In a landmark case brought by EPIC and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs), San Francisco Superior Court Judge David Garcia ruled that the California Department of Forestry (CDF) must evaluate the potential effects of herbicides in the agency's "Vegetation Management Program" (VMP). The January 4th, 2002 ruling prevents the program from taking effect until CDF prepares an adequate Environmental Impact Report, and for the first time forces a close look at the use of herbicides for an activity administered by CDF.

The VMP is used in relation to fire abatement, and in 1999 CDF sought to expand the program to include non-federal land throughout California. This expansion would make 9.58 million acres available for "treatment" and would involve clearing up to 50,000 acres every year. Lands to be cleared under the VMP would include forestlands owned by industrial logging companies, and state taxpayers would shoulder 90% of the costs.

EPIC supports sound fire management policies to reduce the threats of fires, but CDF's program involves extensive use of herbicides and other practices that harm native species and water quality. Nearly every acre that was "treated" under CDF's program in the past was doused with herbicides. Clearing and spraying 50,000 acres every year threatens to eliminate rare plant populations, spread noxious weeds, cause erosion, and otherwise impact the environment. Despite these clear impacts, CDF continued its long-standing tradition and adamantly refused to assess or mitigate these adverse effects.

When EPIC and CATs expressed concern with the use of herbicides in public comments, CDF responded by simply striking every mention of herbicide spraying in its Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Court found this approach unacceptable, stating:

"In certifying the final EIR and approving the VMP, the respondent CDF 'redlined' the references to chemical controls and herbicides which had been set forth in the Draft EIR. By doing so, Respondent CDF argues that it eliminated the use of herbicides from the VMP. The Court finds that the redlining may have stricken the discussion of herbicides, but it did not eliminate the use of herbicides."

The Court found that herbicide spraying is an "integral part" of the VMP and "a reasonably foreseeable future activity." Hence, the court concluded, CDF "had an obligation to evaluate and disclose the potential for significant environmental effects from the use of herbicides."

Moreover, the Court ruled that "CDF also failed to adequately evaluate the other significant adverse effects of the VMP, including impacts upon special status and other plant populations, non-perennial tributaries, vegetation conversion and the spread of noxious weeds, effects on soils and erosion from prescribed fire, and impacts upon wildlife and fisheries."

Though opponents of widespread herbicide use are understandably satisfied with the recent ruling, the battle is far from over. Industrial logging corporations spray herbicides on more than 20,000 acres of forestlands on the North Coast alone, yet CDF consistently ignores the obvious implications of these toxic chemicals in approving logging operations. EPIC plans to continue working with CATs to stop herbicide spraying in our forests and looks forward to collaborating with other organizations statewide, including the California Indian Basket Weavers Association and the California Native Plant Society.