TRPA Public Comment Examples

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

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

No poisonous glyphosate spraying in Tahoe or anywhere!

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

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

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

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

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 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 *******

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

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 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

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

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 ********

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

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

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

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

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.