Thank you for signing!
Stop Toxic Glyphosate Spraying Near Lake Tahoe Wildlife Habitat
Final signature count: 71
71 signatures toward our 30,000 goal
Sponsor: The Rainforest Site
Lake Tahoe’s forests, streams, wetlands, and wildlife should not be treated with glyphosate when safer restoration methods can protect the Basin.
The U.S. Forest Service released its Caldor Fire Restoration Project decision in March 2026 for roughly 11,700 acres of national forest land in and around the Caldor Fire area. The agency says the project is intended to restore meadows and streams, improve wildlife habitat, prepare areas for native seedlings, reduce hazardous fuels, and support post-fire recovery.1
But the decision also includes using approved herbicides to support reforestation.1 That has alarmed residents and local officials who fear chemical treatment could affect Lake Tahoe’s watershed, wildlife habitat, streams, wetlands, and surrounding public lands.
The Guardian, in a story co-published with The New Lede, reported that the Forest Service plan lists glyphosate and four other herbicides and estimates that 2,400 to 3,600 acres may be treated with herbicides to support reforestation.2 SFGATE reported that the proposal has drawn backlash from residents, environmental advocates, and groups demanding more transparency about where chemicals would be applied and how Lake Tahoe’s watershed would be protected.3
Lake Tahoe Deserves The Highest Safeguards
The Forest Service has said herbicides would not be sprayed from the air and that backpack sprayers, buffers, public notification signs, and other measures would be used to reduce risks.2 KUNR reported that the agency said no herbicide use is planned in the Lake Tahoe Basin for 2026 or 2027, but treatments could occur later if manual vegetation removal is not feasible.4
A delay is not enough. Any future use should be suspended until the public receives exact treatment maps, site-specific wildlife review, water-quality safeguards, and a full nonchemical alternatives analysis.
South Tahoe Now reported that the approved plan includes reforestation treatments on 2,400 to 3,600 acres and that herbicides may be considered later under the project decision notice.5 Keep Tahoe Blue says it is requesting greater transparency, including where herbicides would be applied, why they are necessary, what alternatives were considered, and what safeguards would protect Lake Tahoe’s waters, streams, wetlands, and wildlife.6
Nonchemical Restoration Must Come First
Glyphosate remains controversial. The EPA has said its ecological risk assessment found potential effects on birds, mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic plants.7 In a place as sensitive as Lake Tahoe, even proposed “targeted” herbicide use deserves strict scrutiny.
Forest restoration is important after severe wildfire. But restoration should not expose fragile habitat to avoidable chemical risk. The Forest Service should use manual, mechanical, prescribed-fire, native planting, mulching, and other nonchemical strategies first.
Lake Tahoe’s watershed is too rare to gamble with. Its streams, wetlands, pollinators, amphibians, birds, mammals, and native plants need restoration that heals the landscape without adding chemical threats.
Sign now to urge federal and regional officials to stop glyphosate spraying near Lake Tahoe wildlife habitat and require nonchemical restoration methods wherever possible.
