Forestry Herbicide Struggles around the globe

Forestry Herbicide Struggles around the globe

Postby adminjt » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:11 pm ... ites-game/

UCSF “Community Input”: The Opposites Game
Posted on July 28, 2010 by webmaster

We’ve been concerned that the only community input UCSF has been accepting is from the Mount Sutro Stewards and their supporters.

Grade school kids sometimes play an infuriating game called Opposites: They do the opposite of what you ask. If someone says “Can I share your candy?” they swallow it all. If Mom says “Can you clean your room?” they dump their drawer on the floor.

Consolidated effects

We’re beginning to feel we’re involved in such a game, particularly with respect to issues that concern the Forest Knolls neighborhood. Examples:

1. PROBLEM: The South Ridge Demonstration Area
The demonstration project (only one) as initially proposed was slated to be 2 acres on South Ridge. The area is just above Forest Knolls. At the time, we objected to the use of South Ridge as a demonstration area, for the following reasons:

1. As a long thin strip along the whole of the South Ridge, it could impact a much wider area than just the two acres with an added risk of windthrow for trees below it (i.e. trees being knocked down by the wind). This is a windy area of the mountain, and tree removal would thin the windbreak we have there now.

2. The planned “thinning” and gutting of the understory would inevitably affect the integrity of the forest, which is a functional cloud forest, by drying it out.

3. This would impact wildlife in the forest (and could result in vermin invasions into homes and gardens).

4. Visually, it would be evident both from inside and outside the forest.

5. Inevitably, herbicides used on high ground above the Forest Knolls would wash down the hillside into our community.

* RESPONSE: Expand the South Ridge Demonstration Area by 50%. We would have thought they would consider other areas not so likely to impact a community. Instead, they EXPANDED the South Ridge demonstration area from 2 acres to 3 acres. (They also added, not substituted, three other areas.)

2. PROBLEM: Thinning and gaps in the tree screen between Forest Knolls and the Aldea campus. This was caused mainly by the SF PUC water project: the building of a new pump station, the removal of the old one, and the cutting of the Gash through the forest where the pipeline runs down from the water tank on UCSF land. This considerably changes the environment for neighbors along Christopher Drive, and for anyone walking there. It’s also increased wind velocities in the neighborhood.

* RESPONSE: Drive a new trail through it. So what was UCSF’s response? Not to plan on planting more trees and revegetating the Gash. Instead, they’re planning to drive a new, wholly unnecessary trail through a screen that’s quite inadequate already.

3. PROBLEM: Herbicide use – Roundup and the more toxic Garlon.
There’s been increasing evidence that these pesticides are more toxic to people and the environment than the corporate research shows. Most neighbors object to pesticide use in the forest.

* RESPONSE: Determine that Herbicides are essential. UCSF actually responded very positively earlier; no pesticides have been used in the forest since 2008, and in the Aldea campus since late 2009. But now? They have determined that herbicide use is essential to the Plan.


So what community input did UCSF accept in modifying the Plan?

As far as we can gauge, only two:

1. From the Stewards – instead of doing one demonstration area of 2.5 acres, they will simultaneously start three, totaling 7 acres.

2. From the Stewards – the addition of a new half-acre demonstration area, with View Corridors.

They’ve also extended the post-demonstration area of interference with the forest from 32 acres in the 2001 Plan to 47.5 acres now. We have no idea whose idea that was because it wasn’t discussed at any of the six meetings.
Site Admin
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Alma councillor fights aerial forest spraying

Postby adminjt » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:15 pm

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 6:05 PM

CBC News
Alma councillor fights aerial forest spraying
A councillor in Alma is trying to stop the J.D. Irving forest company from launching an aerial spraying program in that southeastern New Brunswick village.
The company wants to spray tree plantations in the region between Alma and Riverside-Albert between Aug. 11 and Sept. 30.
Coun. Fred Hall said the forestry company has told him the spraying program will be safe but he is still worried about the affect of the herbicide, known as glyphosate, on residents in his area.
"It certainly will have an impact on the health of people in the area if this is allowed to go through," Hall said.
Hall said he's launching a campaign to have the herbicide banned from the region.
Mark Bolden, a Department of Environment official, said the provincial government has set up guidelines on where and when glyphosate can be used.
Bolden said the environment department trusts the approval given by Health Canada to pesticides and stressed that glyphosate has been used for years.
Tests easy to pass
Inka Milewski, a science advisor with the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, said the federal government's tests for herbicides are too easy to pass.
"The requirements they have for testing and approving these pesticides is really not that rigorous," Milewski said.
She said the companies often add ingredients to glyphosate, which are not tested by Health Canada.
Milewski said other tests have shown that combining glyphosate with extra ingredients can have long-term effects on the immune system.
She said they can hurt fetuses and small children. The environmental group's science advisor also said glyphosate is the most widely used defoliant in the province.

Read more: ... z0uxxsbnTq
Site Admin
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Herbicide spray raises concerns in Shirley area

Postby adminjt » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:11 pm

Herbicide spray raises concerns in Shirley area

Residents worry about glyphosate washing into salmon streams

Read more: ... z15grZKrM7

A controversial herbicide is being sprayed along logging roads near Shirley and residents fear it could wash into nearby salmon-bearing streams -- especially since the area has been heavily logged.

However, TimberWest, which owns the land known as Blueberry Flats, said glyphosate -- the chemical used in herbicides such as Roundup -- has been spray-ed only in narrow bands along roadways and is at least 300 metres from Muir Creek and Kirby Creek.

"It is well beyond the 10 metres required by the Ministry of Environment," said TimberWest spokeswoman Sue Handel.

The area is not open to the public, but warning signs were posted nearby because TimberWest is aware the area is used by the public, Handel said.

The herbicide is being sprayed by certified herbicide applicators, in diluted quantities, Handel said, adding spraying is necessary to keep invasive plants such as gorse from making roads inaccessible to fire protection vehicles.

Shirley resident Rani Brown said she was shocked to see signs warning that the area is being sprayed with glyphosate between July 7 and July 30.

"We all swim in that area," said Brown who hikes in with her seven-year-old son, his friends and her dog. "It's a concern, but I'm more concerned about the salmon."

Alanda Carver, president of the Muir Creek Protection Society, said the former tree farm licence land has been logged under less stringent private managed forest land rules for the last decade.

"There are now large clearcut areas and nothing to stop the runoff if there's any moisture at all," she said.

There are water consumption licences on local creeks, said Carver, who worries about what the chemical will do to drinking water quality.

"Also, steelhead spawn there in the spring and the fish are there in summer," Carver said.

Michael Bergh of Shirley, who researched glyphosate after seeing the sign, said he, too, is worried about runoff from rainfall washing down into the salmon spawning creeks and out to sea. "Glyphosate should be banned altogether, but spraying it here is especially bad."

Glyphosate is one of the most common chemicals used in herbicides, but directions say it should not be used around waterways as it can be toxic to aquatic organisms.

The Environment Ministry requires a licence for pesticide use on private forest lands. Rules say pesticides must not be applied within 10 metres of bodies of water and, under re-quired integrated pest management programs, alternatives must be considered prior to applying pesticides.

Glyphosate, which is commonly used in forestry operations after young trees are planted, may be applied up to two metres from non-fish bearing water, provided selective application techniques are used.

In municipalities such as Victoria, Saanich and Esqui-malt, which have bans on the use of cosmetic chemical pesticides, glyphosate is on the prohibited list.

Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, has said that in normal use, there's low likelihood that glyphosate concentrations in water would be high enough to harm aquatic life. Glyphosate binds to soil and signficant amounts are unlikely to end up in runoff, say docments posted on the Monsanto website.

Although some studies find low glyphosate toxicity to humans, others link the chemical to health risks.

Gordon O'Connor of the Victoria-based environmental group Dogwood Initiative said there is a wealth of evidence linking glyphosate to serious health problems.

"The glyphosate being applied by TimberWest will run off into the same watershed that supplies drinking water to many houses in Shirley and very few residents have even been made aware of its use," he said.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

Read more: ... z15grAZnom
Site Admin
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Nova Scotia Slows Clear Cuts and Herbicide spraying

Postby adminjt » Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:16 pm

CPAWS welcomes Nova Scotia move to reduce clearcutting by 50%
Posted: 01 Dec 2010 01:31 PM PST
HALIFAX – The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) welcomes today’s announcement by the Nova Scotia government that it plans to reduce the allowable amount of clearcutting in Nova Scotia by 50% within 5 years.

“The forests are breathing a little easier today”, says Chris Miller, a senior conservation biologist with CPAWS. “This is an intelligent decision by the Nova Scotia government”.

"The commitment to reduce clearcutting by 50% in 5 years is hugely significant for Canada. With 85% of forestry still conducted by clearcutting, this is a welcome move towards more sustainable practices,” says Éric Hébert-Daly, CPAWS National Executive Director.

A report by Global Forest Watch Canada released last week showed that less than 20% of Nova Scotia’s forests remains intact, one of the lowest percentages of any province in Canada. To be considered “intact”, a forest area must be greater than 500 hectares in size.

“Today’s announcement signals that Nova Scotia is prepared to turn the page on bad forest policy and transition towards more sustainable forest practices," adds Miller.

Over a half-million hectares of forest have been clearcut in Nova Scotia since the 1990’s. The highest rates of disturbance have been in Central Nova Scotia, where 27% of Colchester County and 20% of Pictou County have been cut down over that time period.

The rampant clearcutting that’s occurred in Nova Scotia has caused a shift in the age of its forests to younger and younger stands. Public outrage over recent biomass harvests has galvanized opposition to unsustainable forest practices.

“We can’t keep clearcutting our forests and expect to have a healthy forest industry in the future. The steps that the government is taking today will help ensure we have healthier forests tomorrow, and more opportunities to produce value-added forest products in the future,” says Miller.

Other strategic policy directions announced by the Nova Scotia government today include a ban on whole-tree harvesting and banning public funds for herbicide applications for forestry.

In the coming weeks and months, CPAWS will be closely monitoring the government plans for achieving its clearcutting target reductionsg. CPAWS is calling on the province to:
 Develop an independent and arm’s length system for tracking progress on reducing clearcuts
 Provide annual progress reports that are publicly available
 Enshrine the new clearcutting targets in law by adding them to the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act.
Clearcut photos are available.

For more information, contact:
Chris Miller, Ph.D.
National Manager
Wilderness Conservation and Climate Change
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
(902) 446-4155
Site Admin
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Forestry Herbicide Struggles around the globe

Postby adminjt » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:32 pm

Eye on Green Diamond Week 8: Raining Herbicides in the Coastal Redwoods
By Kerul Dyer
Friday, May 14th, 2010

Atrazine applied on clearcut near Korbell. Photo by Jen Kalt

Atrazine applied on clearcut near Korbell. Photo by Jen Kalt.

Many of us are aware of the dangers of herbicides and pesticides in our food and water. But can we trust Green Diamond to take precautionary measures when it comes to our health and the health of the fish, amphibians, and birds?

Green Diamond claims that these pesticides and herbicides are relatively harmless. With a little research, however, EPIC staff questions these conclusions. As one step in their controversial plantation forestry model, Green Diamond plans to use Triclopyr in combination with 2,4-D, Imazapyr, and Oust in 2010 in many sites along the Klamath River. In addition to these chemicals, they commonly use Atrazine.

To view a map of 12 sites Green Diamond plans to spray this year along the Klamath River within Yurok Reservation boundaries, click here.

Green Diamond lists many reasons to apply herbicides after logging, but often they cite the need to protect tree seedlings from competitive, faster growing shrubs, grasses and trees. To illustrate, one need only look to CalFire’s website and find the list of Timber Harvest Plans for the Northcoast region. In the lengthy section on Chemical Contaminants, found in subsection a 2d. under Section 4: is a section titled Cumulative Impacts of Timber Harvest Plans. In this section, they disclose a wide variety of chemical herbicides they may choose to use post-harvest. Application of chemical herbicides and pesticides are regulated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Northcoast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB).

But Green Diamond is not held accountable for conducting any investigation into the harm that these chemicals cause.

The legal standards that regulate the use of these chemicals cannot be relied upon for upholding ecosystem or human health. The standards are often established through the use of flawed, industry tested datasets and then formulated into standards, and codified by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA regulations are unreliable by their own standards, as indicated by this quote on their website:

“Note! There are significant gaps in U.S. EPA’s current pesticide product data. Errors in the raw data include close to 13,000 missing product records, over 40,000 secondary products with no primary product record, missing formula data and other errors. US EPA is aware of this and working on fixing the problems.” ( )


2,4-D is the common brand name for Frontline manufactured by Dow. 2,4-D is listed by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) as a PAN bad actor chemical, these are one or more of the following: highly acutely toxic, cholinesterase inhibitor, known/probable carcinogen, known groundwater pollutant or known reproductive or developmental toxicant. ( ). In laboratory animals, human cells, and exposed people 2,4-D causes genetic damage. 2,4-D affects hormones in exposed people. It is classified as a possible carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Studies of exposed farmers support this classification. 2,4-D exposure is associated with low sperm counts and damaged sperm and male sex organs. More EPA studies and reports available from Even moderate exposure of 2,4-D severely impairs reproduction of honeybees and it has been found to be toxic to birds.

Triclopyr, whose common brand names are Garlon3A and Garlon 4, are manufactured by Dow AgroSciences. They are corrosive to eyes and can cause allergic skin reactions. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In laboratory tests, tricolopyr caused an increase in the incidence of breast cancer as well as an increase in a type of genetic damage called dominant lethal mutations. It is damaging to kidneys and causes a variety of reproductive problems. For example, in laboratory tests, it accumulates in fetal brains when pregnant animals are exposed. Tricolopyr is highly toxic to fish and inhibits behaviors in frogs that help them avoid predators. Feeding triclopyr to birds decreases the survival of their nestlings. Triclopyr is mobile in soil and has contaminated wells, streams, and rivers.

Oust is manufactured by DuPont. Its chemical name is sulfometuron methyl. This herbicide causes eye discomfort, tearing, and blurred vision. In laboratory tests, it caused anemia, atrophied testicles and testicular lesions, and increased the incidence of fetal loss. This product causes DNA damage in the colon of laboratory animals. Because of limited monitoring, little is known about how often sulfometuron methyl contaminates rivers and streams. Enough sulfometuron methyl to kill desirable vegetation can persist in soil for a year or more after application. Minute amounts can disrupt plant reproduction. ( .)

Imazapyr called by either Chopper or Arsenal and manufactured by BASF Corporation is another chemical listed by PAN as a bad actor chemical. Imazapyr is corrosive to eyes causing irreversible damage. Adverse effects found in laboratory animals after chronic exposure to imazapyr include: fluid accumulation in the lungs of female mice, kidney cysts in male mice, abnormal blood formation in the spleen of female rats, an increase in the number of brain and thyroid cancers in male rats, and an increase in the number of tumors and cancers of the adrenal gland in female rats. Imazapyr moves readily in soil and can persistent in the soil for over a year. Persistence studies also suggest that imazapyr residues damage plants at concentrations that are not detectable by laboratory analysis thus having the potential to seriously impact rare plant species. Meanwhile over a half-dozen weedy plant species have developed resistance to this herbicide.

And in addition there are the hazards of “inert” ingredients in these pesticides. This particular example shows the inert ingredients associated with 2,4-D but some or all are in all of the chemicals Green Diamond uses. Inert ingredients are neither identified on pesticide labels nor included in most of the health and safety testing required to register. ... ment-24597
Site Admin
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Forestry Herbicide Struggles in Washington

Postby adminjt » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:36 pm

Group hopes to change forest rules
Recent clearings prompt founding of Log Smarter
Becky Kramer
The Spokesman-Review

Tags: Bob Hosking Brian Kernohan Ferry County Forest Capital Partners Log Smarter Mike Slater stevens county timberland Washington Forest Practices rules

On the Web: For more information, go to or .

Northeast Washington’s arid forests aren’t suited to large clear-cuts or aerial spraying of herbicides, says a citizens group that wants to change the state’s forest practices rules.

The group, which calls itself Log Smarter, formed after Port-land-based Forest Capital Partners bought 265,000 acres in Stevens, Ferry and Pend Oreille counties. Over the past five years, bare spots have appeared on hillsides as the company cleared stands of trees and killed underbrush with herbicides.

Forest Capital officials say they’re addressing diseased stands and other problems through intensive management. But critics say the resulting landscape looks like a strip mine. The spraying takes out huckleberries and other brush that supports moose, deer and songbird populations.

“We have a sense of urgency; it’s happening so fast,” said Mike Slater, a Stevens County resident and Log Smarter co-chairman. “At the rate they’re spraying and clear-cutting, it will be too late to do anything in a few years.”

Forest practice rules allow clear-cuts of up to 240 acres and herbicide application on private land. Slater said the Forest Practices Board should examine whether the logging methods – more common in wetter, coastal regions – are appropriate for the dry, slow-growing forests east of the Cascades.

The group is gathering signatures for a petition that it plans to present to the Forest Practices Board at its May 11 meeting in Olympia.

Brian Kernohan, Forest Capital’s policy director, said critics are losing sight of scale. As part of its timber harvest, the company clear-cuts about 2 percent of its Northeast Washington acreage each year and sprays 1.5 percent.

The practices will reinvigorate forestlands the company purchased from Boise Cascade in 2005, Kernohan said. Boise Cascade had moved away from clear-cutting. As a result, many tree stands were plagued by disease and dominated by low-value white fir, he said. As Forest Capital replants its cutover lands, herbicides help new tree seedlings by removing competing brush, he said.

“In 50 years, we’ll have a much healthier forest,” Kernohan said. “We’re analyzing the stand today, looking at how we can create a healthy, viable, valuable forest for the future.”

But Kernohan said Forest Capital would support a scientific review of Washington’s forest practice rules. “We’re not opposed to adaptive management,” he said.

The rules strive to balance profits and environmental protections, said Marc Engel, an assistant division manager at the state Department of Natural Resources.

“While providing for a viable timber industry, we want to make sure that we’re protecting public resources” – such as soil productivity and water quality, Engel said.

The rules are uniform throughout most of the state, though the size of stream buffers varies by region.

Changing the rules can’t be done on a whim, Engel added. The rules must be altered by a court order, an act of the state Legislature or through adaptive management, which is a science-based review of the regulations.

Log Smarter hopes to gather 600 signatures from local residents to present at the May meeting. Bob Hosking, a retired forester, is among those who signed the petition. His family owns 21 acres of recreation property adjacent to Forest Capital land in Ferry County.

“It’s an area we’ve hunted for 30 years,” Hosking said. “One day, my son came home and said ‘Dad, it looks like someone dropped an atom bomb up there.’ ”

The deer were gone, Hosking said. So were the trees and the underbrush.

Hosking worked for the Forest Service and later consulted for private landowners in Eastern Washington. He said he didn’t prescribe clear-cuts because the sites are too dry.

“Eighteen inches is the average annual precipitation for Republic,” he said. “The seedlings don’t get the roots down quick enough to get the moisture, especially when you strip the shade off.”

But the spraying concerns him even more than the clear-cuts, Hosking said.

“The herbicides kill everything to clear dirt. If there’s any ponderosa pine kicking around, it will kill them, too,” he said.

Forest Capital’s Kernohan said many sites are too brushy to regenerate trees without killing the underbrush. In 20 years, those bare spots will be vibrant stands of trees, he said.

“They proclaim it’s a community dependent on its forest resources,” he said of critics. “We’re creating a working forest that will add value to the future economy.” ... t-friendly
Site Admin
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Return to Boreal Forest

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest