We’ve received the pesticide usage reports for the first ten months of 2017, and we’re concerned. After reducing herbicide usage in the last four years, it’s creeping up again in the natural areas. The Natural Areas (now called the Natural Resources Department) has already used more herbicides (measured by active ingredient) than in all of 2016. It hasn’t reached 2015 levels, but park users hoped for further reduction, not an expansion in herbicide use.
San Francisco’s Department of the Environment runs the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for city-owned properties in San Francisco. It publishes an annual list of permissible pesticides, and classifies them into Tier III (Least Hazardous), Tier II (More Hazardous) and Tier I (Most Hazardous.)
The unnaturally-named Natural Resources division (NRD) of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) used more Tier I herbicides than the rest of SFRPD put together (excluding Harding Golf course, which is managed under a separate PGA contract – but including all the other city-owned golf courses). In fact, in the first ten months of 2017, NRD used 69% of the Roundup and 100% of the Garlon used by SFRPD.
The parks mainly targeted thus far were:
- Twin Peaks (sprayed 32 times);
- Glen Canyon (sprayed 27 times);
- McLaren Park (25 times);
- Bayview Hill (14 times); and
- Laguna Honda (PUC property – 13 times).
Other parks that got sprayed over five times in ten months were Mt Davidson (8 times); Marietta (a PUC property – 8 times); and Lake Merced, also 8 times.
NRD INCREASES USE OF CANCER-CAUSING ROUNDUP
We especially noted that its usage of glyphosate (Roundup/ Aquamaster) has nearly doubled from 2016 (i.e., in ten months, NRD used nearly twice as much glyphosate as in the whole of 2016).
This is particularly worrisome since Roundup probably causes cancer. We wrote about that in these articles: World Health Organization: Roundup “Probably Carcinogenic” and in this report from an EPA scientist before she died reported on problems with pesticide assessments: “It is Essentially Certain that Glyphosate Causes Cancer”
This is the first time since the report came out we’ve seen an increase in its use.
GARLON IS WORSE
The other major Tier I pesticide being used is Garlon 4 Ultra (triclopyr). NRD is the only section of SFRPD that uses this chemical, which has been considered Most Hazardous and HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND ALTERNATIVE at least since 2009. It’s twenty times as harmful to women as to men. (Here’s our quick presentation on the subject: Garlon v. Oxalis in Ten Easy Slides.)
NRD uses this on oxalis, an early spring-flowering plant beloved of children, pollinators, and wildlife – and the general public, who enjoy its bright blooms as a sign of spring. It’s the only use of Garlon by NRD, and if they abandoned the vendetta against these Bermuda buttercups, they would not need to use this awful pesticide.
NEW WAR TARGETING CAPE MARIGOLD
Meanwhile, there’s a new city-wide war on a naturalized species: against arctotheca, or Cape Marigold. It’s another yellow-flowering plant that grows all over our city’s parks, and it’s on the list of 40 species (and counting) that the NRD wants to poison. Here’s a picture from McLaren Park (together with Great Blue Heron that’s probably hunting gophers).
Cape Marigold occurs in both a fertile and an infertile form; both are considered only Moderately invasive by the California Invasive Plant Council – as is oxalis.
Unless NRD changes its approach and objectives to naturalized species of plants – and recognizes the need for inclusiveness in natural areas – there is little likelihood of eliminating pesticides from our parks. Aggressive management will inexorably result in increased herbicide use.
WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF SFRPD?
By contrast, the rest of SFRPD (excluding Harding Golf Course) seems to be on track to reduce usage again from 2016. For which kudos!
[Edited to Add: The graph below was corrected to indicate the last column shows usage only through Oct 2017, not the full year.]
The only department besides Natural Resources to regularly use pesticides is the Golden Gate Nursery. They wish to make sure the nursery stock they supply is pest-free before propagating it. This is less of a concern than NRD for several reasons: It’s not a public space, usage is confined in a small area and not on parks and hillsides where chemicals could spread to other areas.
We are concerned, though, that they are experimenting with several herbicides that were not earlier on SF Environment’s list: Axxe, Suppress, Clearcast and Finale. They are all considered Tier II, according to Dr Chris Geiger of SF Environment’s IPM.
Of these Axxe and Suppress seem to be less harmful. Suppress is considered acceptable for organic farming.
Clearcast is more concerning, as is Finale. You can see the Clearcast Label here: clearcast_Label.pdf 2016
Here’s the Finale Label: finale_msds
Both these pesticides have cautions regarding potential harm from immediate exposure. We will further research them, but more than the specifics, we’re concerned at the direction. Rather than working to eliminate herbicides from our parks, SFRPD seems to be looking for substitutes for Roundup. Thus far, these two chemicals have been used only in Nursery areas – the GGP Nursery, and the nursery at the Botanic Gardens.
SFRPD now has five Integrated Pest Management Specialists (compared to one before). This is good news to the extent that they will be working on mosquito abatement and alternatives to rat poisons. It’s bad news if it encourages SFRPD to open new battle fronts (like the war on Cape Marigold), or increase use of herbicides in the water, rather than changing its approach to eliminate pesticides in our parks. Here’s the note about their activities from an October meeting of SF Environment’s Policy Committee: 102317_attachment_c_-_agency_ipm_updates_for_2017
SF Forest Alliance reiterates our commitment to working toward No Toxic Pesticides in our parks. We recognize that it will be an uphill battle, as all current interests are in continuing pesticide use. Nevertheless, we believe that it is possible and is a worthwhile and environmentally-friendly goal for San Francisco.
You must be logged in to post a comment.