trying to repair it after the damage has been done.

Future generations deserve to inherit a Lake Tahoe that is just as clean, healthy, and breathtaking as the one we enjoy today. They deserve to know that when faced with uncertainty, we chose caution over convenience, prevention over regret, and stewardship over expedience.

I respectfully ask the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to reject the use of glyphosate and other chemical herbicides within the Lake Tahoe Basin and instead champion restoration strategies that protect our forests without introducing unnecessary chemical risks to our water, wildlife, and communities.

Lake Tahoe is one of the last places where we should be taking chances. It deserves the highest level of protection we can provide.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your commitment to preserving this extraordinary place for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Salisha *********

Glyphosate will kill off the whole ecosystem allowing for unacceptable consequences. This product is a carcinogenic which causes cancer and genetic defects in the animals inhabiting this space. It has been band in all the European countries so why are you even considering using it.

Stop what you're doing and deploy tactics which will enhance our environment rather than destroying it because that solution is easiest. I am tired of people defaulting to chemical solutions because it makes powerful interests rich!

Nancy ********

Sent from my iPhone

Hello, to whom it may concern, I oppose the spraying of glyphosate, round up, and other chemicals throughout the Lake Tahoe areas, Calder fire scar, and the basin. Glyphosate is a KNOW carcinogen, how can people and organizations be ok with spraying this all over the land where people enjoy the scenery and beauty of nature along side all the animals that live here? This is a HUGE problem that we do not need to exasperate by using chemicals that CAUSE CANCER, the organizations in charge of this project need to be held accountable and shown they are ruining the ecosystem as well as HARMING PEOPLE!

In short I opposed the use of glyphosate, round up, and other chemicals throughout Lake Tahoe area.

With gratitude,
Spencer *********

TRPA,

I am an Oregon resident but I go to school in California. Please ban the use of glyphosates inside the Tahoe basin. There is no justification for spraying a likely carcinogen onto a burn area when the natural recovery process will happen. I think it is against the wishes of the people who live in that area and spraying chemicals that will get into everything, including areas where people swim and play is not the best idea. So please ban glyphosate use for that purpose and help keep Tahoe pristine.

I am begging you to please stop the US Forest Service from spraying glyphosate in the Lake Tahoe Basin area.

The use of the spray will have damaging effects for years and years. It is a known carcinogen and should not be used in a fragile ecosystem.

Thank you,
Phara *******
Cadiz, KY
270-350-####

Sent from my iPhone

Dear TRPA,

My husband and I are deeply concerned with the use of herbicides in the Tahoe Basin. We don't understand why anyone would want to intentionally spray a toxic chemical in our precious Tahoe oasis. It doesn't make sense for the trees, the plants, the wildlife, or the humans in our area. We do not believe humans should "play god" and mess with the balance of natural ecosystems. We are fervently submitting our comments to:

~BAN the use of synthetic herbicides in the Tahoe Basin
~request hand-crew thinning measures only (so people can have those jobs but we don't give anyone cancer)

Sincerely,
Lauralynn and Dustin ********
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Please do not spray herbicides in Lake Tahoe land areas. Find another way, please!

Thank you.
Candace

Sent from my iPhone

Hi my name is Anna ******,

I am a Reno & Tahoe local and I wanted to leave public comment.

I'm worried about glyphosate spraying- it sounds like a very poor choice for burn scar management. Corporations are already doing everything they can to buy up public land, why are risking further damage to burn scar land by spraying glyphosate pesticide on it? This seems like a dangerous tactic that could be manipulated by corporations in order to buy up more land.

Thank you for looking into this and for considering the publics concerns

Hello,

Please consider this comment as my individual submission. I want my voice to count. I want my vote to count.

1. "Please update your Code of Ordinances to ban all synthetic herbicides in the Tahoe Basin."

2. "In the Caldor burn area, please allow hand-crew thinning only."

3. "Please require an application and review process for the USFS herbicide plan, because what the USFS describes in its plan does not meet any TRPA review exemptions."

Respectfully,
Linda *******
Philadelphia, Pa

Hello,

I am writing to express my concerns with the possible glyphosate spraying in the Tahoe Basin. Of most concern right now is the Caldor fire area but I also want to go on record as being completely opposed to any glyphosate spraying or any other herbicide spraying in the Tahoe Basin and beyond.

I truly hope that the TRPA and Forest Service have the health of our forests, the animals who live there, the precious water, the humans who live in these forests, and the wellbeing of the whole basin community in mind when considering what poisonous herbicides would do to All.

Thank you for making sure that the whole Tahoe Basin and communities surrounding the Basin, as well as the State of CA are made aware of what the Forest Service is considering. The public needs to be informed.

A concerned CA resident,
Lori *****

Hello,

I am writing to request your organization to explicitly ban glyphosate spraying in the Lake Tahoe area. My family and I enjoy visiting the area, and using our travel budget there. The hiking and skiing are our favorites. Especially Kirkwood. Which we discovered this year. Our kids have designs on coming back in the summer to swim in the lake.

Thank you in advance for considering explicitly banning glyphosate spraying in the area to protect it.

– Jocelyn *******
Wayne, Pennsylvania.

I am a frequent visitor to the Desolation Wilderness Area and Lake Tahoe. I have observed the regeneration of the forest in the Caldor burn scar and have been delighted by the robust growth of young trees, wildflowers and shrubs. On my most recent hike, in July 2026, the area was loaded with butterflies, birds and other wildlife. The use of glyphosate across this lively regrowth is not needed, is dangerous, and poses threats worse than a few extra shrubs "competing" with conifers. Forests are ecosystems, not agriculture. Our current administration is pushing to monetize public lands by creating timber, rather than stewarding forests.

The WHO classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma — Bayer has paid over $18 billion settling cancer lawsuits.

Glyphosate devastates aquatic life: studies show mortality in frogs and trout at sub-agricultural concentrations, threatening Tahoe's already-declining water clarity.

Glyphosate destroys the mycorrhizal fungi that tree seedlings need to establish roots — literally poisoning the soil you're trying to reforest.

The loss of pioneer plants and shrubs destabilizes the soil and leads to greater runoff and less water retention.

Instead of poisoning the area just to replant, deploy hand crews for manual thinning, use prescribed goat grazing on steep terrain, and apply wood-chip mulch to suppress competing vegetation naturally.

Sincerely,
Susan *****
Sacramento, CA

Hello,

I have heard about the potential for spraying in the Caldor burn scar. This is of great concern. Let the forest regenerate naturally as it would have before herbicides were created. I am concerned about killing off what nature is doing on its own to regenerate after five years. Herbicides will kill naturally growing vegetation that is protecting the soil and providing food and habitat. Herbicides will also cause harm to the humans and animals as it moves through the air and down the mountain slope. Have we not learned anything from Rachel Carson or from the indigenous peoples who live here and have stewarded these lands for thousands of years.

Thank you

Cindy - California Naturalist, Tahoe visitor and down stream resident on the American River.
Sent from my iPad

Please update your Code of Ordinances to ban all synthetic herbicides in the Tahoe Basin.

In the Caldor burn area, please allow hand-crew thinning only.

Please require an application and review process for the USFS herbicide plan, because what the USFS describes in its plan does not meet any TRPA review exemptions.

I have been a local to Lake Tahoe for 13 years, Eldorado County for 20. The effects of spraying toxic chemicals over our national forests is alarming.

I do not support this action in any way. It is inexcusable to think otherwise. Glyphosate should be banned from all uses. It is a lazy way of dealing with a non-existent problem. It is a forever chemical that attributes to many adverse side effects including all types of cancers. It is shameful that the TRPA would consider this as an option. Think of your children or grandchildren swimming in the American River. Think of the ecosystems you'll be disrupting. This should be a non-negotiable matter and should be abandoned from talks immediately.

Truly sincerely,
Benjamin ******

Dear TRPA Board,

I am a 29-year-old Tahoe resident, and I urge you to reject the use of glyphosate in our communities.

My generation is inheriting the responsibility of caring for this basin, and we do not want chemical herbicides sprayed in the places where we live, recreate, and raise our families. We especially do not want to risk these chemicals entering our streams, wetlands, and ultimately Lake Tahoe.

I understand invasive species management is a complex challenge, but I believe we should be investing in natural solutions that protect both ecosystem health and human health. Tahoe deserves management practices that reflect the extraordinary value of this place and the precaution we owe future generations.

The decisions you make today will shape the Tahoe my generation inherits tomorrow. Please choose stewardship that prioritizes clean water, healthy communities, and long-term ecological resilience over chemical intervention.

Thank you for your consideration.

Madeline ********
South Lake Tahoe Resident

--
Madeline ********
Chief Marketing + Partnerships Officer | Advaya

On the safety claim: EPA's interim registration review decision for glyphosate, the document that underpinned the "no risk to human health" position, was challenged in court and vacated by the Ninth Circuit in 2022. EPA withdrew it. There is no current, standing federal safety determination to point to. Any proposal that leans on "EPA says it's safe" is leaning on a document that no longer exists. IARC still classifies glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans, and California lists it under Prop 65. That should be the end of the conversation for a spray program in a drinking water basin.

On the ground: the whitethorn is not the problem it's being made out to be. I walk that burn area. Conifer seedlings are already coming up through the ceanothus, and the brush is shading them while they establish. That's the shrub doing what it does after fire, holding soil on slopes, fixing nitrogen, and nursing the next stand of trees. Killing it with herbicide removes the cover, exposes bare ground above the lake, and trades a functioning natural recovery for a chemical shortcut.

The forest is regenerating. It doesn't need to be poisoned to do it.

I'm asking TRPA to reject glyphosate application in the Basin and to require hand-crew thinning as the method in the Caldor burn area.

Respectfully,
Amanda *******
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Chair and Members of the Governing Board,

Please see the attached comments from the Sierra Club's Tahoe Area Group regarding the planned use of glyphosate and other herbicides on USFS lands in the Tahoe Basin, which the Sierra Club strongly opposes for the reasons stated in the comments.

Thank you for making these comments part of the public record.

Tobi Tyler
Tahoe Area Group

---

ATTACHMENT: SC Glyphosate Ltr to TRPA and LTBMU.pdf

July 21, 2026

Via email to: publiccomment@trpa.gov and rosalie.herrera@usda.gov

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
128 Market Street
Stateline, NV 89449

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Rosalie Herrera, Deputy Forest Supervisor
35 College Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

Re: TRPA Governing Board Meeting Public Comment – Opposition to the Use of Glyphosate and Other Herbicides in Tahoe Basin Forest Restoration Projects

Dear Governing Board Members and Deputy Forest Supervisor Herrara,

The Tahoe Area Group of the Sierra Club encourages the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) of the US Forest Service to eliminate the planned use of glyphosate and other herbicides in LTBMU's Caldor Restoration Project for 2028 and other Lake Tahoe Basin Projects on US Forest Service land. We offer the following comments as the basis for this elimination.

There are effective, safer, and more regenerative alternatives to herbicide application, including manual vegetation management and allowing natural ecological succession. These approaches restore forest resilience without introducing toxic chemicals into one of the nation's most environmentally sensitive watersheds.

The primary advantage of glyphosate and other herbicides is economic – it reduces short-term vegetation management costs. However, cost savings alone do not justify the environmental risks associated with its use as described below. Glyphosate and other herbicides are not necessary for successful post-fire forest recovery. Research has shown that tree seedlings often benefit from the shelter provided by shrubs and other early-seral vegetation, which moderate temperature extremes, retain soil moisture, and protect young trees during establishment. Allowing forests to regenerate naturally over time produces a more diverse and resilient ecosystem than artificially creating even-aged stands of trees.

A forest composed primarily of trees of the same age is not a healthy, functioning ecosystem. Such monocultures are characteristic of timber production rather than ecological restoration. The Lake Tahoe Basin should be managed to maximize biodiversity, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and long-term ecosystem resilience – not to create timber plantations.

The potential scale of herbicide application is also concerning. According to reporting by the Center for Biological Diversity, between 2017 and 2020, the U.S. Forest Service applied roughly 939,000 pounds of pesticide products across approximately 1.47 million cumulative acres of National Forest lands, averaging roughly 0.64 pounds per acre. Applying that average rate to approximately 3,600 acres that could be treated in the Tahoe Basin suggests that more than 2,300 pounds of herbicide could be applied. Because a recent Executive Order invoked the Defense Production Act to expand domestic production of glyphosate, actual future application rates could be substantially higher if increased availability leads to expanded use.

Monitoring herbicide use, while important, is not an adequate safeguard. Agencies cannot manage what they do not measure, but measurement alone does not prevent environmental harm. Monitoring will not prevent glyphosate and other herbicides from entering streams, wetlands, or groundwater. It will not prevent damage to soil microbial communities and mycorrhizal fungi that are essential for healthy forest recovery. It will not prevent the loss of root systems that stabilize soils and reduce erosion, nor will it prevent reductions in carbon sequestration resulting from the elimination of native vegetation. Finally, monitoring cannot eliminate potential human health risks associated with exposure to a chemical that continues to be the subject of significant scientific and regulatory debate regarding carcinogenicity.

Equally concerning is the absence of robust accountability measures. Reporting has noted that no western state currently ties restoration bond expenditures to compound-specific baseline monitoring requirements, indicating that agencies are spending public restoration funds without establishing comprehensive baseline conditions against which the environmental effects of herbicide applications can be evaluated. Without baseline monitoring and long-term ecological assessment, agencies cannot credibly demonstrate that herbicide use is consistent with restoration objectives or that it avoids long-term harm.

LTBMU has shown that it is inadequately equipped or prepared to design and implement a robust monitoring plan for 3,600 acres. Numerous water quality violations issued by the Lahontan Water Quality Control Board over the last 20 years have proven this. Also, see Thomas Suk's comments dated July 21, 2026, which are herein incorporated by reference.

The Lake Tahoe Basin is internationally recognized for its exceptional water quality, biodiversity, and ecological significance. Forest restoration should strengthen these values, not compromise them through the unnecessary use of herbicides. Before any chemical vegetation management is authorized, agencies should demonstrate that non-chemical alternatives have been fully evaluated and found infeasible, and that any proposed herbicide application is supported by rigorous, site-specific scientific analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF GLYPHOSATE AND OTHER HERBICIDES

1. Loss of Native Biodiversity — Glyphosate is non-selective and kills most broadleaf plants and grasses. While intended to suppress competing vegetation, it also eliminates many native species that stabilize soils after a wildfire, produce berries and seeds for birds and mammals, provide nectar and pollen for native bees and butterflies, contribute to diverse forest structure, and shift forests toward conifer monocultures with reduced understory diversity.

2. Harm to Pollinators — In burned forests, flowering shrubs are often among the first plants to recover and are especially valuable for pollinators. Glyphosate removes flowering plants that pollinators depend upon, thereby reducing native bee and butterfly abundance, lowering habitat quality, and decreasing food resources for native species.

3. Wildlife Habitat Degradation — Removing shrubs and flowering plants such as ceanothus, manzanita, bitterbrush, and willow that provide nesting habitat, thermal cover, forage, and insect production negatively affects songbirds, deer, black bears, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Post-fire "competing vegetation" species are actually important components of healthy forest succession. Modern forest ecology recognizes that post-fire shrubs are not simply weeds — species such as ceanothus fix atmospheric nitrogen, improve soil fertility, shade young conifers, reduce erosion, and provide wildlife habitat. Removing them can interrupt natural recovery processes.

4. Soil Health — Research indicates glyphosate can affect soil biology by altering microbial communities, reducing mycorrhizal fungi, altering nitrogen cycling, and reducing decomposition rates. Healthy soil fungi are particularly important for conifer regeneration.

5. Water Quality Risks — Water quality risks in watersheds include contaminant transport as glyphosate attaches to eroded soil and sediment and moves into streams that drain to Lake Tahoe. Meadows, wetlands, and ephemeral drainages can also become contaminated. Accidental overspray into waterways can also occur. Although glyphosate generally binds to sediment, post-fire landscapes often experience severe erosion, increasing transport potential. The phosphorus in glyphosate has also been found to stimulate growth of harmful algal species. For watersheds such as Lake Tahoe – where protecting exceptional water clarity is a primary management objective – even small increases in pollutant loading warrant scrutiny.

6. Aquatic Species — Glyphosate formulations often contain surfactants that can be more toxic than glyphosate itself. If overspray or contaminated soils erode into waterways, aquatic species can be affected, causing amphibian mortality, impacts to aquatic invertebrates, and reduced food sources for fish. Even though the Caldor project prohibits the use of aquatic formulations near streams, drift and contaminated soil runoff remain significant concerns, warranting the use of other alternatives.

7. Carbon Storage — Many shrubs removed with herbicides continue storing carbon and contribute organic matter to soils. Eliminating them reduces aboveground biomass, slows soil carbon accumulation, and decreases ecosystem resilience. Although herbicide use may accelerate conifer growth, the net carbon benefit depends on site-specific conditions and remains an area of scientific debate. Alternatives other than chemicals should be used.

8. Increased Fire Concerns — Removing green understory vegetation can also increase the abundance of dry grasses, increasing the risk of fast-moving fires. Exposed soil reduces moisture retention, further exacerbating future fire risks in the area.

9. Human Health Concerns — In July 2017, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added glyphosate to its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, after the World Health Organization's IARC labeled it a probable carcinogen. Although human health remains one of the most debated aspects of glyphosate, there is no doubt that it is not a suitable restoration alternative for the Lake Tahoe Basin.

10. Worker Health and Environmental Justice — The occupational health impacts on workers tasked with mixing, handling, and applying glyphosate and other herbicides must also be considered. Forest restoration projects frequently rely on seasonal or contracted labor, where levels of training, supervision, and experience may vary considerably. These workers often perform physically demanding jobs under extreme heat, steep terrain, and remote conditions, all of which increase the likelihood of mistakes, equipment failures, and chemical exposure. Forest and conservation work is already recognized as having one of the highest occupational injury and illness rates in the United States. Although pesticide labels and regulations require personal protective equipment, the effectiveness of that protection depends on rigorous training, proper equipment, careful supervision, and consistent compliance — conditions that real-world forestry operations in windy, rugged, and remote terrain cannot guarantee. Contract crews paid by the acre or under tight production schedules may also feel pressure to continue spraying despite unsafe conditions. The burden of these risks falls disproportionately on the workers performing the restoration — not on the agencies authorizing herbicide use.

SUMMARY

Peer-reviewed ecological research increasingly recognizes that post-fire shrub communities are an essential component of forest recovery rather than an obstacle to restoration. Early-seral vegetation stabilizes soils, reduces erosion, moderates microclimate, fixes nitrogen, supports pollinators and wildlife, and often facilitates conifer establishment. Conversely, intensive vegetation removal through herbicide application can alter soil microbial communities, leave herbicide residues in runoff sediments, reduce native plant diversity, and simplify naturally recovering ecosystems. Rather than accelerating ecological restoration, broadcast herbicide application risks replacing a diverse, climate-resilient post-fire landscape with an artificially managed, even-aged conifer plantation that more closely resembles a timber production system than a naturally functioning Sierra Nevada forest.

LTBMU must prioritize the protection of Lake Tahoe's exceptional water clarity. The increased sediment transport, risks to municipal water supplies and groundwater, effects on rare Sierra Nevada plant communities, potential conflicts with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) objectives, and compliance with the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact's requirement to maintain or improve environmental threshold carrying capacities requires LTBMU to choose other alternatives.

Because the Tahoe Basin contains one of the world's most sensitive alpine watersheds, herbicide use should be used only where there is clear evidence that non-chemical alternatives are infeasible. Forest managers can often use integrated vegetation management approaches, including manual cutting or grubbing, targeted grazing where appropriate, mulching, prescribed fire under suitable conditions, and planting conifers at densities and locations that naturally reduce competition.

For these reasons, we urge the responsible agencies to prohibit the use of glyphosate and other herbicides listed for use in the Caldor plan and in other Tahoe Basin forest restoration projects, and instead prioritize restoration methods that protect water quality, preserve biodiversity, support natural forest regeneration, protect workers, and ensure the long-term health and resilience of this unique and cherished ecosystem.

Sincerely,
Tobi Tyler
Tahoe Area Group, Sierra Club

[I originally sent the message below today at 8am. Because I did not receive the standard automated confirmation receipt, I am sending this duplicate copy to ensure my comments are successfully received and entered into the public record. If my earlier email was received, the text below is an exact duplicate. Please note that the other email address (****************************) is the best one to reach me at. Thank you.]

Dear TRPA Governing Board:

I'm submitting this comment to address some urgent concerns about the Forest Service's Caldor "restoration" plan for the Tahoe Basin.

TRPA's Jurisdiction

The Compact that created TRPA in 1969, and that was revised by Congress in 1980, gives TRPA jurisdiction over environmentally significant activities in the entire Lake Tahoe Basin, including on federal land. TRPA was granted this jurisdiction because the agency exists in large part to protect the Tahoe Basin from the kind of threat it's now facing from the Forest Service's plan to use glyphosate and synthetic herbicides.

The Memorandum of Understanding

TRPA and the Forest Service have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), most recently amended in 2023, under which TRPA agreed to delegate review of certain routine activities to the Forest Service. That MOU does not exempt herbicide or chemical vegetation control. There's nothing routine about a plan to spray thousands of acres of the Tahoe Basin with broad-spectrum herbicides. The MOU is explicit: the Forest Service is required to submit a complete application to TRPA for any activity that isn't exempt, and TRPA is committed to reviewing any such project.

A healthy forest is a diverse ecosystem. Yet the Forest Service's plan targets native vegetation critical to erosion control and nutrient renewal, employs herbicides known to harm mycorrhizal fungi, and will eliminate wildlife habitat and food sources while exposing remaining wildlife to serious health risks — all in favor of a few conifer species. This is not reforestation, and it does not belong outside TRPA's review.

Given what's at stake, I urge the TRPA Governing Board to direct staff to require the Forest Service to submit a complete application for this project and to thoroughly review the Caldor herbicide plan under the Board's full authority before this plan, with potentially irreversible consequences, moves forward.

Water Monitoring Is Not a Safeguard

TRPA has announced it will expand water quality monitoring downstream of the Caldor area. Monitoring detects contamination after the fact — it cannot reverse it. Once glyphosate or other herbicide is detected, there is no way to remove it from thousands of acres of sprayed forest, and no way to stop its movement through waterways.

This risk is not hypothetical. In November 2009, following the Angora Fire, the Forest Service was cited for water quality violations at a logging area after heavy erosion damaged Angora Creek. The agency admitted it hadn't done enough to prevent the violation — but by then, the damage was done. The only real safeguard against this vastly greater risk is to not take the risk in the first place.

A Lasting Safeguard

To prevent this kind of threat from going under the radar in the future, I also urge the Governing Board to amend your Code of Ordinances to explicitly prohibit glyphosate and all other synthetic herbicides in the entire Lake Tahoe Basin.

Sincerely,
Reid Reichardt

Please don't use poison. Be better. Glyphosate can be avoided. Keep our waters fresh, clean and clear. The end. Knock it off, you have the power!

Note to TRPA staff: I sent earlier drafts of my comments on 7/16 and 7/20. The comments below, dated 7/21, supersede those earlier comments. Please delete my comments submitted 7/16 and 7/20, and accept the final comments below into the record for your consideration.

July 21, 2026

Dear TRPA,

I write today to provide comments regarding the US Forest Service's (USFS's) proposed use of chemical poisons (i.e., herbicides) within the Lake Tahoe basin. Please enter these comments into the record for any consideration of this matter by the TRPA and/or its staff.

As an initial matter, to establish my expertise, I graduated with honors from the University of California, Davis, and I worked for decades as a Senior Environmental Scientist at the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in South Lake Tahoe. During those years, I was responsible for regulating and monitoring USFS forestry activities throughout the California portions of the Tahoe Basin, including reviewing USFS vegetation management and monitoring proposals, coordinating independent peer review, inspecting field activities, and conducting enforcement to ensure compliance with State water quality requirements. I also served for decades as the Water Board's monitoring specialist and as a member of the Tahoe Basin Forest Health Consensus Group and California's surface water monitoring roundtable, studying the transport and fate of chemical herbicides applied in forestry settings throughout California.

Monitoring conducted to date has shown that glyphosate can persist in the environment for long periods and be transported off-site by erosion processes. While glyphosate is known to bind to organic matter and clay particles, the soils within the Tahoe Basin that were burned by the Caldor Fire are relatively dry, steep, and sandy — low in clay and organic matter, and vulnerable to erosion. Hexazinone is both persistent and very mobile, threatening groundwater in addition to surface waters and wetlands. In my experience, hexazinone was detected nearly everywhere we (and the USFS) looked for it downstream or downgradient of its application.

It is my hope that the TRPA board and staff will not be fooled by any promises made by the USFS to monitor the fate and toxicity of runoff from herbicide applications. Ad hoc monitoring for herbicide by-products is essentially useless without clear triggers for action and defined remedial actions. Before approving any use of chemical herbicides in the basin, TRPA should insist that any monitoring plan have the scientific rigor and statistical power to determine if significant human health or environmental endpoints have been exceeded.

The most important things TRPA needs to understand are: 1) the USFS-LTBMU likely does not have the staff expertise to design such a monitoring study; 2) any monitoring plan should undergo independent external expert peer review, which USFS is likely to resist because it prefers vague assurances of "adaptive management"; and 3) the USFS likely does not have the budget to conduct monitoring with the rigor needed to confirm human health and the environment would be adequately protected during landscape-scale herbicide applications.

In my decades of experience, the USFS offers vague, largely non-binding assurances to secure approvals, without up-front triggers for corrective action or specified remedial measures, and later claims insufficient staff or budget to complete the monitoring it promised. This pattern has repeated for at least forty years.

The only way to ensure useful monitoring would be to insist, up front, that USFS: 1) submit a monitoring proposal in advance for independent expert peer review that clearly articulates the questions being asked; 2) make all changes needed to secure reviewer concurrence that the plan has adequate rigor; and 3) commit to fully implementing the plan, with a requirement that all herbicide applications cease immediately if funding or staffing falls short.

In closing, you should think very hard about whether the USFS is truly capable of conducting landscape-scale herbicide applications in the Tahoe Basin while adequately monitoring the effects in a way that protects public health and the environment. Given my decades of direct experience, I seriously doubt it.

Thomas *****
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Dear Members,

I am writing once again to urge you to oppose the continued use of glyphosate in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

I recently finished reading The Ageless Brain by a New York Times bestselling physician. Throughout the book, the author repeatedly identifies glyphosate as an environmental contributor to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and ALS, while also discussing its association with cancer. Reading it reinforced what so many of us have been worried about: we should be doing everything possible to reduce unnecessary exposure to toxic chemicals, not introduce them into the place we call home.

Since the last meeting, I've listened to representatives from both the U.S. Forest Service and TRPA discuss the studies they rely on and the safety of glyphosate when used in the forest. They explain that warning signs will be posted and that applications will be carefully managed. What they fail to mention is that glyphosate doesn't simply stay where it is sprayed — it moves through the air, soil, and water, creating exposure beyond the treatment site.

We are repeatedly told that studies have shown glyphosate is safe when used properly. However, recent reporting revealed that the EPA relied on an influential glyphosate study even after determining that it had been ghostwritten by Monsanto. Since the Forest Service relies on EPA assessments when approving glyphosate use, this raises serious questions about whether the science being relied upon is as independent as the public is led to believe.

I have personally spoken with the Forest Service and was told they would only be using backpack sprayers on targeted areas, such as tree stumps, and would be careful not to broadly spray entire areas. Unfortunately, many of us have already witnessed herbicide applications at Sierra-at-Tahoe that extended far beyond what we were told would happen, leaving large areas of vegetation dead. Seeing that with our own eyes has made it difficult to trust these assurances.

Additionally, there is a strong argument that conifers simply need time and opportunity to regrow naturally. We can already see all around the Angora Fire burn areas that conifers are returning and growing at a steady rate without the need for herbicides. This demonstrates that natural regeneration is not only possible, but already happening successfully.

The TRPA have the authority to rewrite the handbook and ban the use of herbicides in the Tahoe Basin.

Please be the heroes our community needs. Be the first in the nation to stand up against this corruption. Protect the people, the wildlife, the water, and the forests that make Tahoe so special. Please choose safer alternatives and keep Lake Tahoe free from glyphosate.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jessica ***********
Sent from my iPhone

Dear TRPA Governing Board,

My name is Lavy ********. I've called the Tahoe area home for 20 years, and this basin, its forests, and its water have shaped my life here in every way. I'm writing to strongly urge you to oppose the use of conventional herbicide spraying as a wildfire mitigation approach in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The clarity of this lake is one of the defining features of this region, and it's a direct reflection of watershed health. Herbicide runoff puts that clarity at risk, and along with it, the fish, birds, plants, and soil systems this basin depends on. It also puts the people who live here at risk, the ones who drink this water, swim in this lake, and are raising the next generation in these mountains.

This isn't a settled or safe issue. This past March, a coalition of scientists, including experts from the CDC and the National Cancer Institute, released a formal statement after reviewing the current body of evidence on glyphosate. Their conclusion: the science linking these herbicides to cancer and other serious health effects is now strong enough that continued regulatory delay is unjustifiable. A separate county-level analysis published this March found elevated non-Hodgkin lymphoma rates in areas with the highest glyphosate use, part of a decade-long accumulation of supporting evidence. And a March 2026 clinical review expands on the World Health Organization's 2015 finding that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, adding five more years of corroborating research.

Given all of this, I don't think it's responsible to weigh convenience or cost above the long-term health of this ecosystem and this community.

I recognize that fire risk in this basin is real and needs to be addressed. But there are proven approaches that don't require introducing chemical risk into our water and our bodies: controlled burns, indigenous land stewardship practices that predate any of our own time here, and hands-on forest thinning. These methods work with the natural fire ecology of this land instead of against it.

Lake Tahoe deserves protection that matches its true worth, not decisions driven by what's fastest or cheapest.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this and for representing the people and wildlife who call this place home.

Sincerely,
Lavy ********
Tahoe area resident, 20 years

Dear Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,

I would like to comment on the planned use of Glyphosate & other synthetic herbicides in the Tahoe Basin.

As a lay botanist & trained Master Gardener of NV, I'm concerned with the damage glyphosate poses to our forests' soil environment.

Simply put, our forests have developed a very complex, reciprocal network within the soil to nourish the flora. The burned forests have already suffered one soil biome disaster, damaging that network. As the shrubs & seedlings are naturally reintroduced, those complex, reciprocal networks are gradually rebuilding. Killing that flora & their soil biome, to plant seedlings, is counterproductive. That critical nourishing network will die; that sterile soil won't nourish but erode, and you will be left with struggling seedlings.

I urge you to not use glyphosate in any area. You will be creating a dead zone above & below the soil that affects all future plants and animals, including us.

Thank you for your consideration.

paula *********

Dear TRPA Governing Board,

My name is Kate ***********. I have lived in Truckee for 15 years, and in that time this land and this lake have become part of who I am. I'm writing today to urge you to reject the use of conventional herbicide spraying as a means of forest fire mitigation in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Lake Tahoe's clarity is not just a point of pride for this community, it's a living indicator of the health of this entire watershed. Herbicide runoff threatens that clarity, and it threatens the wildlife, plant life, and soil systems that depend on clean water to survive. It also threatens the health of the people who live here, drink this water, swim in this lake, and raise our children in these mountains.

This is not a settled or safe practice. This March, a group of scientists, including researchers from the CDC and the National Cancer Institute, issued a formal statement after reviewing the latest evidence on glyphosate, concluding that the evidence linking these herbicides to cancer and other health harms is now strong enough that further regulatory delay can no longer be justified. A separate analysis released this March found that counties with the highest glyphosate use have non-Hodgkin lymphoma rates above the national average, a link researchers say is reinforced by a growing body of evidence over the past decade. And a March 2026 clinical literature review builds directly on the World Health Organization's 2015 classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, adding new supportive evidence from the last five years.

I don't believe we should be gambling with the health of this ecosystem or this community based on convenience or cost.

I understand the urgency of fire mitigation in this basin. But there are ways to do this work that don't come at the cost of our water, our wildlife, and our own bodies. I urge the board to invest instead in the practices that have protected this land far longer than any chemical solution: controlled burns, indigenous land stewardship practices, and forest thinning done by hand. These approaches honor both the fire ecology this land evolved with and the deep knowledge of the people who tended it long before any of us arrived.

Lake Tahoe is not a resource to manage for short-term convenience. It's a living system, and it deserves protection that reflects its true value.

Thank you for your time and for considering the voices of the people who call this place home.

Sincerely,
Kate ********
Truckee, CA resident, 15 years

I want my comments attached to the permanent record. Glyphosates are a known carcinogen. There is absolutely no consideration by TRPA or these other agencies regarding environmental protection and safeguarding. The environment is essential and it is also essential for wildlife which is necessary. Spraying these known toxic chemicals to remove essential parts of the environment, such as vegetation necessary for soil health and microbiome, erosion prevention, and habitat under the shortsighted guise of fire prevention is simply incompetent and not true.

It is time the TRPA recognizes that their lack of regard and priority for the environment and the wildlife is severely impacting residents and will impact tourists in decades to come.

Do not spray a known carcinogen. There is no upside.

Do you ever listen to us? Do you ever do the right thing for the environment? Do you ever actually follow science instead of developer dollars? Nice to know that public sentiment has nothing to do with your job security.

Staci ******* D.V.M.

A tree plantation is not a restored habitat. Nature has a biological directive to restore healthy forests that include chaparral, fungi, and habitat for birds, fish, and mammals. If you must control a few invasive species, please do so without chemical contamination of our fragile ecosystem. As our governing champions of this special environment, please do the right thing for ALL who live and grow here.

Erin ******, SLT
Sent from my iPhone

Dear TRPA,

Glyphosate is a known poison to humans, plants, and animals. Everyone is familiar with Round-up (its common name), and most of the public is aware of the damage it causes: cancer in humans, and it stops the mycorrhizal fungi the earth beneath it needs for healthy trees and plants to grow. With all of the logging and drying of so much of our already clear-cut areas, even wood chips to keep in the moisture would encourage the growth of seedlings.

We as residents are concerned for Tahoe's water clarity and health; the surrounding forest is crucial for this. Wildlife and water life have already suffered the loss of so much area to live and keep our ecosystem working as a whole. Please do not allow this deadly herbicide be used in our Tahoe Basin. Please be responsible and stewards for the lake you protect.

Sincerely,
Cindy and Brent ***********
Meyers resident

To whom it may concern,

My name is Vanessa ******** and I live in Truckee, CA and own property in Kings Beach, CA. I am very concerned with the spraying of toxic glyphosate herbicides in the Tahoe Basin. This is an unacceptable measure in response to forest mismanagement that has occurred over the last 40+ years. By allowing forest overgrowth we have created a big problem in need of remediation, and spraying chemicals that are detrimental to the forests, soil, water quality, insects, animals, and the human population that enters the forest is very short-sighted.

We should be focusing on mastication and burning to remediate the issues. While I understand that these methods are expensive, by using glyphosate, we are essentially trading our collective health for cleaner forests. This is not sustainable and will create many issues in the years to come that we are unaware of yet.

I ask that you please reconsider. Unfortunately, by beginning these practices I do not believe we will go back to mastication and burning. We should prioritize our collective health. This could end up being very expensive when health-related lawsuits begin due to the health impacts caused by these choices. While we think we are saving money now, we are fueling large sums toward the companies who produce these chemicals when we could be creating jobs for people doing forestry management in the area. This shift will help our local economy and health, which should be the priority of our local governing bodies. You should not be prioritizing large companies that are not local over the health and local economy. The impacts are not isolated and will affect other areas of the lake and neighboring towns, because once the chemicals are in the topsoil they can move around with wind and erosion.

Thank you for your time,

Vanessa *******

The recent fires were very destructive. There have been many destructive fires there over the last several thousand years and our planet, nature have always been able to reforest the area. No human intervention has ever been needed. None is needed now. Recent photos show young conifers growing strongly in impressive numbers without our input. Please, leave the area alone!

Thank you.

Dear Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,

I'd like to comment on two unseen consequences of the USFS herbicide plan that will likely be impossible to undo.

First, the Tahoe economy and tourism. Even though this plan has just come to light, I've already heard people say "we're not coming to Tahoe anymore." And the spraying hasn't even begun. But the concern makes sense. Who wants to hike or bike through the environmental equivalent of a genetically modified cornfield? Who wants to swim in its runoff? Tahoe's whole economy rests on a perception of clean air and clean water. No marketing budget can buy that back once it's actually gone. There will be healthier places to visit. On the other hand, there's no better marketing than being the community that said no to synthetic herbicides on public land. I really hope you'll choose the latter. It's an opportunity.

Second, worker welfare. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that people can no longer sue herbicide makers for failing to warn them about cancer risk from a chemical the World Health Organization's cancer research agency classifies as a probable human carcinogen. This was one of the main legal protections that workers had. At the same time, spraying is significantly cheaper than hand-crew thinning, but that savings involves hiring fewer people. Ask yourself who's willing to mass spray glyphosate for low wages with no legal recourse if they get sick, and you'll see that what's about to happen involves human exploitation. With hand-crew thinning, the risks are visible and the work is fair. Yes, it costs more. But is it so bad for a government agency to give people jobs instead of cancer risk?

Thank you in advance for doing the right thing for Tahoe.

Lisa *******
Zephyr Cove Resident

The proposal to use Glyphosate as an undergrowth deterrent is incredibly short sighted and dangerous to our precious lake community. It is the perfect example of human intervention gone very, very wrong.

Once sprayed on our forests there is no going back. Those chemicals will eventually end up in our lake.

Animals as well as humans will be negatively affected by this highly potent and toxic chemical.

Please, please, do NOT do this! It's not too late to put a stop to this madness!!!

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Travise ********
Sent from my iPhone

Dear Board Members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the continued use of glyphosate-based herbicides on vegetation within the Tahoe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin.

These forests and watersheds are among California's most treasured natural resources, providing clean drinking water, critical wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and ecological services that benefit countless communities. Introducing herbicides into these sensitive environments raises significant concerns about both immediate and long-term environmental consequences.

The potential for herbicide runoff into streams, wetlands, rivers, and Lake Tahoe itself is deeply troubling. Even when applications are made according to label instructions, rainfall, snowmelt, and erosion can transport herbicides and their breakdown products into nearby waterways. Protecting water quality should remain a top priority in a region renowned for its exceptional clarity and ecological value.

I am also concerned about the effects of glyphosate use on wildlife. Amphibians, pollinators, birds, mammals, and aquatic organisms depend on healthy native plant communities and uncontaminated habitat. Herbicide applications can alter these ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and affect the food sources and shelter upon which many species rely. Fish and other aquatic life may also be impacted when herbicides or associated ingredients reach surface waters.

Human health deserves equal consideration. Forest visitors, nearby residents, outdoor workers, and tribal communities all rely on these public lands for recreation, cultural practices, and natural resources. While regulatory agencies have evaluated glyphosate under approved use conditions, scientific debate continues regarding its potential long-term health and environmental effects. Given this uncertainty, I believe the precautionary principle should guide management decisions in such ecologically sensitive landscapes.

I urge you to prioritize vegetation management strategies that minimize chemical use whenever feasible. Mechanical removal, prescribed grazing where appropriate, targeted manual treatments, and integrated vegetation management approaches can often reduce reliance on herbicides while better protecting water quality and ecosystem health.

Public lands should be managed in a manner that safeguards clean water, preserves biodiversity, and protects the health of present and future generations. I respectfully ask that you suspend or significantly limit glyphosate applications in the Tahoe National Forest and Lake Tahoe Basin until comprehensive, transparent environmental assessments demonstrate that these practices pose no unacceptable risks to water resources, wildlife, fish populations, or public health.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of citizens who value the long-term health and resilience of these extraordinary public lands.

Sincerely,
Kelly *********

Hello,

I am a full time resident of Truckee with my husband and children. I'm writing to express my concern regarding herbicide usage in Tahoe. We must protect our ecosystems, and the animals and people that inhabit them. We are responsible for being stewards of this land and must consider the impact of our actions. Spraying herbicides in Tahoe (or anywhere for that matter) has dramatic long term consequences. Please fight back against this practice.

Jenna ***********

For the reasons stated below, I respectfully urge the TRPA to:
- Update their Code of Ordinances to ban all synthetic herbicides in the Tahoe Basin
- In the Caldor burn area, allow hand-crew thinning only
- Require an application and review process for the USFS herbicide plan

Reasons:

1. The MOU between the TRPA and USDA, FS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit requires the FS to inform the TRPA of activities being considered for implementation and that the FS conduct activities, including exempt activities, in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances.

2. The TRPA Code of Ordinances, Section 60.1.7, states that the use of pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides) shall be consistent with the Handbook of Best Management Practices.

3. The TRPA BMP Handbook Section 5.3.2.3 states that pesticides by their very nature are designed to kill or harm living organisms, meaning most pesticides create some risk of harm. It also states that pesticide use in the Basin has been discouraged by TRPA since the 1987 Regional Plan, which states that alternatives to chemical application should be employed where practical. There are other alternatives available to the FS including hand-crew thinning.

4. The Caldor Burn area is beginning to recover. Pioneer plant species and new trees are emerging and helping to stabilize and nourish the soil. Wildlife is returning. A healthy, biodiverse ecosystem is slowly developing. The use of synthetic herbicides in our forests will kill understory plants, wildlife, including bees and other pollinators, and wildlife habitat. The TRPA BMP Handbook states that there are large gaps in the knowledge of pesticide movement and fate in the environment, so measures to minimize unnecessary release of pesticides into the environment is TRPA policy.

5. The TRPA BMP Handbook also states that herbicides have potential human and water quality impacts, and that all other weed control methods should be considered and eliminated before chemical application is considered. As recently as June 2026, warning signs near Kiva Beach indicated the FS use of the herbicide Chlorsulfuron. The safety data sheet for this synthetic herbicide states that it is very toxic to aquatic life, with lasting effects, and to keep the product away from drains and watercourses. This herbicide should not have been applied along the shoreline. The FS is not complying with the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Their herbicide use should require a plan review and monitoring for compliance. All synthetic herbicide use in the Tahoe Basin should be banned to prevent this type of careless occurrence.

6. Tahoe is a treasure. Our children, grandchildren, and future generations should be safe to enjoy and learn from this precious environment without being exposed to noxious chemicals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans. It has been linked to liver inflammation, metabolic disorders, and cancer risk. Jeopardizing our health and that of future generations when there are viable alternatives to synthetic herbicide use makes no sense. Please consider taking immediate steps to protect the Tahoe Basin from the Forest Service's irresponsible practices.

I want to share my reasons for opposing the glyphosate spraying here at Tahoe.

This is a beautiful and clean place to live and enjoy, for us and for the next generations. We are responsible for keeping it safe, clean, and healthy.

This spray will get into the air and our lungs, making us sick. It will get into the soil, killing green brush and bushes. It will run through the streams and into the Lake, poisoning our water.

Animals will be affected too, as they rely on the natural food provided by the forest. I also forage in these woods and grow my own herbs in my backyard. All of this will be affected.

Nature will heal itself better, faster, and healthier than we ever could.

I climb Cowboy Hat Hill every year, and I've seen the positive changes in the environment. The brush and bushes hold the dust and provide plenty of space to seed or plant new trees. As an alternative, let's organize and participate in new planting rather than killing the existing life.

A simple Google search shows the dangerous substance we're dealing with here. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Emerging research also suggests potential associations with gut bacteria disruption, endocrine effects, and metabolic disorders, though direct causal links are still being studied.

Scary.

Best regards,
Tatyana *******

It's unlikely I'm the first to express my concern about the spraying of toxic chemicals (glyphosate) on our public lands, but I'd like to today. These chemicals don't simply dissipate or dissolve, they will be with us and the plants/animals around us for years to come. There are effective alternatives to spraying these chemicals, so I'd love to hear back about what other options have been explored in this area. I am a local resident of Incline Village, my name is Jessica ********, and I hope you take the community's objection to these chemicals seriously and reverse your decision to spray them all over our beautiful land.

Jessica **********

To the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the continued or expanded use of chemical herbicides within the Lake Tahoe Basin, particularly the use of glyphosate-based herbicides and other toxic chemical treatments in this uniquely sensitive ecosystem.

Lake Tahoe is one of the world's most treasured and ecologically fragile environments. Decisions regarding land management in this region must prioritize the long-term health of our watershed, forests, wildlife, soil systems, and the communities that depend on this landscape. The introduction of toxic herbicides into such a delicate environment raises significant concerns that deserve the highest level of scrutiny.

The Lake Tahoe watershed is deeply interconnected. Chemicals applied to vegetation can move through soils, groundwater, streams, wetlands, and ultimately impact the clarity and health of Lake Tahoe itself. Herbicides do not only affect the targeted plants; they can also impact non-target species, pollinators, beneficial insects, soil microorganisms, fungi, and the broader ecological networks that allow forests and landscapes to regenerate naturally.

Healthy soil biology is the foundation of a resilient ecosystem. Our forests depend on thriving microbial communities, mycorrhizal fungi, and complex biological systems that support nutrient cycling, water retention, carbon storage, and natural regeneration. The use of broad-spectrum herbicides threatens these essential processes by disrupting the very systems needed for long-term forest health.

Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, has raised significant scientific and public health concerns. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. While regulatory agencies have reached different conclusions regarding glyphosate's risks under specific conditions of use, the ongoing scientific debate and extensive litigation demonstrate that serious questions remain regarding its long-term impacts on human health and the environment.

Communities across the country have also raised concerns about the widespread use of glyphosate and its potential consequences. Major legal settlements involving glyphosate manufacturers have resulted in over $12 billion dollars in compensation to individuals who alleged harm from exposure. This history should encourage greater caution, not increased reliance on these chemicals.

Many residents have witnessed landscapes treated with chemical herbicides that struggle to recover, with depleted vegetation, disrupted soil systems, and diminished ecological resilience. When we damage the biological foundation of the land, we create additional ecological stress and make natural restoration more difficult.

It is deeply concerning that chemical herbicides are still being considered as a management tool in a place as environmentally significant as the Lake Tahoe Basin. We should be setting the highest standard for stewardship, not relying on practices that may compromise the long-term integrity of our forests, soils, waterways, and communities.

Residents, wildlife that were here long before us, visitors, children, and pets all share this environment. We have a responsibility to protect this extraordinary place for future generations. I urge TRPA to reject expanded herbicide use and commit to non-toxic, science-based approaches that preserve the ecological health, water quality, and natural resilience of the Tahoe Basin.

Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to protecting Lake Tahoe.

Jenny ************
Integrative Health Practitioner
Reno, NV

Dear TRPA board members,

I am writing to express my concern about the spraying of toxic chemicals in our forests. The unattended consequences are too great a risk to sit idly by and allow the US Forest Service or any of our local entities to use them.

I ask that you please use your power to ban them in the Tahoe basin and encourage you to look at a product already approved by the State of California as a potential alternative: firehawkbioherbicide.com

Sincerely,
Amy Kacher
[street address removed]
Tahoe City

hey, we are all just people

To Whom It May Concern,

I live in the Caldor Fire burn scar and have witnessed the forest's recovery over the past five years. The first year after the fire was devastating — ash-covered slopes caused severe runoff into streams, neighborhoods, and ultimately the Lake Tahoe watershed. Since then, chaparral, wildflowers, fungi, and thousands of conifer seedlings have returned, stabilizing the soil, providing wildlife habitat, and naturally regenerating the forest. It is clear the ecosystem is recovering on its own.

For this reason, I strongly oppose the use of herbicides, including glyphosate, in the Tahoe Basin.

My concerns include:
- Harm to soil health and increased erosion and runoff into Lake Tahoe.
- Risks to wildlife habitat, pollinators, pets, and native plant communities.
- Human health concerns, as glyphosate is listed as carcinogenic by California and a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
- Exposure risks for hikers, mountain bikers, foragers, nearby residents, and Forest Service workers.
- Damage to chaparral, which is a vital and natural stage of post-fire recovery that prevents erosion, restores nutrients, supports wildlife, and helps conifer seedlings establish.
- The possibility that removing native vegetation could encourage invasive grasses and increase future fire risk.
- The precedent this would set for future forest management throughout the Tahoe Basin.

I also find it inconsistent that homeowners in sensitive watersheds face strict TRPA regulations to protect Lake Tahoe, while the Forest Service may be allowed to apply herbicides across the same highly sensitive watershed. I have experienced firsthand how carefully this land is regulated, and I believe protecting the watershed should mean allowing natural forest recovery — not introducing chemicals that could harm the ecosystem and the lake we are all working to protect.

Please require an application and review process for the USFS herbicide plan, because what the USFS describes in its plan does not meet any TRPA review exemptions, and please allow this forest to continue healing naturally.

Sincerely,
Tina ********
Meyers resident

Dear Members of the TRPA Governing Board:

I am writing as a Stateline resident to urge the TRPA Governing Board to take immediate action on two critical matters:

First, direct staff to require a full TRPA application and environmental review from the U.S. Forest Service for its planned glyphosate and synthetic herbicide application in the Caldor burn area before any spraying occurs.

Second, amend the TRPA Code of Ordinances to explicitly ban glyphosate and all synthetic herbicides throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin to prevent irreversible ecological damage.

1. TRPA Holds Clear Jurisdiction Under the 1989/2023 MOU. Under the 1969 Compact (revised in 1980), TRPA retains explicit jurisdiction over environmentally significant activities across the entire Basin, including federal land. While the 1989 Memorandum of Understanding — amended in 2023 — delegates routine review for specific activities to the Forest Service, Section 3F limits exemptions to five narrow categories. Herbicide and chemical vegetation control are not exempt. The widespread chemical spraying currently proposed goes far beyond routine management. Under the explicit terms of the MOU, any non-exempt activity requires the Forest Service to submit a complete application for TRPA review.

2. Monoculture Is Not Ecosystem Reforestation. The Forest Service's plan to eliminate competing natural vegetation to favor a single tree species is not true ecosystem restoration — it is monoculture production. Labeling this project "reforestation" bypasses the scrutiny required for a project of this scale and potential environmental cost.

Given the grave risks to the health of the Lake Tahoe ecosystem and local residents, TRPA must assert its full authority. Please require the Forest Service to honor its agreement, submit a complete application, and undergo formal TRPA review before any irreversible action is taken.

Sincerely,
Dave ********
Stateline, NV

Hello.

I am a resident of North Lake Tahoe. You must do everything in your power to stop the proposed spraying of glyphosate in Tahoe. It will surely run off into the lake and will poison the ecosystem and make it dangerous to recreate in Tahoe.

Thank you,
Janet ************

Dear folks at TRPA,

We are 47-year residents of the South Tahoe area and are deeply concerned about the use of synthetic herbicides in the basin. We strongly urge you to support a ban on this practice and to only allow hand thinning. It seems incredibly ludicrous to us to protect the lake in so many ways and yet allow harmful chemicals to leach into our groundwater. Beyond that, we abhor the potential damage to the health of wildlife as well as humans. We understand the fire risk and take it seriously (we have close relatives and friends who lost homes in the Angora fire), and yet we still demand a ban on known carcinogenic chemicals as part of the solution.

Respectfully submitted,
Stewart and Hillary *************
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Dear TRPA leaders,

Please help the citizens of the Lake Tahoe Basin to stop and/or prevent the US Forest Service from spraying or applying the poisonous synthetic herbicide glyphosate in or around the Lake Tahoe Basin. This is one of the most insane ideas our government has ever made. It is a push by the government to grow trees for harvesting.

These are public lands that need protection from government entities who apparently have no interest in protecting our environment and all of the flora and fauna that keep the balance of life. We need to prevent this from happening for so many important reasons. How do we keep it out of our waterways and water table (SLT gets our water from local wells); out of the air when the dry lifeless dirt is blown into the air surrounding all of us living here? This will remove important ground cover that provides: protection from runoff and prevents soil erosion; shelter and food for wildlife; important nutrients for other plants to take hold and grow into a healthy balanced forest again.

Please take this seriously and let me know what I can do to help you.

Sincerely, Sue **********

Dear TRPA,

I write today to submit comments on your July 22 agenda item regarding the US Forest Service's (USFS's) proposed use of herbicides in the Lake Tahoe basin. As an initial matter, to establish my expertise, I graduated with honors from the University of California, Davis, and I worked for decades as a Senior Environmental Scientist at the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in South Lake Tahoe, where I was responsible for regulating and monitoring USFS forestry activities throughout the Tahoe Basin, including reviewing monitoring proposals, coordinating independent peer review, inspecting field activities, and conducting enforcement. I also served for decades as the Water Board's monitoring specialist and as a member of the Tahoe Basin Forest Health Consensus Group and California's surface water monitoring roundtable, studying the transport and fate of herbicides applied in forestry settings throughout California.

Monitoring conducted to date has shown clearly that glyphosate is both very persistent and very mobile in the environment. In lay terms, glyphosate does not degrade quickly into less toxic by-products, and it is known to run off the landscape from points of application to downstream surface and groundwaters. In my experience, glyphosate was detected nearly everywhere we (and the USFS) looked for it downstream of its application.

It is my hope that the TRPA board and staff will not be fooled by any promises made by the USFS to monitor the fate and toxicity of runoff from herbicide applications. Ad hoc monitoring for herbicide by-products is essentially useless without clear triggers for action. Before approving any use of chemical herbicides, TRPA should insist that any monitoring plan have the scientific rigor and statistical power to determine if significant human health or environmental endpoints have been exceeded.

The most important things TRPA needs to understand are: 1) the USFS likely does not have the staff expertise to design such a monitoring study; 2) any monitoring plan should undergo independent external expert peer review, which USFS is likely to resist; and 3) the USFS likely does not have the budget to conduct monitoring with adequate rigor.

In my decades of experience, the USFS offers vague, largely non-binding assurances to secure approvals, without up-front triggers for corrective action, and later claims insufficient staff or budget to complete the monitoring it promised. This pattern has repeated for at least forty years.

The only way to ensure useful monitoring would be to insist, up front, that USFS submit a monitoring proposal for independent expert peer review, make all changes needed to secure reviewer concurrence, and commit to fully implementing the plan — with a requirement that all herbicide applications cease immediately if funding or staffing falls short.

In closing, you should think very hard about whether the USFS is truly capable of conducting landscape-scale herbicide applications in the Tahoe Basin while adequately monitoring the effects in a way that protects public health and the environment. Given my decades of direct experience, I seriously doubt it.

Thomas ************
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Dear TRPA Governing Board and Leadership,

I am writing to urge TRPA to thoroughly review and oppose the U.S. Forest Service's plan to spray glyphosate and other synthetic herbicides within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Lake Tahoe is a national treasure. Its world-renowned water clarity and fragile ecosystem demand the highest level of environmental protection. Introducing toxic chemicals like glyphosate into the watershed poses an unacceptable risk to water quality, public health, and local wildlife.

As a regulatory agency tasked with preserving this unique environment, TRPA must lead with the precautionary principle. I specifically ask that TRPA take the following actions:

Ban all synthetic herbicides: Establish a basin-wide prohibition on synthetic chemical applications to permanently safeguard our water and community.

Prioritize hand-crew thinning: Restrict management in the Caldor Fire burn area to manual labor. This approach creates good local jobs and eliminates toxic chemical exposure.

Please uphold your mandate to protect Tahoe. Reject this herbicide plan and champion safe, manual forest management instead.

Thank you,
Galina *************

To whom it may concern,

My name is Sophia ********** and I am just one of many concerned and agitated citizens that are strongly against the use of glyphosate in our area. It is a fact that it will probably give us cancer. Please find it within your brains, hearts, and souls to not allow this. You can fix this.

Sincerely,
A very disappointed citizen.

Dear Honorable Nevada Leaders and Neighbors:

Thank you for your service to your State and the Tahoe Basin that we share.

I am writing to you regarding the decades old practice by the USFS to apply glyphosate (Roundup) to burned forest areas in order to kill the quickly growing ground cover plants (manzanita, etc.) arguably so the new forest trees can have a better chance of surviving and becoming a forest again. All of us want to see new forest growth.

I am informed that this practice has taken on new scrutiny with the Caldor fire forest recoveries and applying glyphosate in areas that could potentially reach Lake Tahoe via streams and runoff. I know that we share a common interest in protecting Lake Tahoe, people, and animal life that populate the area from serious harm.

I am not a scientist, but I am a long-term resident of the Basin and a past and present public official who has grave concerns about the safety of this product on humans, animals, and sensitive environments.

Online resources say that EPA approves of its use, but I found the following disturbing potential dangers of the product:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. A University of Washington review found glyphosate exposure may increase non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk by up to 41%. Pediatricians and environmental health advocates warn that post-fire spraying may pose risks to children, wildlife, and watersheds, especially when used at large scale. Tahoe residents have raised strong concerns about transparency, water quality, and cumulative exposure, prompting TRPA to expand water-quality monitoring for glyphosate downstream of burn areas.

I urge our Nevada State partners and their representatives on TRPA to take appropriate action to see that the product is not used in the Caldor Fire burn area or other sensitive areas in the Basin until it is proven safe for animals and human contact. In the alternative, the USFS should find a substitute safe product. I have faith that they can do so and respect in general the work they do to protect our forests.

Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Respectfully,
David

David Jinkens, MPA
Good Government Advocate
City Council Member
South Lake Tahoe, CA

Comments made here are mine alone.

Please, there is no reason other than cheapness for spraying of Roundup in or around our forests.

The damage down wind and down stream, not to mention the effect on our wildlife, is not worth the ease, convenience, or budgetary considerations.

What about the humans working and playing in that same forest? Despite legal precedent, Europe and many scientists in the US point to how dangerous this non-selective herbicide can be.

Having a standing forest with everything in it dosed with herbicides isn't worth the price.

Please do not approve this effort. Protect our forest, flora, and fauna.

Thank you,
M ***********
South Lake Tahoe
40 yr resident

Hi,

I'm an Incline Village resident, and I'm reaching out regarding the proposed ordinance to prevent the spraying of glyphosates in the TRPA jurisdiction. I understand there was a board meeting in late May. Where does that stand? Has the board reached a decision?

Thank you,
Chloe

I do not accept this to be done to the land, land that is shared by all & this is not okay!!

Sent from my iPhone

Please do not ruin our water and ecosystem by spraying glyphosate in Tahoe forests.

I'm against using this chemical as it is proven to be harmful, ruining our bodies and animals.

Jennifer ***********

Please leave Tahoe alone!

Michael **********

Hoping I'm not too late. I just saw this posted on Instagram of a concerned resident of South Lake Tahoe. Please reconsider the spraying of glyphosate as it will poison the lake, rivers, and streams. I'm not sure what the alternative is but clearly this sounds like the worst choice.

Thank you for your consideration and time hearing out all of the concerned citizens.

Stacey *********
Sent from my iPhone

To Whom It May Concern:

Spraying glyphosate across the Tahoe Basin is reckless and must be stopped.

First, the WHO classifies it as a probable human carcinogen linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma — Bayer has paid over $18 billion settling cancer lawsuits.

Second, it devastates aquatic life: studies show mortality in frogs and trout at sub-agricultural concentrations, threatening Tahoe's already-declining water clarity.

Third, it destroys the mycorrhizal fungi that tree seedlings need to establish roots — literally poisoning the soil you're trying to reforest. Instead, deploy hand crews for manual thinning, use prescribed goat grazing on steep terrain, and apply wood-chip mulch to suppress competing vegetation naturally.

Heal the forest without poisoning it.

Regards,
Gina *************
Sent from my iPhone

Good Evening,

This is my third email I have written tonight regarding the herbicide spraying on the calador fire scar & Tahoe basin!

I am outranged that our forest service considered spraying toxic herbicides that are linked to cancer in humans on Tahoe, in order to support reforestations! This is not only dangerous and deadly for all the wild animals, plants and humans who live and enjoy Tahoe but there can be NO good for spraying any herbicides whatsoever and expecting the wild lands to recover well.

You have the power to stop this from happening, you have the power to investigate the methodology used to support our forests, wild life, and humans after a natural wild fire. Spraying Glyphosate is not one of them and never will be. I am asking you to stop the spraying from even happening, and consider other methods that do not include poison or chemicals that are used in round up and are linked to cancer.

It is well known that the plants who grow after a fire are food for wildlife, and some plants must burn to germinate and grow! Also it is well known that wild life can hunt better after a fire. Why can't we support the natural turn of events after a fire and let the land grow back by supporting growth not spraying glyphosate on everything expecting life to happen after that.

Humans can do better than this, humans are smarter than this.

Thank you for your time and I hope you will do the right thing for wild lands, wild animals, wild plants, and the humans who are there too!

Ilah Rose

Glyphosate is a last resort herbicide to be used with discretion. Using it makes an area unable to be farmed or used.

Spraying glyphosate in mass is not helpful but harmful to the ecosystem which includes humans. It gets into watersheds and poisons animals. Bayer is not a company here for our well being. Ask scientists and forest rangers how to do controlled burns instead of poisoning the land and its people while you are at it. It's disrespectful to think that you can try to destroy the land and resell it to who you want to later. The public sees you. You aren't getting away with it. Stop now.

Let the Caldor fire scar regenerate naturally. Trying to accelerate the regrowth of a conifer forest using herbicides is causing damage to soils and contamination of waterways and sensitive ecosystems. And the proposed benefits are dubious. For example, the idea that without the use of herbicides shrubs and other species would reduce the availability of soil moisture for conifer seedlings should be reconsidered in light of the fact that so-called "competing" plant species stabilize and rebuild soils' water-retaining capacity, which supports the success of conifer seedlings. That is how ecosystem succession works. With herbicide-managed succession there could be a net loss of soil moisture available to conifers compared to natural succession. Natural succession has worked just fine for millions of years. There should not be an at-any-cost rush to reestablish a conifer-based ecosystem. If the climate no longer supports conifers, then the climax ecosystem will look different no matter what we do.

Please stop using herbicides on this land or any other land. At the very least, please stop doing it without adequate public notice and comment periods. The public was short-changed on notice and commentary. And all claims that glyphosate and other herbicides are safe to use are repeatedly debunked. The potential benefits are dubious, and the risks are well-established at this point.

Thank you for your consideration,
Brendan *********

Please see the attached public comments for consideration.

Alan ******, Professional Engineer

Dear Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the use of herbicides, including Roundup and glyphosate, in our local parks and residential areas.

As a lifelong Californian and a resident of Nevada County for nearly 15 years, I represent three generations of family loyalty to this region. I can say with certainty that our community does not want these chemicals introduced into our environment. Spraying these pesticides encourages poor land management and introduces serious ecological and health risks that must be addressed.

I am asking for a meaningful shift toward safer management practices that protect our homes and public spaces. I do not support the use of herbicides and look forward to seeing more sustainable solutions implemented.

Sincerely,
Jack

No poisonous glyphosate spraying in Tahoe or anywhere!

Susan **********
Pasadena, CA

Do not spray glyphosate on any of our public lands. Shame on you for even considering it. Shame on you for considering poisoning our ecosystem and our water. The money lobbyists use to push their agenda is worthless once you ruin the planet into oblivion. Lives of millions rely on your hands to stand up for us and our land.

To whom it may concern,

I recently was made aware of the USFS plan to allow chemical spraying in the Tahoe basin. The chemical that has been proven to be unnatural, (manmade) does not belong in such a special natural environment for any reason.

You are apparently the ONLY AGENCY the public has to help protect the people and place of the Tahoe Basin.

PLEASE, use your authority and common sense that this product and plan do not belong in the natural, wonderful, unique place as Tahoe.

Thank you.

We live in Lake Tahoe and are demanding that TRPA prohibit synthetic herbicides in the Lake Tahoe Basin. These synthetic herbicides are known carcinogens and will not only kill weeds but wildlife, fish and humans.

Regards
Donna **********
Sent from my iPhone

Hi! I am a Permaculture gardener specializing in native rehabilitation of urban areas! Did you know planting native species is far more effective in combating weed regrowth of invasive plant species? It will also retain more water leading to less flooding and once the ecosystem balances it out, it will maintain itself. Meaning no money will be required for this space to become its most valuable on the future market!

I am writing as a constituent deeply concerned about the U.S. Forest Service's plan to use glyphosate herbicide in the Caldor Fire Restoration Project near Lake Tahoe.

Lake Tahoe is designated an "Outstanding National Resource" under the Clean Water Act. Introducing glyphosate into this watershed puts that designation at risk. Recent science raises serious red flags: the WHO's cancer research agency has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, a 2025 long-term animal study found it caused multiple cancers at low doses, and a 2026 study found it may contribute to antimicrobial resistance. Glyphosate has also been linked to harm to pollinators, aquatic organisms, and soil health.

The Forest Service says no herbicide will enter the lake — but runoff in a mountain watershed is difficult to guarantee, especially across 11,100 acres of steep and variable terrain.

Eco-friendly, non-toxic alternatives for vegetation management exist and should be prioritized before any chemical spraying is considered.

I urge you to formally oppose this plan and push for a full independent review before any herbicide applications move forward. Protecting Tahoe's water and ecosystem is not a partisan issue — it is a responsibility we share.

Thank you for your time and service.

Please for the future of our children the flor and fauna wild life and our water ways BAN Glyphosate spraying it's not a solution it's health disaster that's going to happen.

There was a reason it was banned for so many years. It has been linked to cancer and devastation not in the United States, but around the world.!

Shannon and Gerry ****

Sent from my iPhone

Hello TRPA team,

On the subject of widespread glyphosate spraying in wildfire affected areas of California and beyond, I urge you to take action to stop this within your jurisdiction.

We cannot risk the potential impacts of widespread chemical blankets in the Sierra ecosystem.

Best Regards,
Derek

Derek ******
*********************
ph. (925) 786-####

Dear TRPA,

Please stop allowing agencies to spray glyphosate and related herbicides in or near the Tahoe basin. There are numerous problems associated with glyphosate, especially toxicity to a variety of organisms (including humans), and contamination of the environment. I know that the official position from self-interested parties such as Montesano and their government allies is that glyphosate is "safe" when used according to their guidelines, but the work of scientists (such as Dr. Stephanie Seneff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Michael Antoniou of King's College London) says that glyphosate and related herbicides are in fact harmful to a range of animals and to soil organisms that are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Just say no to glyphosate and related herbicides.

Sincerely,
Christine ****, Ph.D. mobile: (+1) 818-216-####
Author of the historical/supernatural novel The Dark Fire
Author Website: *****************
Cooking website: A Writer's Kitchen
Substack
LinkedIn

Hello Julie Regan,

Hope you are doing well and having a lovely week so far. My name is Isabel ********, born and raised in Truckee, Ca. I am 25 years old. I've gone through Truckee El all the way through THS making my High school proud, with 3 State Titles and 2 Regional Titles in the women's soccer team and proudly graduated from UNR in the spring of 2026 in Finance. I am very proud to be a part of this community and am so grateful for many of the experiences I have had living in Tahoe. I care so much about my home and the environment and our beautiful natural landscapes.

I am very torn and so unhappy to hear the idea of using glyphosate in our national forest. I see you care about the environment and you love going on hikes, skiing, and mountain biking. So why is this even a topic to bring up? Knowing that Glyphosate causes ALS, Cancer, and Parkinson's disease (many others). Like I said before, you have stated in your statement in TRPA that you enjoy the outdoors and so does your family. Think about the future of your kids and the cause they will grow up in. Your team is thinking about short term fixes when in reality this will cause some long term damages to the soil, the water streams in the future and damaging the quality of Lake Tahoe. Stop working extra and let nature heal itself! We are human and should not play as Mother Nature. Just enjoy the way the forest is restoring itself. Just like when we get a cut, we need to heal and get a slight scar in the process remembering the challenges we went through. Please think about this very intelligently, STOP the IDEA of using this toxic chemical, for once let us have something good happen in our country and make history by changing the topic of using the chemical as a restoration.

There will never be a benefit from using toxic chemicals in our world! This is killing the growth of life and the growth of our forest. Work smarter, not harder and let the forest restore itself, Mother nature is way more powerful than we think, it doesn't need our help at all.

Warm regards,
Isabel ********
*********************
+1(530) 414-####

Hi,

Do not spray glyphosate. This will alter the ecosystem irrevocably. As a long time resident, this is unacceptable and goes against the long history of Tahoe to Keep Tahoe Blue.

Thank you, Gavin V
American, California & Tahoe Resident

This is absolutely wrong and must not go forward. We know the damaged glyphosate directly causes and it is inexcusable to take such a heavy handed and destructive action to a natural environment like this that the entire region depends on remaining healthy.

Please do not let this go forward.

--
Skyler ************
******************
*********************

We 100% are opposed to spraying in our forests!!!

We will not support any politician who supports this!

Katie and Tim ********
Colfax, CA

I write to express my opposition to the proposed use of glyphosate in the Tahoe basin Calder fire burn scar. This application will kill all plants in the area and wash into the lake. It has been shown to cause cancer and is detrimental to the lake aquatic system. Have we learned nothing? Much better to manually remove unwanted plants and leave existing new growth that is occurring. BAN GLOCOPHOSPHATE FROM THE BASIN!!!

Cathe ****, PE
775450####

Sent from my iPhone

I am a 24 year homeowner in the Carnelian Bay Area of the Lake and I am extremely concerned about the leakage of the glyphosate cancer causing toxins that are polluting the Lake. Tahoe is a National Treasure and amongst the most pure water in the world. You have been a constant protector of the Lake and I can't understand why are you letting the EPA and US Forrest Service threaten our home, health , environment , equity and ultimately your livelihood.

For the sake of our future and the future of our children and Lake Tahoe please stop the poisoning of our Lake!

Concerned homeowner,
Vanna *******
925-566-####

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Hello, my name is Audrey ********, and I am a concerned citizen from California. I am reaching out regarding the Forest Service's authorization of glyphosate spraying across 2,400 to 3,600 acres of the Caldor Fire Restoration Project in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The Lake Tahoe Basin is an Area of National Concern with legendary water clarity and fragile alpine ecosystems. Aerial and ground spraying of glyphosate here contradicts the Forest Service's mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests.

I am requesting that you:

1. Direct the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to withdraw herbicide authorization from this project
2. Issue national guidance prioritizing non-chemical restoration methods in watershed areas
3. Require a full Environmental Impact Statement for any future herbicide proposals in the Tahoe Basin

Thank you.

Good morning,

There is nothing that makes America greater than its wilderness areas, waterways, and the incredible biodiversity that lives and thrives upon our land. It is our work as American citizens to steward this land we have been granted and to care for it with the utmost respect.

The dangerous effects of glyphosphate can not be understated. Spraying it in Tahoe on land that is recovering from fire is absolutely horrific.

Land and forest undergoes fire as a part of its natural ecology. The land is prepared to heal itself and regrow in the way it is supposed to. Our work as the human stewards of land is to assist when we can - such as using mycological remediation, pre-planning and executing prescription burns, planting and tending native plants if absolutely necessary, and mechanically removing invasive species. Glyphosphate has no hand in this whatsoever. It has been banned abroad and needs banned in the US immediately. It certainly does not need to be a part of any short or long-term forest management strategies in our great state of California or in our country, at large.

Best Wishes,
Amanda ********

It's hard to understand how federal and regional agencies are not concerned about the potential long-term financial and health liability here. Glyphosate has been at the center of massive lawsuits across the country, with Bayer/Monsanto paying out billions after people claimed exposure contributed to cancer diagnoses. Yet we are knowingly introducing this chemical into one of the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive places in the country.

Are these agencies truly being good stewards of Lake Tahoe, our environment, wildlife, water quality, and taxpayer dollars? Or are they creating even more future risk for the very communities they are supposed to protect?

Need we remind everyone what happened when Washoe County overtaxed Incline Village residents? The community came together, fought back, and Washoe County ended up having to pay substantial money back. History has shown that when citizens unite around an issue they believe is wrong, they can absolutely hold agencies accountable.

If enough residents around the lake believe this spraying is unsafe or irresponsible, is a class action lawsuit inevitable? And if that happens, can these agencies really afford to spend even more taxpayer money fighting citizens in court and paying attorneys' fees instead of protecting the lake in the first place?

References:

Johnson v. Monsanto Co. :: 2020 :: California Courts of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
Washoe County approves $56M settlement in Tahoe tax fight

Cheers to the lake life!

Amy Marie *****
Luxury Realtor
Smith Team Luxury Real Estate
Coldwell Banker Select
931 Tahoe Blvd, Suite 1A
Incline Village, NV 89451
Office: (775) 831-####
Fax: (775) 831-####
Cell: (775) 720-####
*******************
www.Ttahoe.com

Trevor Smith & Smith Team Luxury Real Estate have just been selected to host the Emmy Nominated TV Show "The American Dream." We are honored to be a part of this award winning show that features local real estate content with 50 million viewers per month.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Never trust wiring instructions sent via email. Cyber criminals are hacking email accounts and sending emails with fake wiring instructions. These emails are convincing and sophisticated. Always independently confirm wiring instructions in person or via a telephone call to a trusted and verified phone number. Never wire money without double-checking that the wiring instructions are correct.

Hello, as a California resident based in Sacramento, I strongly oppose the use of synthetic herbicides in the Tahoe region and urge you to push federal agencies to utilize non-chemical forest restoration alternatives. The fact that this is even being considered is appalling to me but I appreciate that we have a chance to make public comment. I hope that I'm not too late.

I lived in Lake Tahoe for a year back in the late 90s and it was one of the most formative years of my life. Having grown up in the suburban American South, I had never experienced so much nature outside my front door. The fact that Tahoe continues to be such an unspoiled place all these decades later, with so many people having since discovered it, is amazing and we have to do everything we can to protect it.

The Native Americans did not use these methods! There is no reason we need to use these methods. Please do better and please do not destroy one of our most precious assets in the state.

Thank you, Maggie

Spraying toxic chemicals in our forests and ecosystems does more damage than good to our environment. As a resident born and raised in California this news has deeply saddened me. Glyphosate has been scientifically tested to be toxic and harmful to both humans & wildlife! This cannot happen, we as humans are better than this. There are many safer AND smarter alternatives available, regenerative forest management is important BUT so is the wellbeing and health of those who live near or in that forest.

This world is a paradise, it was made for us to take care of AND enjoy. Let's do better & make that our first priority as a human. No Poison and chemicals should ever be sprayed in our beautiful forests! WE NEED TO PROTECT TAHOE FROM THIS!

I am against the Spraying of this anywhere in the world, especially Lake Tahoe!!

I am against the Spraying of this anywhere in the world, especially Lake Tahoe!!

Hello

My name is Erin, and I strongly oppose the proposed spraying of glyphosate in the Tahoe Basin. Lake Tahoe is one of the most fragile and treasured alpine ecosystems in the country. Introducing a controversial herbicide into this watershed puts our water, wildlife, pollinators, soil health, and public trust at risk.

Even the possibility of runoff, drift, or long-term ecological disruption is too high a price to pay in a region known for its pristine waters and biodiversity. There are safer, more regenerative land management practices available that do not involve chemical exposure near our communities, trails, campgrounds, and waterways.

Tahoe is not an industrial testing ground. It is a living ecosystem that deserves protection for future generations. I urge you to stop this plan, and pursue non-toxic alternatives instead.

Thank you.

Tlazohkamati!
Erin

"The real medicine is on the spiritual level." ~ Karyn Sanders

We have one of the most beautiful jewels in the world in Tahoe. I feel strongly we need to continue to protect it. Please explicitly prohibit synthetic herbicides, more specifically right now the glyphosate spraying. I am truly amazed it is even being discussed. Please do what is within your power to not allow it. Thank you.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

To whom it may concern,

The environmental catastrophe that would result from the spraying of glyphosate would cost more than what it is meant to protect from. This place is my home. It is rare and fragile ecosystem. Glyphosate would UNDOUBTEDLY ruin this. Please protect tahoe.

Sincerely,
Trey *******

To whom it may concern,

The environmental catastrophe that would result from the spraying of glyphosate would cost more than what it is meant to protect from. This place is my home. It is rare and fragile ecosystem. Glyphosate would UNDOUBTEDLY ruin this. Please protect tahoe.

Sincerely,
Trey *******

What is TRPA's mission? As a community, we can easily search up your website and read the following.

Our Mission:

"Established in 1969, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was the nation's first bi-state regional environmental planning agency. Our mission is to lead the cooperative effort to preserve, restore, and enhance the unique natural and human environment of the Lake Tahoe Region, while improving local communities, and people's interactions with our irreplaceable environment.

Vision
Our vision is for a lake environment that is sustainable, healthy, and safe for the community and future generations."

Have you forgotten your objectives? Your singular purpose is to keep the people, the environment and the lake pure, pristine, safe and natural. How then can spraying toxic cancer-causing chemicals achieve these objectives?

International Study Reveals Glyphosate Weed Killers Cause Multiple Types of Cancer | College of Public Health

And there are many other studies. Additionally, Monsanto lawsuits involve over 61,000 active cases claiming Roundup weedkiller causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Bayer has settled approximately 100,000 claims for $11 billion. Round up's key ingredient is glyphosate.

Whatever are the problems TRPA is trying to address with this poison, I urge you to look to other, safer ideas and solutions. Spraying toxic poison across our basin is an absolutely unacceptable option. The Jewel of the Sierra deserves the utmost protections. There are few more special places in all the world.

Sincerely, Wendy ******* - 27 year Lake Tahoe resident
For additional comments and concerns or should you have any questions, feel free to call me. 530-208-####

I'm extremely troubled to learn that the USFS had plans to spray glyphosate across the Tahoe bioregion. Toxic herbicides should not be used for widespread spraying; they are damaging to ecosystems, waterways, soil, humans and animals. The Tahoe basin is an area where many people live, recreate, and make a living—it is not a place we should be using widespread toxic herbicides.

Please do not spray toxic herbicides in this region.

Sincerely
Laura *********

If you're considering spraying this poison I don't know what I could say to convince you otherwise, but you're a human too. You belong to this land and this planet too, so why would you treat it this way? You're someone with loved ones and children and future children and grandchildren in your live or the lives of those you love, so why would you take a risk of harming them like this?

For all the yearlong residents who have had their land threatened, and I include the trees and animals and fish along with the humans being pushed out by commercial interests and corporate greed, I have to beg you to remember that you belong to the land too.

To the parts of you that remember who you are, and what you love, I am asking you to stand up for the safety of the land and the people you have the power to protect or hurt.

It would be wise for any employees that will be spraying these chemicals to consider their position on this planet and the livelihoods of their children

Hi, my name is Crystal. I've called and now I will also write. I am very passionate about this cause there should be no glyphosate sprayed in our national forest or parks or any public lands for that matter glyphosate is a carcinogen. We all know that so how are you allowing this to happen? It's going to affect our health, our water, and animals and ecosystems .. this is not making America healthy again. You are allowing us to be poisoned. It's gonna affect you as well. Your children, your grandchildren for years to come. This is a very serious matter. I am very upset and disheartened to see that this is happening.. we need to stop this and we need to stop it now..

Thank you,
Crystal

Sent from my iPhone

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to abolish this ridiculous attempt to destroy Tahoe with Glyphosate.

As a registered dietitian and a Tahoe local, this is personal to me. Glyphosate causes cancer and kills anything in its path. This is NOT an acceptable method of support for Tahoe. Glyphosate has no place in beautiful Tahoe or anywhere for that matter. You will single handedly be poisoning all of Northern California, the people included, is that your goal?

We pay taxes and have a right to vote for a reason and I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS. I do not consent to being poisoned, to killing wildlife, to putting toxins in our water and lands. I do not consent to using a chemical that in KNOWN, yes I said known it is not linked, to cancer through MANY studies and lawsuits. You cannot do this to us. We have rights and we have a right to our safety and security.

Please protect the lake, the wildlife, the drinking water, and all of us who call this place home and all those who travel to visit us.

Sincerely,
Theora ********

To TRPA

As someone who has a strong connection with Tahoe since the 1970s, I implore you to stop and ban the spraying of Glyphosate in the entire region. I genuinely do not understand how, knowing what we already know about the effects of this toxic chemical, anyone can think of using Glyphosate. Tahoe especially is known for its amazing nature. Spraying Glyphosate is a horrible idea for all life here.

Thank you for taking the right and wise course of action for our collective future.

Han-Yu ***

Hello. I am voicing my strong disappointment in your practice of spraying glyphosate on the Caldor burn areas. I come from a Forest Service family. I grew up on ranger stations while my dad was a ranger. My brother's entire career as a civil engineer was spent with the USFS. My husband and I are volunteers with the El Dorado National Forest and spend countless hours in the forest cleaning areas where garbage has been dumped illegally.

I have always held the belief that this institution has a difficult job of mitigating the many interests that come with managing forest lands. The tagline "land of many uses" speaks to the task of trying to please many different groups with varying areas of concern. I simply cannot believe that a proven toxic chemical such as glyphosate was deemed to be the "best" option, much less that it was not made public knowledge before spaying. It should never have even been considered as an option.

Please hear my voice. In this crazy world these forest lands are the one thing that can help make sense of so many silly and confusing human problems. I expect more - be part of the holistic solution. Please!

Melanie

Sent from my iPhone

I'm writing to object to the recent news revealing the use of glyphosate in the Tahoe area, additionally around burn areas. Learning of this poison use in the forests is shocking and goes against nature in regeneration after forest fires. Not only does it kill native species and suffocate the natural diversity of the forest, it enters the water system which supplies our drinking water.

This whole farce appears as a back door money grab and not what anyone wants that cares for Tahoe and our drinking water.

Please cancel the Glyphosate contracts and let nature repair itself.

Laura *******
email | **********************

To Whom It May Concern:

Spraying glyphosate (“Roundup”) to prevent invasive species from growing and to encourage pine regeneration feels wrong on many levels.

This spraying does not just affect invasive vegetation — it also impacts native plant species, wildlife, animal offspring, soil health, and ultimately the water quality of the lake itself. If golf courses are carefully regulated regarding fertilizers, and snow removal companies are regulated regarding snow storage, road salting, and watershed runoff in order to protect the Lake Tahoe Basin, it seems contradictory to allow the spraying of glyphosate in sensitive forest and watershed areas.

There are also ongoing concerns regarding the potential health effects of glyphosate exposure, including possible links to lymphoma and damage to endothelial and epithelial tissues throughout the body, including the gut and lungs.

We have seen in the past how environmental chemicals can impact wildlife for generations. Bald eagle populations and egg viability only recently began recovering after decades of pesticide exposure such as DDT. While this current spraying may be targeted only in wildfire burn areas, chemicals do not stay neatly contained. Spray can drift through the air with wind and breezes, and runoff can travel through streams and watersheds directly into the lake.

Forests have regenerated naturally for centuries after fires. Nature has its own balance and recovery process. Rather than introducing additional chemicals into an already fragile ecosystem, perhaps we should allow the land to heal and regrow as it is meant to.

Protecting the long-term health of the watershed, wildlife, and community should come before short-term vegetation management goals.

Martha ***********, Physical Therapist
Full Time Resident in Tahoe Basin for 59 years

Sent from my iPhone

Dear TRPA Board Members,

I am writing as a local resident and someone who deeply cares about the long-term health of the Lake Tahoe Basin.

I respectfully urge you to amend the TRPA Code of Ordinances to explicitly prohibit the use of synthetic herbicides, including glyphosate, within the Tahoe Basin.

Lake Tahoe is an internationally recognized natural treasure and an ecosystem that requires extraordinary protection. Allowing chemical herbicide spraying in such a sensitive environment raises serious concerns about impacts to water quality, soil health, wildlife, pollinators, and public trust.

Many residents are not opposed to vegetation management or environmental restoration efforts. We understand the challenges involved. However, introducing synthetic herbicides into this watershed is not a reasonable or responsible long-term solution. Once chemicals enter the ecosystem, the consequences can be difficult — or impossible — to reverse.

As local residents, we are asking TRPA to lead with precaution, transparency, and stewardship. There are safer management practices available that do not carry the same risks associated with glyphosate and other synthetic herbicides.

Please listen to the concerns of the community you serve and take action to protect Lake Tahoe for future generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Sunshine ******

Sent from my iPhone

Hi all,

Please do not spray herbicides and pesticides anywhere in tahoe, especially glyphosate. As a tax paying resident, I say no.

Thank you, Mandy

--
Warmly,
Mandy

Illuminate | Expand | Create
Create a life that you love.
*********************

Cell: 415-205-####

Hi there,

I'm a longtime Tahoe resident concerned about the proposal to spray glyphosate in the Tahoe basin.

Tahoe has long been a hub of pristine natural beauty, with thriving ecosystems. For decades, the TRPA and other organizations have gone to great lengths to keep the natural ecosystem safe, to keep the lake blue and pollution free, to protect the gem that is the Tahoe Basin.

Spraying glyphosate would immediately undo all this hard work by poisoning the Sierra and its watershed for decades to come, not to mention the risk to the primary water source of the Sacramento Valley and millions of people.

Please protect our home, our community and our planet by stopping the spray of glyphosate.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,
Jessica ********

Dear TRPA Board Members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use of herbicides, particularly glyphosate products such as Roundup, in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Caldor Fire burn scar area. Spraying glyphosate poses significant risks to the environment, public health, and the long-term ecological resilience of the region.

I urge the TRPA board to immediately halt all herbicide and glyphosate spraying in the Tahoe Basin, as well as engage in less invasive and less destructive non-toxic alternatives for vegetation management. The Lake Tahoe Basin is an important ecological region that should be treasured and its protection should be top priority.

Chair and Members of the Governing Board,

I'm writing to formally request that the Caldor Fire Restoration Project, and specifically the herbicide treatment component, be placed on the agenda for the June 2026 Governing Board meeting as a substantive discussion item. As a local environmental business owner and citizen, this matter is of deep importance to me.

The basis for this request:

1. The project warrants Board-level attention, not staff-level deference. The Final Environmental Assessment authorizes glyphosate application across 2,400–3,600 acres inside the Tahoe Basin, including the headwaters of Upper Echo Creek, Saxon Creek, Trout Creek, the Upper Truckee River, and Osgood Swamp — watersheds TRPA itself flagged during NEPA scoping. A decision of this magnitude, affecting the basin's surface water and the lake's clarity, should not be resolved by accepting the applicant's response and moving on.

2. The window to act is real. USFS has confirmed no herbicide application within the project area in 2026 or 2027, with applications scheduled to begin (theoretically) no earlier than 2028. The Board has roughly 18–24 months to engage substantively before any spraying occurs. That window closes if the agency takes no action this summer.

3. The evidentiary basis for the Forest Service's safety determination has been called into serious question. A yearlong Mother Jones investigation published in April 2026 documented that the USFS safety assessment relied heavily on a study later retracted after allegations it was ghostwritten by Monsanto employees. The peer-reviewed toxicological and ecological literature has advanced substantially since the EA was scoped, including major 2024–2025 reviews in Frontiers in Toxicology, PNAS, and Environmental Sciences Europe documenting health and ecosystem effects relevant to a post-fire alpine watershed. The Board should examine this updated record before tacitly endorsing the federal decision through inaction.

4. TRPA's current posture — that terrestrial herbicides are "discouraged but not prohibited" — leaves the threshold judgment to the applicant. For a chemical of this profile, in this watershed, on hydrophobic post-fire soils that drain entirely to Lake Tahoe, that is an inadequate standard. A Board-level discussion is the appropriate venue to consider whether a stronger Code of Ordinances standard is warranted for post-fire restoration projects in the basin.

5. Public interest is substantial and growing. Local and national press coverage, a Change.org petition with over 15,000 signatures, and active engagement from residents, recreators, and downstream water users have made clear this is not a fringe concern. The Board hearing the matter directly — rather than addressing it only through written public comment on unrelated agenda items — would meet the public's legitimate expectation that TRPA exercise independent judgment on a project of this significance.

I am submitting a separate, detailed written comment for the May 27 meeting record covering the toxicological, ecological, and watershed concerns in more depth, with peer-reviewed citations. That submission is intended as supporting material for the agenda item I'm requesting here.

I'd be glad to provide additional documentation, coordinate with other stakeholders, or speak to the Board directly if helpful.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jessica *********
Rinova International
Solutions for a verdant future

Chair and Members of the Governing Board,

I'm writing in advance of the May 27 meeting. Please enter this into the public record as a general comment, and please put it in front of Board members directly — not just into the consent packet.

Allowing the herbicide component of the Caldor Fire Restoration Project to proceed unchallenged is reckless. It is reckless toxicologically, reckless ecologically, and reckless as a matter of TRPA's own stated mission to protect Lake Tahoe. And critically: no herbicide has yet been applied inside the Basin. USFS has confirmed no spraying in 2026 or 2027, with applications scheduled to begin no earlier than 2028. The Board has time to act. The question is whether it will.

On May 27 this Board will release roughly $275,000 in water-quality mitigation funds for Washoe County and Upper Third / Rosewood Creek projects, and pass a resolution honoring Lake Tahoe Wildfire Preparedness Month. On the same day, the agency continues to stand behind a USFS decision — approved in March — to spray glyphosate across up to 3,600 acres of the Caldor burn scar inside the Tahoe Basin, including the headwaters of Upper Echo Creek, Saxon Creek, Trout Creek, the Upper Truckee River, and Osgood Swamp. TRPA's own NEPA comment flagged exactly those watersheds, then accepted the Forest Service's response and moved on.

This is incoherent policy. You cannot spend a quarter of a million dollars protecting water quality on one agenda item, celebrate wildfire recovery on another, and then defer to a federal plan to apply a probable human carcinogen to the post-fire soils that drain directly into Lake Tahoe. These items belong in the same conversation. Right now they're not even on the same page.

I'll be direct: when TRPA spokesperson Jeff Cowen attributes public alarm to a "lack of understanding of the different watersheds and project plans," he has it backwards. Every drop that falls in this basin ends up in Lake Tahoe. Residents understand the hydrology fine. What we don't understand is why the agency charged with protecting the basin is deferring to a federal applicant.

The toxicological basis for this approval is outdated and contested. IARC's 2015 classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A) has not been withdrawn. Bayer has paid roughly $11 billion to settle Roundup cancer lawsuits, with another $7.25 billion settlement proposed in February 2026 pending court approval. The peer-reviewed evidence has grown substantially since the USFS Environmental Assessment was scoped:

• Galli et al., Frontiers in Toxicology (Sep 2024) — comprehensive review covering carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive effects; documents glyphosate detection in 60–80% of the general population including children, and in blood and breast milk. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1474792

• Reynier & Rubin, PNAS (Jan 2025) — significant adverse perinatal effects (reduced birthweight, shortened gestation) tied to glyphosate exposure in rural U.S. populations; effects 12× larger for low-expected-weight births. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2413013121

• Santovito et al., Chemosphere (Jul 2024) — glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA show genotoxic and cytotoxic properties with evidence of synergistic action. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142888

• He et al., Frontiers in Public Health (Mar 2025) — NHANES analysis associating urinary glyphosate with elevated arthritis risk, particularly osteoarthritis. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1450479

• Mother Jones investigation (April 2026) documented that the USFS safety assessment relied heavily on a study later retracted after allegations it was ghostwritten by Monsanto employees.

The agency record this Board is deferring to is not the gold standard it's being treated as.

The ecological basis for this approval is reckless for this specific landscape. Post-fire soils in the basin are hydrophobic, biologically depleted, and lose much of their capacity to degrade glyphosate. Runoff and erosion are elevated for years. AMPA — glyphosate's persistent metabolite — accumulates. The peer-reviewed picture:

• Klátyik et al., Environmental Sciences Europe (2023) — comprehensive review of terrestrial ecotoxicity 2010–2023 concludes continued high use of glyphosate-based herbicides "cannot be considered ecologically sustainable." DOI: 10.1186/s12302-023-00758-9

• Klátyik et al., Environmental Sciences Europe (2024) — companion review of aquatic ecotoxicity reaches the same conclusion for surface water systems, with co-formulants often more toxic than glyphosate alone. DOI: 10.1186/s12302-024-00849-1

On the specific invasives argument that USFS leans on: the evidence does not support it for this landscape. The Forest Service justifies glyphosate as a tool to suppress invasive grasses (cheatgrass, thistle) that outcompete conifer seedlings. The published research from analogous Western U.S. systems shows this is a blunt instrument that does not deliver durable native recovery:

• Gornish, Guo et al., Ecological Solutions and Evidence (2023) — long-term, large-scale Great Basin trial of pre- and post-fire targeted grazing, native seeding, and glyphosate followed by two years of imazapic. The authors' explicit conclusion: despite intensive interventions, no strategy led to full restoration of native perennial species. DOI: 10.1002/2688-8319.12215

The anecdotal observation that herbicide use fosters invasive takeover rather than suppressing it is consistent with this and broader literature on the fire-invasion feedback loop. Glyphosate kills the diverse early-successional native community that would otherwise stabilize the site and crowd out invasives, leaving disturbed bare ground that whichever annual seed bank rebounds fastest will dominate. The treatment becomes the disturbance regime that perpetuates the invasion.

"Discouraged but not prohibited" is not a policy. It is an abdication. TRPA's existing posture — that terrestrial herbicides are discouraged but allowed when applicants meet threshold checks — outsources judgment to the applicant. For a chemical of this profile, in this watershed, on this soil substrate, that is not protective. The Board has authority to set a stronger standard.

I'm asking the Board to take three actions:

1. Place the Caldor Fire Restoration Project on the June Governing Board agenda for substantive discussion, not as a deferred federal matter. The 2028 application window gives TRPA time to act without disrupting the broader restoration timeline.

2. Open a Code of Ordinances amendment establishing a presumption against terrestrial herbicide use in post-fire restoration within the Tahoe Basin, with a narrow, evidence-based exception process subject to Board review — not staff-level threshold checks. Manual, mechanical, and prescribed-fire alternatives should be the default, consistent with TRPA's own NEPA-stage recommendation to USFS.

3. Formally request, in writing, that USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit withdraw the herbicide component of the Caldor Restoration Decision Notice and return with a non-chemical alternative for the 2,400–3,600 acres in the basin.

The political cost of doing nothing here is going to be larger than the political cost of doing something. The Mother Jones reporting has put California forest spraying on the national radar. The basin is the most visible test case in the country. If this Board passes a wildfire awareness resolution while letting Roundup get sprayed into the Upper Truckee, the public record will show TRPA chose recklessness over protection — and that contradiction will define the agency's record on this project regardless of what staff says at the dais.

I respectfully ask the Board to act on this at the May 27 meeting under general public comment response, and to direct staff to bring an agenda item for the June meeting.

Thank you for your time.

Jessica **********
Founder & Principal
Rinova International — A global climate finance advisory
Based in Reno, Nevada

I am writing to express my opposition and concern for the proposed spraying of glyphosate on the Caldor fire burn scar. Glyphosate is a known carcinogen. Spraying our public lands (and ANY lands) put the public's health at risk as it leaches into our water supply. Make the right decision and oppose and stop this horrific chemical from being sprayed on our beautiful public lands.

Thank you
Jeanette ********
Business owner, Mother, Naturalist, Herbologist

To the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA),

I am writing to express my concern regarding the use of harmful chemicals in our region. The TRPA was established to protect the environment and maintain water clarity, and condoning the spraying of such chemicals contradicts this essential mission.

I urge the agency to uphold its commitment to environmental preservation by seeking safer alternatives.

Sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone

To the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA),

I am writing to express my concern and objection to the use of the known carcinogen Glyphosate—which is proven to harm humans, flora and fauna.

The TRPA was established to protect the environment and maintain water clarity. Supporting the spraying of such chemicals contradicts your mission and commitment to our uniquely beautiful Tahoe region.

I urge the agency to uphold its commitment to environmental preservation by seeking safer alternatives.

Respectfully,
Nora *******

Dear TRPA,

I urge TRPA to take a firm stand against the inclusion of glyphosate in the Caldor Fire Restoration Project within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

I respectfully request TRPA to demand:
- A complete ban on glyphosate in the Caldor project area and ALL areas of Tahoe
- Publicly accessible maps and notifications of real time tracking of any herbicide considerations
- An open community meeting before any future herbicide use is contemplated
- A documented non-chemical restoration plan from the Forest Service

Thank you for your commitment to safeguarding Lake Tahoe and its surrounding communities.

Hey, we are all just people.

Dear TRPA Board Members,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use of herbicides, particularly glyphosate products such as Roundup, in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Caldor Fire burn scar area. Spraying glyphosate poses significant risks to the environment, public health, and the long-term ecological resilience of the region.

I urge the TRPA board to immediately halt all herbicide and glyphosate spraying in the Tahoe Basin, as well as engage in less invasive and less destructive non-toxic alternatives for vegetation management. The Lake Tahoe Basin is an important ecological region that should be treasured and its protection should be top priority.

Sent from my iPhone

I bought a house in Tahoe, after retiring from the military, quite specifically for the clean water and pristine wilderness. My career exposed me to a lot of chemicals and I came to Tahoe to clean myself out, live a clean life, and provide the same for my family (which includes my service dog).

To intentionally poison our land and water supply with unnatural carcinogens only adds more sickness and hampers the ongoing cleanup efforts in and around the basin. While fire prevention is certainly a primary concern, if the solutions create more problems, they are not solutions. We need to protect our land, our homes, and our ability to eat, drink, and live cleanly without being poisoned by a short term cost-cutting strategy.

With great respect, Matthew *********

Hello,

I'd like to voice my concern about Roundup / glyphosates being sprayed in Tahoe. Not only is it unsafe for the wildlife that lives there, it is unsafe for our residents and visitors. Let's keep Tahoe safe. Keep glyphosates out of Tahoe.

Thanks,
Jenna

Hi there. Thank you for taking the time to read our comments.

I have studied epigenetics and work with it in health care of humans and animals. This is the impact on the genes from our toxins and diseases, stressors, traumas, or our ancestors, and glyphosate has been proven to impact multiple generations.

Please let's find a solution to not damage our gorgeous, sacred lake and the entire ecosystem, drinking water etc.

Thank you for your support in disempowering pollution and cancer causing chemicals from being used here or anywhere!

Brooke *********
Tahoe City, CA

To whom it may concern,

I can't even fathom we are having this conversation regarding spraying glyphosate on Tahoe forests.

My father died a horrible, tragic death due to glyphosate spraying exposure. He suffocated to death. His lungs so rigid they could not expand nor contract. I witnessed his death. And I am haunted by it.

Have we learned naught from the countless Roundup lawsuits where Bayer is forced to pay multi, multi million dollar lawsuit payouts?

It is proven glyphosate sickens and kills both ecosystems and people. You think insects and pollinators and wildlife can withstand this forever chemical? What about the water? What about young parents hiking with their toddlers and infant children? Already sick people seeking respite and refuge in the forest.

What are you doing? What are we doing? This is insanity. Glyphosate is designed to kill. That's what it does.

No glyphosate in Tahoe.

Catherine
Sent from my iPhone

Hello TRPA,

I'm writing to urge you to amend your code of ordinances to explicitly prohibit synthetic herbicides to stop the spraying of glyphosate in the Tahoe basin.

This is supposed to be a haven for natural beauty and fresh air and not a place that is saturated with toxins and poisons. It's bad for the plants, the animals, the water, the people, and of course our beautiful lake.

We know there are other options for reviving the forest and even though they take longer, they are worth it. Please don't allow anyone to spray glyphosate in our beautiful Tahoe basin.

Thank you,
Kelly ************
Born and raised in North Lake Tahoe

As a resident I am demanding: Protection of our health, environment and the Lake from glyphosate.

TRPA needs to amend their Code of Ordinances to prohibit synthetic herbicides.

Sincerely,
Cheryle *********
Incline Village, NV