Jump to main content.

Implementing Integrated Pest Management in Midwestern States Schools - Final Report

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

September 30, 2005

This report is in partial fulfillment of the MOU between Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and Iowa State University, concerning Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The scope of this report is from April 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005.

Additional Impact from the Midwest School IPM Workshop

Impact from the Midwest School IPM Workshop (March 23 – 25, 2004) continued to be apparent during this phase of the project:

In addition, Dr. Mark Shour will be traveling to each of the other 3 states in the U.S. EPA Region VII as an invited speaker for conferences:

School IPM Web site

The ISUE School IPM Web site (http://school.ipm.iastate.edu) continued to serve as an electronic tool kit (workshop notes, presentation slides, and videos) for the school IPM issues. From April 2005 – September 2005, there were 26,210 total page views. Of these, 1733 views were for the Midwest School IPM Workshop alone.

School IPM Day

A concerted effort was made to schedule a “School IPM Day” with each district participating in the landscape/athletic field IPM pilot program. This involved sending letters, emails, telephone calls, and visits to the lead contact person for the district. In conversations, the school districts appeared to want to set up a special event, but no specific plans were made, even when prospective dates were provided by Dr. Shour.

One IPM awareness event was conducted with the Ames School District, as reported in the Phase III report. ISUE was asked to participate in “Science Night” at Roosevelt Elementary on February 17, 2005, to answer questions about the turfgrass IPM program. Ryan Holl (MS graduate student, Horticulture) talked with 15 parents during a 2½ hour period and provided them with School IPM newsletters and EPA school IPM materials.

When delivering final IPM work products from this project, Dr. Shour will follow up with each district about conducting some type of IPM awareness event during the winter 2005-2006.

Landscape & Athletic Field Pilot: White Grub Sampling and Management

Background

During this project phase, Dr. David Minner (Professor, ISU Horticulture), Ryan Holl (M.S. graduate student, ISU), Holly Steiner (undergraduate student, ISU) and Dr. Shour collected and compiled the 2005 growing season data. Six competition fields at five Iowa high schools were selected for the School Athletic Turfgrass IPM Program. When asked, grounds managers indicated their biggest potential pest and hardest to predict were white grubs.

In review, white grubs can cause significant damage in the school landscape, destroying large turfgrass areas in a short time. Athletic fields and high-visibility areas are key sites on school grounds that would be most affected by the presence of these insect pests. Fortunately, their damage is patchy and sporadic, varying greatly from year to year and place to place, even within the borders of a school property. White grubs are white, c-shaped, soft-bodied larvae that feed below the soil surface chewing off plant roots and rhizomes. The adult stage for white grubs is a beetle. The most common beetle in Iowa is the northern masked chafer; the adults are tan with a black stripe (‘mask’) across the eyes and face, and are approximately 5/8 inch long. Another less common species is the May/June beetle complex; these beetles are slightly larger, vary in color from tan to dark brown, and lack the black stripe. A third species spreading across Iowa is the Japanese beetle; adults are metallic green with hard, copper-brown wing covers, have small tufts of white hairs projecting from under the wing covers on each side, and are approximately 3/8 inch long. Grubs of each species can be identified in the field by examining the pattern of hairs on the ventral tip of the abdomen (called the raster). Masked chafers and May/June beetles are attracted to lights and may be seen flying near street lights, building security lights, or near lighted windows. However, the number of beetles flying in an area does not predict the severity of turfgrass damage in that area. Japanese beetles are active in daylight and feed on hundreds of species of plants.

Over the last five years each competition athletic field has experienced white grub injury and the grounds manager has been faced with the decision of treating the field with an insecticide. With the advent of longer residual insecticides, such as Merit (active ingredient imidacloprid) and Mach II (active ingredient halofenozide), it has been popular to make an insecticide application in June. Such an application is well in advance of first instar grubs that occur during the first week of August. This early and preventative application of a longer residual insecticide precludes the scouting for white grubs and ignores the use of an important IPM strategy: treat the pest only when threshold population levels are reached. A curative treatment would involve Dylox (active ingredient trichlorfon).

A grub scouting program was implemented in early August 2004 and 2005 to assist school grounds managers with threshold populations that could be used to make sound insecticide application decisions. In all sampling during 2004 and 2005, the only white grub species encountered was the northern masked chafer. Table 1 shows the parameters used to determine the need for an insecticide application. A threshold value of nine grubs per square foot is generally accepted for general lawn areas. Athletic fields are highly visible areas that require a smooth playing surface with good traction. Intense traffic, high visibility, and the potential for player injury are factors that may require a grub threshold level lower than 9 grubs/sq. ft. Threshold grub levels are presented as an average and therefore this single parameter may not be the best indicator of potential problems with the field. The percent of samples with grubs was used to indicate grub distribution. The maximum number of grubs per sample was reported to show the greatest potential for injury on at least some part of the field. Each field was also visually evaluated by walking the entire field and hand inspecting the turf in 20 additional locations. A rating scale of 1-9 was used where, 1-3 equals no treatment necessary (low potential for turf loss that influences playing field performance), 4-6 equals threshold level (grubs are causing turf injury and the playing field may or may not be compromised), and 7-9 treatment is advised (turf loss from grub injury will have a negative influence on playing field performance).

Table 1. 2004-05 White grub evaluation data for six athletic fields in the Iowa State University Turfgrass Integrated Pest Management Program. (Table is available upon request)

Comments on specific schools:
Conclusions from the White Grub Sampling at Iowa Schools

Grub counts are an important part of a scouting program. However, it is necessary to take into consideration the potential field injury and how that relates to the playing season and player safety. As shown in Table 2, the turfgrass IPM white grub scouting program was an important factor when deciding the need for grub control on 5 of the 6 fields sampled in the study. Over the 2-year program five insecticide applications were determined to be not necessary, five curative applications were determined to be justified, and three preventive treatments were made. Two of the three preventive treatments (Denison High School) were based on prior experience rather than grub scouting data. One of the three preventive treatments (Ames High School) was based on prior white grub scouting data.

Table 2. White grub control strategies on competition athletic fields before and after IPM scouting at five Iowa high schools. (Table is available upon request)

Additional Benefits from the Athletic Field IPM Pilot Program:

In the course of this two-year program, there were other environmental benefits that occurred in the participating schools. These included:

Landscape & Athletic Field Pilot: Landscape Mapping

An integral part on integrated pest management in the landscape is monitoring for pests. Any monitoring effort, however, must be preceded with accurate representations of the area(s) to be covered in the program and a knowledge of pests associated with ornamental plants. The goals of this project were to draw landscape maps for each participating school property, identify the ornamental plants on site, provide a list of insect and disease pests common to the species of plants found on the school properties, and provide the schools with current pest management information in the event control is warranted. During this phase, several projects were completed:

Landscape & Athletic Field Pilot: Additional IPM Activities with Districts

Turfgrass IPM Program – Roosevelt and Sawyer Elementary Schools
Background

On May 26, 2004, Roosevelt Elementary School, Ames School District, held a parent meeting to discuss lawn care management on school grounds. Parents were in favor of having a policy for pest control that included alternatives to spraying. Children’s safety was cited as their primary rationale, and an incident of spraying herbicide at 3:00PM during the spring 2001 was used to support their concerns. One parent did not feel that the school grounds should be sprayed at all, citing safety concerns for products used. Prenotification and posting the area following spraying were requested by the parents.

Some of the parents do not mind the weeds and consider anything that provides green cover to be beneficial. Other parents wanted better turfgrass cover for their children to play on. All parents wanted limited to no use of pesticides. David Minner and Mark Shour provided information to parents about IPM and detailed various approaches to improving the grass on the playgrounds. After realizing that some herbicide applications would be initially necessary to establish the lawn a suggested plan was advanced: control existent weeds with herbicides, then establish traffic- tolerant grasses, and finally maintain the playground with grass overseeding, cultivation, fertility, and prescriptive weed control (limited to spot treatment with specific herbicides).

In response to these parental concerns, the Iowa State University Extension Integrated Turfgrass Pest Management team (David Minner, Mark Shour, and Ryan Holl) was asked to develop a specific program to improve the lawn in the playground area, reduce weeds and limit the use of pesticides. The Roosevelt Elementary School playground area has 30,000 sq. ft. of highly trafficked lawn that is used for kickball, baseball, and soccer. Assessment on November 17, 2004 on site indicated 30% turfgrass, 30% weeds (crabgrass, dandelion, knotweed, and clover) and 40% bare soil in the high traffic area. Turfgrass present was 60% tall fescue and 40% bluegrass.

After several meetings with parent representatives, school administration, district grounds manager, and the IPM team, the following plan was agreed upon:

  1. To reduce the existent weed population, a non-selective herbicide (Roundup) would be applied in the high traffic areas and a broadleaf herbicide (Trimec) would be applied in lower traffic areas. [May 2005]
  2. Core aerification and compost topdressing was to be applied to reduce soil compaction and improve soil conditions. [June 2005]
  3. A mixture of 50% turf-type tall fescue and 50% perennial ryegrass would be seeded at 15 to 20 lbs/l000 sq. ft. Higher than normal seeding rates was suggested to assist the grass in competing with the weed population and to reduce the need for additional herbicide applications. [June 2005]
  4. To allow the seed to establish, temporary irrigation will be arranged by the district grounds manager.
  5. Seeding the playground should be repeated each fall and spring to improve grass cover. The school maintenance staff will conduct this work. [August through November 2005]
  6. The playground area will be closed for three months to allow the grass to establish. Parents would need to agree to fencing off the area to limit traffic during grass establishment. [June, July and August 2005]
  7. Crabgrass will be controlled preventively with Tupersan, an herbicide that can be used with newly seeded grass. [June 2005]
  8. If needed Drive, a synthetic herbicide, will be used curatively for post-emergence control of crabgrass. [July 2005]
  9. Once grass has been established crabgrass will be controlled with a natural product formulated from corn gluten, at a rate of 20 lbs/1000 sq. ft. Use of this product, however, minimizes the strategy of overseeding the turfgrass because corn gluten’s effectiveness as a pre-emergence herbicide also prevents grass seed from germinating.
  10. The playground would be evaluated at the end of the growing season. Any changes to the management plan would be made at this time. [December 2005]

Results

This program is in keeping with accepted IPM strategies. Unfortunately, because of state Department of Education budget cuts the Roosevelt Elementary School has been slated for closing and the playground renovation project was not begun during the 2005 growing season.

Since Ames School District administration wanted to participate in turfgrass IPM via playground improvement, we shifted our effort to Sawyer Elementary School. The same program was implemented at Sawyer on their soccer field. The high traffic areas of the soccer field were seeded July 2005. Because no water supply was available from the city of Ames for grass establishment, seed germination was poor and the renovated areas are made up of 50% grass and 50% weeds. Reseeding and pre-emergence application of Siduron will be necessary spring 2006. Use of corn gluten in 2007 instead of traditional crabgrass herbicides is anticipated during 2007.

Conclusions from Ames School District Project

A process of IPM education was used to convince both concerned parents and school administration that sound policy was being used to develop an attractive and safe play area for children in Ames School District’s elementary schools. It was critical in the decision process that a “zero tolerance” level for pesticides was not implemented. Furthermore, it was important that a planned program was implemented to minimize pesticide use with the intent of replacing them with cultural and natural pesticide products, whenever possible.

October 28, 2005

Brad Horchem
WWPD/PEST
U.S. E.P.A., REGION VII
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101

RE: PESP Final Grant Report - Implementing IPM in Midwestern States Schools Assistance Agreement PE-98734101-0

Dear Brad:
In an effort to summarize the report and answer some of your questions, I submit the following:

  1. 25 Collaborating organizations/agencies [34 attendees] – The following people participated in the Midwest School IPM Workshop.

Dugan L. Bad Warrior, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, South Dakota
Donald Baumgartner, EPA Region V
Joe Bennett, Grandview Consolidated #4 Schools, Missouri
Gary Boutz, Kansas Department of Agriculture
Clifford Burke, Leavenworth Schools, Kansas
Mark Burns, Dubuque Community Schools, Iowa
Jean Ciborowski, Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Bobby Corrigan, RMC Pest Management Consultants
Darrell Deneke, South Dakota State University
Sharon Dobesh, Kansas State University
Jim Ellerhoff, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Al Fournier, Purdue University, Indiana
Judy Grundler, Missouri Department of Agriculture
George Haws, Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska
Bruce Hokel, Iowa Department of Public Health
Maureen Hunt, EPA Region VII
Howard Johnson, Fredonia USD 484, Kansas
Shripat Kamble, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Patricia Kandziora, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
Mark K. Lesher, EPA Region VII
Michael Merchant, Texas A&M University
Dave Minner, Iowa State University
Clyde Ogg, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Shelly Peterson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Carol Pilcher, Iowa State University
Rachel Rosenberg, Safer Pest Control Project, Illinois
Susan Schoneweis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Mark Shour, Iowa State University
Brad Smith, Iowa Pest Management Association
Mike Thomas, Fredonia USD 484, Kansas
Russell Thompson, Missouri Center for Safe Schools
Matt Westgate, Iowa State University
Jim Wilson, South Dakota State University
Doug Woodley, West Des Moines Community Schools, Iowa

2. 5 Landscape & Athletic Field Project participating schools.

Knoxville High School, Marion County, IA
Mount Ayr High School, Ringgold County, IA
Ames High School, Story County, IA
Denison High School, Crawford County, IA
North Scott High School, Scott County, IA

3. Project Outcomes – The workshop brought together the States of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, and Minnesota which had begun their School IPM programs prior to Iowa. The States of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota had yet to begin School IPM programs. The outcome of the workshop was that the successes and failures of the States with School IPM programs were shared with the States that were interested in starting school IPM programs. Additionally, the five high schools that participated in the landscape & athletic field project got specific training in the principles of IPM as it relates to school landscapes and athletic fields. This has allowed the schools to make changes in the use of pesticides so that they are applied only when needed and have the skills to determine when they are not needed.

4. Direct and surrogate environmental measures. Environmental protection is best achieved when people willingly change their cultural practices to embrace a more environmentally better way to conduct their activities. The surrogate measure of bringing groups with experience in School IPM together with people desiring to conduct pest control within school structures and landscapes in a more environmentally compatible manner was achieved through the Midwest School IPM Conference. The subsequent direct School IPM actions, as listed under Items E and F of the report, define 12 measurable efforts to move toward more environmentally acceptable activities.

5. Goals and Objectives – The goals and objectives of the grant were met and exceeded in that the workshop succeeded in bringing together a diverse group of professionals from local, state, and federal agencies with representatives from schools, pesticide industry, and environmental groups for the purpose of instruction, discussion, and enlightenment. The fact that this inspired action to begin School IPM programs from individual schools to state-wide programs is laudable and exceeded my expectations. The success of the workshop and individual school projects are a credit to the people who embraced the concepts of School IPM and took action. Special recognition should be made of Dr. Mark Shour, Iowa State University Extension, for organizing and implementing the workshop and landscape projects. His dedication to educating people regarding the virtues and economy of applied Integrated Pest Management is laudable.

6. The lessons of implementing School IPM have broader applications for both structural and landscapes related to both urban and rural settings where people live and work. Pests have been unwanted companions to humans since the beginning of human habitation. The techniques taught at the workshop illustrated how to minimize the use of chemicals and use other methods to control pests. When needed, the judicious use of pesticides is the correct way to eliminate specific pests. Abandoning the former practice of routinely spraying baseboards of rooms and hallways and adopting IPM is both a way to reduce the indiscriminate introduction of a pesticide into a human environment and begin to actually control pests.

The field trip led by Bobby Corrigan to the Ames High School was illustrative of how food storage could be done in a better way to reduce pest food sources. Simple techniques of repairing leaking water pipes to deny a water source and installation of door sweeps to limit pest access to a building are ways that do not require a chemical control. Mr. Corrigan’s direct and straightforward approach was important to demonstrating the IPM principles and practices that he taught the group. [See attached photos]

I have attached the final grant report for the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) Grant – Implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Midwestern States Schools. I have also enclosed a CD from Dr. Shour with additional materials developed for the projects.

Sincerely,

/ E /

James F. Ellerhoff
Program Coordinator
Pesticide Bureau
(515) 281-8506

Attachments

The following report attachments are not posted but are available upon request.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.