Natural Areas Program’s Pesticides: Toxic and Toxic-er

It’s no surprise that people are beginning to associate San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program with pesticides. It’s been using them (if the city’s records are accurate) at an increasing rate.

  • In 2009, it applied Garlon 16 times; in 2010, it was 36 times.
  • It applied Roundup (or Aquamaster, also glyphosate) only 7 times in 2009, but 42 times in 2010.
  • [Edited to Add, January 2013: Usage continues to increase. In 2012,pesticide use was the highest by any measure.]

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the SF Natural Areas Program is rather coy about pesticides. It doesn’t say how much it’ll use, just that it will follow all the rules when using them. (They actually have a poor track record there, but we’ll go into that in another post. [Edited to Add: We did.]) Today, we want to talk about the pesticides on their list: Roundup or Aquamaster (glyphosate); Garlon (triclopyr); Polaris (imazapyr); Milestone (aminopyralid).

SF’s Dept of the Environment classifies all of these as Tier I (Most Hazardous) or Tier II (Hazardous). There’s no mention of using any Tier III (Least Hazardous) chemicals.


We’ve talked before of Roundup, a Tier II pesticide. We hope that in view of the new research that has been surfacing, SF’s DoE will revisit that classification and consider if it deserves a Tier I rating.

  • heart breaking

    It’s been associated with birth-defects, especially around the head, brain and neural tube — defects like microcephaly (tiny head); microphthalmia (tiny undeveloped eyes); impairment of hindbrain development; cyclopia (also called cyclocephaly – a single eye in the middle of the forehead). [Edited to Add (Jan 2013): SF DOE reviewed the new research and decided that since the research was in vitro (mostly on cells in a lab) rather than in vivo (on actual animals), and it used high doses, it was unconvincing. Given the costs of live trials, it may be a while before we see any that are not sponsored or paid for by interested parties. However, the EPA is studying whether it’s an endocrine disrupter.]

  • [Edited to Add (April 2015): The World Health Organization has determined glyphosate to be “probably carcinogenic” to humans, specifically associating it with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer originating in the lymph nodes.]
  • Research indicates it kills beneficial soil fungi while allowing dangerous ones to grow.
  • It binds to the soil, and acts as a “chelating agent” – trapping elements like magnesium that plants need to grow and thus impoverishing the soil.
  • It’s very dangerous to frogs and other amphibians, and quite dangerous to fish.

GARLON (Triclopyr)

Classified as Tier I, Garlon is even more hazardous than Roundup. In 2010, NAP used this pesticide 36 times (sometimes in combination with Roundup, which it has said it will no longer do). We’ve written about Garlon before, Garlon in our Watershed — which has more details — and many times since then.  In brief, these are the main issues:

  • Garlon “causes severe birth defects in rats at relatively low levels of exposure.” Baby rats were born with brains outside their skulls, or no eyelids. Exposed adult females rats also had more failed pregnancies.
  • Rat and dog studies showed damage to the kidneys, the liver, and the blood.
  • About 1-2% of Garlon falling on human skin is absorbed within a day. For rodents, its absorbed twelve times as fast. It’s unclear what happens to predators such as hawks that eat the affected rodents.
  • Dogs  may be particularly vulnerable; their kidneys may not be able to handle Garlon as well as rats or humans.  Dow Chemical objected when the Environmental Protection agency noted decreased red-dye excretion as an adverse effect, so now it’s just listed as an “effect.”
  • It very probably alters soil biology. “Garlon 4 can inhibit growth in the mycorrhizal fungi…” ( soil funguses that help plant nutrition.)
  • It’s particularly dangerous to aquatic creatures: fish (particularly salmon); invertebrates; and aquatic plants.
  • Garlon can persist in dead vegetation for up to two years.

The DEIR has said that the SF NAP’s phasing out Garlon. We have some doubts; its tree-felling program will be futile without Garlon to prevent re-sprouts.


This is a very new pesticide, and not much is known about it — except that it’s very persistent. SF’s DoE has recently approved it for use as a Tier II hazard. It not only doesn’t degrade, some plants excrete it through their roots so it travels through the environment. We’ve written about this one, too, when NAP recently started using it on Twin Peaks and Glen Canyon. (Actually, NAP had started using it prior to SF DoE’s approval , in Stern Grove and also at Lake Merced in 2009 and some unspecified NAP area in 2008.)

About its impact on people, we wrote: “it can cause irreversible damage to the eyes, and irritate the skin and mucosa. As early as 1996, the Journal of Pesticide Reform noted that a major breakdown product  is quinolic acid, which is “irritating to eyes, the respiratory system and skin. It is also a neurotoxin, causing nerve lesions and symptoms similar to Huntington’s disease.”

It’s prohibited in the European Union countries, since 2002; and in Norway since December 2001.

MILESTONE (Aminopyralid)

Milestone is a Dow product that kills broadleaf plants while ignoring most grasses. While the DEIR lists this as a chemical used by the NAP, they actually used Milestone very little (twice in 2010). Fortunately. SF DoE classifies it as Tier I, Most Hazardous.

[Edited to Add, March 2013: SF DoE changed the classification to Tier II. And NAP is using it much more frequently – see our article on NAP pesticide usage from 2008-2012 ]

This is even more problematically persistent than Imazapyr; a computer search yielded warnings of poisoned compost.


It seems that this chemical is so persistent that if it’s sprayed on plants, and animals eat those plants, it still doesn’t break down. They excrete the stuff in their droppings. If those are composted — it still doesn’t break down the chemical. So now the compost’s got weedkiller in it, and it doesn’t nourish the plants fertilized with the compost, it kills them.

The manufacturer sees this as  a benefit. “Because of its residual activity, control can last all season long, or into the season after application on certain weed species,” says the Dow AgroSciences FAQ sheet.

Nevertheless, after an outcry and problems, Dow AgroSciences has stopped selling Milestone in the UK until it’s figured out. [Edited to Add, July 2012: It’s also prohibited for use in New York.] [Edited to Add, March 2013: The UK has permitted its sale again. New York hasn’t.]

Note to NAP and SFRPD: Don’t put clippings treated with Milestone in the green bin!


When we first started researching pesticide use in “Natural Areas” (and shocking a lot of people who’d assumed “Natural” meant natural), conspiracy theories arose: The chemicals companies were subverting the decision-makers; Pesticides were being portrayed as ecological, and the marketing machine was convincing them; Maybe there were even payoffs!

We think the explanation is much simpler: Those in charge of the Natural Areas are being asked to do the impossible. They’re given a large area, (ETA: it’s as big as Golden Gate Park but in 32 separate locations) in the middle of a city where conditions don’t even approximate those of the pre-industrial era, and asked to return it to a specific moment in time.

It doesn’t want to go.


Someone described the effort to “restore” the “Natural Areas” to “Native plants” as a constant battle. It is, and here’s why:

  • Stopping natural succession. Some areas are harder than others. Grasslands want to grow shrubs, native or not. Then, in pre-industrial San Francisco, along would come grazing browsing animals, or lightning strikes, or a landslide or two, and the shrubs would lose and the grass would win. Preserving grasslands requires killing the shrubs, and in the absence of animals and fires and landslides, it’s pesticides. Repeatedly.
  • Battling successful plants. And then there are the plants that do want to grow there, that grow there naturally (even if, like many San Franciscans, they’re not from here). These we call invasive, and want to get rid of them. That’s more pesticides. And since the plants are good at what they do, they have to be strong pesticides. Repeatedly.
  • “Invaders” compete with each other. Even if the pesticides clear an area of one kind of “invasive” plant, unless the space is intensively gardened, it’ll be taken over by other “invaders.” More pesticides.

The bison in the room (it’s native, unlike the elephant) is this: Contrary to the belief that Native Plants are so adapted to a particular place that “restorations” can be achieved merely by eradicating unwanted plants — Native Plant gardens need the same kind of maintenance and care as any garden.

Without the Sutro Stewards’ volunteers working there every month or so, the Native Garden on top of Mount Sutro would revert to its natural state: a mix of native and introduced plants. (No pesticides are used in that area, or indeed anywhere on UCSF’s Mount Sutro space. It may be the last pesticide-free wild area in San Francisco.)

Is the Natural Areas Program, as it’s currently managed, worth it? We think not, because of:

  • the ongoing and growing need for toxic herbicides;
  • the destruction of habitat for insects, birds and animals that rely on it (and this includes native species, most of which have adapted to introduced plants);
  • we think it’s an expensive misdirected effort in terms of time and treasure.

It makes sense to define small areas as Native Gardens, focus on those, and make them succeed. That can be done — as the Native Garden on Mount Sutro proves — without toxic chemicals.

This entry was posted in Environment, Herbicides, Herbicides: Roundup, Garlon, Mount Sutro Stewards, nativism, Natural areas Program and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Natural Areas Program’s Pesticides: Toxic and Toxic-er

  1. milliontrees says:

    As usual, SaveSutro puts a finger on the heart of the problem, or as it’s put so eloquently, “The bison in the room.” The Natural Areas Program is too big to be successful. It doesn’t have the resources to garden over 1,000 acres intensively, as required for success. It is forced to use herbicides to compensate for the fact that it has ambitiously expanded its empire beyond its reach. And even after using a lot of toxic herbicides – more toxic than those used by other city agencies—it has little to show for it. And now, its supporters are demanding another aggressive expansion of active restoration efforts into even more areas.

    The green roof on the California Academy of Science is a case in point. It tests the theory of the Natural Areas Program that it just needs a bigger staff to be successful. Only native plants were planted on the roof. The roof is very small, compared to the so-called “natural areas.” It was intensively gardened: constantly weeded, replanted, irrigated constantly. After several years of this intense effort, it is now dominated by non-native plants. That story is told here: And in a subsequent dialogue with a native plant advocate, more details are provided here:

  2. Pingback: San Francisco Natural Area’s Pesticide Violations | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  3. Pingback: San Francisco’s Natural Areas: The Many Mistakes in the Draft EIR | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  4. Pingback: Natural Areas Program violates San Francisco’s pesticide policy « Death of a Million Trees

  5. Pingback: SNRAMP, Pesticides, and Mt Davidson | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  6. Pingback: ‘Tis the Season… for Poisons on Twin Peaks | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  7. Pingback: The Season for Pesticides on “Natural” Areas « San Francisco Forest Alliance

  8. Pingback: Happy New Year, with Pyrotechnics and Pesticides | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  9. Pingback: San Francisco Natural Areas and Escalating Pesticide Use | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  10. Pingback: Three Poisons on Mt Davidson: Garlon, Aquamaster, Milestone « San Francisco Forest Alliance

  11. Pingback: Escalating pesticide use by the unnatural Natural Areas Program « Death of a Million Trees

  12. Pingback: “Milestone” Pesticide in Glen Canyon (and Why New York Prohibits It) « San Francisco Forest Alliance

  13. Pingback: The Natural Areas Program and Pesticides: Volumes and Numbers « San Francisco Forest Alliance

  14. Pingback: Measuring Pesticide Use by San Francisco’s Natural Areas Program | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  15. Pingback: SF’s Natural Areas Program Uses Even More Pesticides « San Francisco Forest Alliance

  16. Pingback: SF’s Natural Areas Program Uses Even More Pesticides | Save Mount Sutro Forest

  17. Pingback: Two Cheers for NAP’s Herbicide Use in 2014 | San Francisco Forest Alliance

  18. Pingback: World Health Organization: Roundup “Probably Carcinogenic” | San Francisco Forest Alliance

Comments are closed.