Chemical Spraying Alert

[Guest guest]

The following alert is from EPIC (Environmental Protection

Information Center) regarding the chemical spraying of herbicides to

one of the most beautiful places in Northern California: the Klamath

and Salmon River watersheds (east of Eureka). Letters are urgently

needed by November 30 to get the Forest Service to consider

alternatives to this toxic strategy that will harm people, plants and

animals.

 

EPIC ALERT

 

COMMENTS ARE URGENTLY NEEDED TO STOP TOXIC HERBICIDE SPRAYING ON

THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC LANDS IN THE KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST!!

 

A massive public outcry is needed to stop the Klamath National Forest

from opening the door to herbicide spraying on National Forests in

northern California. The Klamath National Forest has plans to spray

approximately 27,500 acres for at least five years using four

different herbicides. Toxic chemical spraying will target 17 exotic

plants, with emphasis on the Wild and Scenic Salmon and Klamath River

corridors. Comments are needed from the

public by November 30, 2002 on the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)opposing the use of toxic herbicides.

 

 

The chemicals propsed for spraying have documented toxicities that

will threaten the health of the residents, the rivers, the forests,

the fish, and the wildlife. Spraying is proposed to take place as

close as ten feet from streams and rivers, including the Klamath

River, where more than 33,000 adult salmon and steelhead died this

past fall before they could reach their spawning grounds because of

poor water quality and low flows.

 

Local residents and native American basketweavers in the Salmon River

watershed are frustrated that the Klamath National Forest has chosen

to ignore the successful community effort by the Salmon River

Restoration Council to develop a multi-step coordinated approach to

assess, prioritize, and manage invasive plants using non-chemical

methods. Their success should serve as a model for the Klamath

National Forest, which has chosen to ignore their overwhelming

success in controlling noxious weeds.

 

A public outcry is needed demanding that the EIS address the

following:

 

1. The Klamath National Forest should not poison the land, air, and

water of our public lands. Spraying represents an irretrievable and

irreversible commitment of resources because of the toxicity of the

chemicals and their persistence in the environment.

 

2. The KNF should not spray herbicides within ten feet of rivers and

streams as proposed because spraying will poison peoples drinking

water, and degrade other beneficial uses, as well as spawning and

rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead.

 

3. The EIS should fully disclose which chemical products will be used

on each particular plant, including the manufacturer, the inert

ingredients, the proposed surfactant, and the chemical(s) proposed

for controlling each plant at each area on a site specific basis.

 

4. The EIS should include a full cost-benefit analysis of the risks

and costs of spraying. The KNF should determine through the EIS

whether eradication or control is feasible or practical, and the

methods that would be most effective in achieving control or

eradication.

 

5. A non-chemical alternative to control exotic plants based on the

work by the Salmon River Restoration Council should be fully

developed and analyzed.

 

 

Please send comments by November 30, 2002 to Margaret Boland, Klamath

National Forest, ATTN: Anne Yost, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 1312

Fairlane Road, Yreka, California 96097. A sample letter is provided

below.

 

Margaret Boland, Forest Supervisor

Klamath National Forest,

1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, California 96097

ATTN: Anne Yost, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

 

Dear Ms. Boland:

 

The Klamath National Forest has proposed spraying of four toxic

herbicides to control " noxious and invasive " plants on 27,000 acres

of the Klamath National Forest (KNF) for at least five years, and is

requesting scoping comments on the Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). Please consider the following comments in the development of

the EIS.

 

The KNF should not spray toxic herbicides that will poison the air,

land, and water. Herbicides and biological controls may cause an

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources due to their

toxicity and persistence in the environment. Spraying toxic

herbicides will also cause significant adverse cumulative impacts on

the Salmon and Klamath River watersheds, including but not limited to

the plants, mushrooms, wildlife, fish, birds, and the people that

live and recreate there. The EIS should fully disclose the potential

impacts to all non-target flora and fauna present within and around

the areas proposed for treatment, including listed, threatened,

candidate, survey and manage, and management indicator species.

 

The KNF should not spray herbicides within ten feet of water as

proposed because waters of the Klamath National Forest provide

drinking water, and other beneficial uses, as well as spawning and

rearing habitat for federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and

California Endangered Species Act CESA) listed and candidate salmon

and steelhead, which are also important to traditional Native

Americans and other forest users. The impacts of herbicide spraying

to beneficial water quality uses, cultural uses, and tribal trust

resources of the forest should be carefully considered and addressed

as part of the EIS.

 

Because noxious weeds are often concentrated around recreational high

use areas, spraying toxic substances where people (including infants)

recreate and gather plants for food and medicine will pose a serious

health hazard to the public. The impacts to human health for all ages

and both sexes should be fully analyzed for each product, not just

the chemical.

 

Because these health risks are significant, the EIS should include

and fully analyze an alternative that utilizes only physical and

cultural control without the use of herbicides. Please fully develop

in the EIS and adopt analternative modeled on the Salmon River

Restoration Council's Cooperative Noxious Weed Program (CNWP). Over

the past five years, this program has achieved great progress toward

eradication of spotted knapweed within the Salmon River watershed,

which is over 90% national forest lands.

 

Eradication has been accomplished without the use of toxic herbicides

and with strong emphasis on community involvement and forest user

education, which is more likely to be successful in the long term.

 

The scoping notice provided minimal information about the formulation

and product proposed for use for each target species. The EIS should

fully disclose which chemical products will be used on each

particular plant, including the manufacturer, the inert ingredients,

the proposed surfactant, and the chemical(s) proposed for controlling

each plant at each area on a site specific basis, and should address

the potential for application of multiple chemicals at one site over

time if more than one target species is present.

 

The EIS must determine whether the control of a target species is

possible. The EIS should fully document the justification for each

chemical proposed at any given site. The KNF should determine through

the EIS whethereradication or control is feasible or practical, and

the methods that would be most effective in achieving control or

eradication. Non-native weeds have been introduced and spread on the

KNF as a result of cattle grazing, recreation, firefighting, logging,

mining, road construction, reconstruction and maintenance, as well as

many other uses. The EIS should fully analyze the likelihood of

control through herbicides while these other activities continue

unabated. Given the high mobility of our population and the level of

uses of the KNF, it appears unlikely that control and eradication of

the 17 target species is feasible at this time unless source

populations on private lands are addressed, and activities

that spread noxious weeds are more closely monitored and managed.

 

The health, ecological, cultural and environmental risks and impacts

should be evaluated within the EIS against the dubious benefits of

spraying toxic chemicals that may not control or eradicate the target

species, yet will persist in the environment in the future. The EIS

should include a full cost-benefit analysis of the risks and costs of

spraying, including but not limited to costs in terms of health,

ecological, aquatic, and biodiversity risks in terms of impacts on

non-target species, and retarded recovery of the environment due to

chemical persistence that may in fact favor re-establishment of

nondesirable species.

 

Thank you for carefully considering these comments in preparation of

the EIS and in making your decision.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

_______________________

Your signature

 

 

Subscribe to EPIC ALERT:

http://www.wildcalifornia.org/outreach/list.html

List-Help: //epic_alert-request (AT) envirolink (DOT) org?subject=help

 

Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)

P.O. Box 397, Garberville, CA 95542

(707) 923-2931, Fax 923-4210

http://www.wildcalifornia.org