Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Based Turf and Native Plantings Pilot Project - Final Report

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by an EPA assistance agreement recipient and represents only the views of the author rather than EPA.

Robert Kusel
Illinois Department of Agriculture via IPM Systems, LLC
7654 Tripp Ave
Skokie, IL 60076
630-269-2847
847-933-9455 - fax

Executive Summary

The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Based Turf & Native Planting Project succeeded beyond original expectations, and benefits generated by the project continue to manifest. The initial concept expanded and evolved, and as a direct result of the project, we accomplished the following:

Convened a panel of experts on schools and park districts, IPM and plant health care and landscape managers to study pesticide reduction strategies
Surveyed groundskeepers for school and park districts throughout the state, building a database on landscape practice, including pesticide use
Developed a practical IPM based turf program based on survey findings for environmentally responsible grounds management that will reduce the reliance and resulting exposure of children and staffs to pesticides
Presented the first full day Turf IPM training seminar for IL school & park district personnel
Piloted a multi-disciplinary curriculum utilizing Illinois native plants in a Chicago Public School
Piloted an alternative (environmentally responsible) approach in two school district formerly using traditional methods.
Built news media & public awareness about pesticide reduction strategies and native plantings

A generous grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in collaboration with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, made this project possible. It was enriched and brought to fruition by the people and organizations who came together to contribute time and expertise. We are deeply grateful.

Section One - Panel of Experts

A panel of experts was recruited to inform and shape the project, both in terms of survey development and in interpretation of the results. Participation varied based on location and availability, and as the project progressed some of the experts changed jobs and/or moved away and replacements were developed. Participation in the project does not, therefore, imply approval of the findings or the final product.

Section Two - Survey Development and Execution

The panel of experts was consulted to develop a survey of grounds management practices in Illinois school and park districts. A key informant survey was conducted (Jan.-March 2002) to gather baseline data about grounds practices and attitudes in Illinois schools and park districts. We obtained a portional random sample (by geography & wealth) of school districts and a random sample of park districts. It should be noted that the survey wasn’t mandatory, thus the people who agreed to speak with us were essentially self-selecting. We contacted over 300 school districts and of those fifty responded. Our assumption is that our survey respondents might well represent the ‘Cream of the Crop’ with regard to compliance with IPM law and a willingness to consider alternatives to a traditional approach to lawn management.

Survey Findings - Overview

The survey indicated a general lack of awareness of cultural practices that build and support a healthy lawn, and as a result, a default reliance on “chemical” lawn control methods. It also disclosed a generally favorable attitude toward “alternative” methods and a desire for practical information.

Survey Findings - School Districts:

Due to increasingly slimmer budgets, school district maintenance and grounds personal are tightly scheduled and have multiple responsibilities. We consistently had a sense of harried and overworked building and grounds staffs with little discretionary time for “experiments.” If a new approach to lawn care is attempted and fails, the buck stops with them. This finding reinforced our working premise that there was a need for a practical and common sense approach to IPM based lawn care in schools that was mindful of the time constraints in the school environment, and that any program must include an explanation as to why a district should modify current practices. Other key requirements of an alternative lawn strategy include cost effectiveness, simplicity of implementation and a high likelihood of success.

The survey also disclosed:

43% of the respondents cited a lack of practical information as one of the major obstacles to initiating an “alternative” program
Only 43% indicate they record the type and amount of pesticides applied
63% of the respondents fertilize, and of those 31% use a weed and feed
41% identified themselves as using both a chemical approach with “other” strategies, but most couldn’t identify “other”
59% think alternatives to traditional lawn care take more time
58% have concerns regarding pesticide related risks (self and others)

Native Plants

The survey indicated a generally favorable attitude toward the utilization of native plantings in the school environment.
63% of the responding districts indicated that they had available green space that could be transitioned into native planting areas
43% indicated that native planting is practical

Survey Findings: Park Districts

One of the key findings in the survey of park districts was that 72% shared their grounds with school districts. Thus, a dangerous information gap exists for the parent of a chemically sensitive child who’d registered to be notified of pesticide applications at their child’s school.

The survey also disclosed:

47% identified themselves as taking a chemical approach to grounds management
72% stated that alternative turf management is practical
21% weren’t keeping track of the type or amount of pesticides used
33% didn’t have information about pesticide related risks to children

Native Plantings

56% of the responding districts indicated that they had available green space that could be transitioned into native planting areas
87% indicated that native planting is practical

Section Three - The Lawn Care for Healthy Parks and Schools System (attached)

Section Four - Turf IPM Training Seminar for School & Park District Personnel

The survey disclosed a need for instruction in cultural practices to support an environmentally responsible approach to grounds management. IPM Systems contracted with Dr. John Stier of the University of Wisconsin to conduct a full day training seminar on Outdoor IPM. The seminar validated the Best Practices approach, and served as a launching point for pilot districts.

Section Five - Native Plantings School Pilot

One clear example of project evolution was the original grant concept of exploring the use of native plantings as an alternative to a traditional school lawn. As the work progressed, a pilot project was developed with a Chicago Public School, Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez, in the Little Village area. We introduced native plantings to a class of first graders, not just as an alternative to turf, but as an educational tool as well, in a multi-disciplinary augmentation to the existing science curriculum on butterflies.

The plants were utilized (over the course of several months) to facilitate classroom discussion and activities on habitat loss and restoration (for the butterflies), ecosystems, and general plant knowledge in a wonderfully kinesthetic educational opportunity.

In the last segment of our eight-week module, the six and seven year old students planted a native garden, providing food and shelter (“building homes”) for the butterflies they were raising in the classroom and would soon release.

Seeds planted both in the literal sense and in the figurative sense of classroom knowledge concretely linked to the student’s immediate neighborhood and providing an empowering opportunity for the children to make a beneficial environmental impact.

Section Six – Commercial IPM Alternative to Traditional Turf Management Pilot

The survey indicated that a large percentage of the districts outsource their work. We linked a district that had attempted a no chemicals approach and was dissatisfied with the results. District 73 in Skokie, an elementary and middle school with 450 students, had stopped using any chemicals or fertilizers and started cutting longer. The outcome was an unsatisfactory appearance, so they reverted to a traditional lawn care company making scheduled applications of pesticides and fertilizers. We linked District #73 with the Rolling Meadows franchise of NaturaLawn, a national company that markets an “environmentally responsible” approach. Naturalawn fertilized based on soil tests and used spot pesticide applications. We estimate (exact records of earlier applications weren’t available) an 80-85% reduction in the amount of pesticides applied; do to spot vs. blanket applications and the use of corn glutens as a pre emergent. Personnel movement interrupted the latter part of the season, so the pilot will be repeated during the 2004 season.

Section Seven – IPM Turf Management - Test Area Pilot

One of the obstacles to transitioning a school or park district to an IPM based management program is fear of change, and change related consequences. Toward addressing this real world issue, we tested an incremental, or a gradual approach pilot.

We worked with Lake Park District #108 in Roselle, IL. They currently utilize the services of a traditional lawn care company, and they agreed to set aside several practice fields for the IPM approach. They were very satisfied with the outcome and strategy, and plan to expand the model to other areas. They utilized cultural practices including organic fertilizing, mowing higher, over-seeding and appropriate watering. No pesticides were applied. It should be noted that their personnel attended the Stier educational seminar.

Section Eight – Park District Pilot

We had arranged to initiate a pilot in a suburban park district, but they dropped out as they began to formulate written policy toward IPM based lawn care. We intend on following up, confidentially, to determine what the obstacle was and how it might be addressed.

Section Nine – Looking Forward (Gap Analysis)

It is our opinion that for IPM based lawn care to gain an authentic foothold in Illinois schools and park districts several pieces must be in place.

Training (ongoing) must be available – multi-level
Coaching, or technical assistance (also ongoing) must be available to sustain the initial efforts (implementation) of a school or a park district.

Budget Report

Budget Category	Budgeted	Final Expenses
Personnel	30,370	30,370
Fringe Benefits		0
Travel	6,000	400
Equipment		0
Supplies	7,500	8,625
Contractual
Other (telephone)	1,000	1,440
Total	40,000	40,839

Section Eleven – Key Personnel

Mr. Steven Ames – Skokie Park District
Ms. Patricia Armstrong – Prairie Sun Consultants
Mr. Donald Baumgartner – USEPA – Region Five
Mr. Donald Buckman – McCracken School District 73.5
Ms. Jessica Bullen – Safer Pest Control Project
Ms. Patricia Cassady – Illinois Landscape Contractors Assoc.
Ms. Allehandra Dorantes - Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez School
Mr. Al Fournier - Purdue University
Mr. Tim Gibb – Purdue University
First Grade Students (Dorantes class)- Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez School
Ms Angelica Herrera - Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez School
Ms. Margaret Huelsman – Ohio State University
Mr. John Howell - Naturalawn
Ms. Susan Kamuda – IPM Systems/District 181
Ms. Heather McDonald - USEPA – Region Five
Mr. Jerry McDonald – East Prairie District #73
Mr. Phil Nixon – University of Illinois - Extension
Ms. Barbara Randolph - Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez School
Mr. Norm Seaman - Lake Park District 108
Mr. Joerg-Schmidt-Bailey - University of Illinois
Ms. Camille Stauber – Sustainable Places
Mr. Loren Swartley – Sterling School District #15
Mr. John Slavich – Lake Park District 108
Mr. Bruce Spangenberg – McHenry County College
Dr. John Stier – University of Wisconsin
Mr. Tom Walker – Illinois Department of Agriculture
Mr. Brian Williquette – Chicago Park District