| Annual
Report - 2003 Executive Summary Overview A continuing challenge for the CAC is reaching out to the various Suffolk County entities that fall under Chapter 380. Though the past few years have focused on major programs and uses of pesticides, the smaller programs, such as greenhouses at Suffolk County Community College, are not as easily identified. More effort by the CAC and within county departments and agencies is necessary to ensure the information about the restrictions on the use of pesticides reaches those who use pesticides. The CAC has made a commitment to pursue this in 2004. However, we need the commitment of the County departments to ensure the information is dispersed within their department. In addition, these departments need to provide support to their staff so that changes can be made in order to comply with Chapter 380. This document is written pursuant to Suffolk County Code Chapter 380-5 section E in which the CAC is required to submit annual reports to the Suffolk County Legislature on the progress and implementation of Chapter 380. Each Suffolk County department and division that is responsible for compliance with the law was requested to provide information detailing the progress that has already been made to implement this local law as well as the challenges that are being faced. This information was then compiled by Cornell Cooperative Extension into chapters pertaining to various pest categories (e.g., vegetation control) or by department. Community Advisory Committee Suffolk County Code Chapter 380 established a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to oversee the implementation of a county pesticide phase out program and to issue Annual Reports. In 2003, three members left the CAC. Two members resigned due to commitments, which did not allow them to continue to participate on the CAC. Both of these members, Dr. Wajdy Hailoo and Dr. Raja Jaber represented the medical community. These positions remain unfilled. Bill Sanok resigned from the CAC with his resignation from Cornell Cooperative Extension. Current membership consists of the following:
Other regular participants include:
Since
the final phase of the pesticide phase out became effective on July 1, 2003, the
CAC met more frequently during the year 2003, often meeting a few times each month.
This was necessary in order to consider many requests for special use exemptions
in those circumstances in which alternatives to pesticides are not readily available.
Minutes of these meetings are attached. These meetings are open to the public
and prior to each meeting a press release is issued by the SCDHS.
Department Summaries The golf courses implemented a new IPM program that was developed with Cornell Cooperative Extension. The IPM program involved an increased use of biological, cultural and mechanical practices. Thresholds were developed so a given number of insects or a given size of a disease infestation must be met before pesticides can be applied. The new program was successful in better targeting pesticide applications to the proper pest and proper timing so the overall area where pesticide applications occurred was reduced. The CAC spent numerous hours researching alternatives to Roundup for vegetation control around the County. Roundup use was decreased immensely by the Highway Department, the Parks Department, and Suffolk County Community College. All three departments increased cultural practices when manpower was available and allowed weeds to grow in areas that were maintained with herbicides in the past. The CAC reached out to the campuses of Suffolk County Community College in 2003. The horticulture department at Suffolk County Community College, Riverhead, implements an IPM program with the use of beneficial insects. The horticulture department successfully grew all of the typical greenhouse crops raised in a given year using only beneficial insects and horticultural oil to control pest problems. The athletic departments of SCCC worked closely with Cornell Cooperative Extension to develop an IPM program. The program involves increased aeration, topdressing, scouting and record keeping, and aggressive overseeding. The College requires increased resources, such as machinery and labor, to properly implement the program. The athletic field managers will begin the IPM plan with their current resources in 2004. The CAC was thrilled to learn that the fields of Citibank Park are managed with excellent IPM practices and minimal amounts of pesticides. The field manager replaces infected turf with sod from his own sod farm. Pesticides are only used when a problem effects the entire field rather than a small area. The Suffolk County Departments of Health Services, Public Works and Police are developing a project to test an alternative product to boat bottom paints in the 2004 boating season. The Suffolk County Farm eliminated the use of pesticides in their corn and pumpkins for the 2003-growing season. However, because their management plan was not completely developed before they stopped the use of pesticides, the farm had to purchase all of their corn feed and pumpkins for the year. A more detailed management plan will be developed for the 2004-growing season. The farm continues to struggle with mice, pigeons, and other structural pests. Major strides were made in structural pest control in 2003. With joint effort between DPW and Cornell Cooperative Extension, county bid contracts for indoor pest control were re-written so the General Program Requirements specifically states that the contracted Pest Control Operator must be familiar with Integrated Pest Management and the most effective and up-to-date approach to modern professional pest control. DPW and Cornell Cooperative Extension developed an IPM plan for buildings run by DPW. The plan requires that practices such as sanitation, environment modification, trapping, and the use of minimum risk products be used. Pesticide applications are allowable if all cultural practices fail to control the problem. Conclusions The CAC will continue to work on the issues discussed in this document. For those situations that a special use exemption has been approved, we will continue to pursue finding alternatives so that Suffolk County can continue to reduce reliance on pesticides. The CAC will continue the outreach efforts that were begun this year. We will pursue reaching out to the County departments and agencies as well as the general public. The CAC will also continue efforts at coordination and sharing of information between other counties or municipalities with similar pesticide phase out programs. Cornell Cooperative Extension has been very instrumental in facilitating such coordination. Primary Recommendations The following recommendations are those which the Pesticide CAC and the county department or agency involved have determined to be the most immediate recommendations, necessary for implementation of the pesticide phase out law. Further explanation and additional recommendations are contained within the body of the annual report. Outreach: To increase awareness and compliance with the pesticide phase out law, it is recommended that funding be provided to DPW for production of signs for indoor and outdoor use that notify employees and visitors of the Pesticide Phase Out law. Suffolk
County Community College:
Equipment: DPW
Building Maintenance: Training: New Employee Orientation should include training on an employee's responsibility in pest prevention (e.g., storage of food, general office cleanliness). Funding: Establishment of an emergency repair fund that could be used for repairs that would prevent pest problems and the subsequent need for pesticides. Equipment: Outdoor, weather resistant, garbage receptacles with tight fitting lids that prevent access by pests such as rats and bees.
Equipment: 2 weed wackers Department
of Parks and Recreation: DPW
Highways Division: Equipment: Permeable synthetic fiber pads for placement around signs and other areas not accessible to mowers. Suffolk
County Farm and Education Center: 1.0 Outdoor Pesticide Uses 1.1 Golf Courses Background The turfgrass management system for the Suffolk County owned golf courses experienced some major changes in 2003. In 2002 the golf courses were working under an extension of the 2001 pesticide restrictions governed by Suffolk County Code Chapter 380. All turfgrass managers, and any other county owned and managed property, were only allowed to use "caution" labeled materials that were determined by the EPA to be non-carcinogenic. Under these strict limitations, none of the products available were effective enough to cure a disease. Golf course superintendents were forced to implement a management system that put priority on prevention. Weekly preventative applications of fungicides were necessary, which greatly increased the amount of fungicides used on each course compared to years past when curative fungicides and insecticides were available. In 2002, the use of the carcinogenic materials previously used to cure dollar spot, triadimefon and iprodione, was reduced by approximately 60 and 50 gallons, receptively. However, the use of thiram, a material used to prevent dollar spot and allowed by the law because the EPA has not studied the carcinogenic properties yet, increased by more than 300 gallons. Prevention does not always prevail, and the golf courses were still inflicted with disease and insects in 2002. To cure these problems the superintendents declared an "emergency" which allowed them to use the products that were not on the list of available pesticides, either due to a "warning" label or carcinogenic properties. Emergency uses of these pesticides are allowed under Suffolk County Code Chapter 380. With an increase in fungicides and continued need for emergency use of phased out pesticides, the CAC felt as though the management plan for the golf courses was ineffective in accomplishing the mission of the CAC, to reduce pesticide use. Changes in Regulations for 2003 Although the quantity of "warning labeled" or "carcinogenic" fungicides was reduced, it was being done with a great increase of other fungicides. The golf course superintendents sat down with a representative of Cornell Cooperative Extension to create a management plan that more resembled an IPM system. Each insect, weed and disease pest was identified and a threshold was assigned to each pest (see: Resol 5-21-03b). The threshold is the level of a pest infestation that the superintendent will tolerate before deeming that pesticides are necessary for control. Thresholds are measured by numbers of insects, disease lesions, or weeds. Thresholds can also be expressed by a percent of a given area or by measuring the dimensions of an area of turfgrass expressing disease symptoms. The threshold levels that the County superintendents tolerate are much higher than those of other superintendents of the surrounding private golf courses. Tolerance of disease and turfgrass injury is something the superintendents have worked hard on accepting since the beginning of the law. After the thresholds were set, each pest was assigned a pesticide that could be used for control. Pesticides were chosen based on toxicity, and efficacy. "Reduced Risk" pesticides were used wherever possible, and the pesticides least toxic to humans were used. Where the least toxic pesticide labeled for control of a given pest is known to be ineffective, another pesticide is chosen. Although the chosen fungicide may not be the least toxic, it is assumed that a lesser quantity will be needed to effectively treat the disease, thereby reducing human and animal exposure to fungicides. Cornell Cooperative Extension employs a golf course IPM scout that observes the turf on a daily basis and assesses turf health. When the IPM scout identifies a pest he/she notifies the superintendent and the Cornell Cooperative Extension Pest Management Specialist. The pest population is monitored closely. If the population reaches its given threshold then pesticides are applied for control. Often times the pests exist in the landscape but do not reach levels where control is necessary. In 2003 the pests requiring control were the insects annual bluegrass weevil, and white grubs and the diseases dollar spot, pythium root rot, and brown patch. Weeds on the fairways exceeded their threshold, but the superintendents chose not to apply herbicides. Again, they have made great strides to increase their tolerance of pests. Scouting and Education Past scouting records were good indications of what types of pests to expect for the 2003 season, and when to expect them. For example, white grubs can be controlled with the use of imidacloprid, which is a lower risk choice than the organophosphates, and or carbamates still currently used. However, this pesticide must be in the soil for approximately 2 weeks before it is effective. This means the pesticide has to be applied before the pests are seen or give any indication of turf damage. If applied after damage has occurred, the insecticide will not work fast enough to remedy the situation. Although this preventative approach goes against the method of IPM, it is an accepted means of control because it allows for the use of a lower risk pesticide. The faster acting insecticides that can be applied after grub damage are more toxic than imidacloprid. The problem many turf managers have is that they do not know where to apply the imidacloprid, as they do not know where the grubs will damage the turf. Turf managers compensate for this problem by applying the insecticide across the entire turf area. However, grubs do not move very far and are often found damaging the same areas of turf each year. Scouting of damaged areas and keeping records allowed the county superintendents to apply imidacloprid only to the areas where they know there will be grub problems rather than across the entire area, thereby keeping insecticide use to a minimum. Although there is an employed full-time scout for the courses, the superintendents and golf course employees scout the courses each day during their daily tasks. The turf managers are educated about the pests that plague their turf. They frequently attend workshops and conferences on turf management to stay up to date on the latest turfgrass pests and controls. Cultural and Biological The superintendents increased cultural and biological practices in 2003. For instance, compaction is a serious problem that facilitates a majority of the turf pests. To reduce stress by compaction the superintendents increased aeration and starting a "soil building" program. To increase aeration they implemented practices that open the turf by piercing small to large holes (spiking or core aerating) or vertical lines into the turf (verti-cutting). These practices spread individual plants apart and break apart tough, compacted soil to allow air to enter the soil below. These practices were done more frequently in 2003 than before. Aerating is also one of the steps taken to build the soil microbial populations. Through consultations with Paul Wagner from the Soil Food Web, NY, and by attending various turfgrass workshops, the superintendents learned about the positive aspects of maintaining a healthy soil microbial population. Soil microbes can be inoculated into the soil by compost and applications of different organic products. The county courses have a new contract with Long Island Compost to purchase good quality compost. This compost was applied to greens, tees and fairways throughout the growing season as a topdress after aerification or as a soil amendment where reconstruction projects took place. More compost was used in 2003 than in previous years. Inoculation of soil microbes with organic products is time consuming and expensive. Each soil drench or foliar application requires that one employee be dedicated to the application of these products for half a day, once every week. Indian Island Golf Course in Riverhead was a perfect example of how dedication and proper scheduling is mandatory for a proper soil building program. The Indian Island turfgrass managers applied a large number of different soil building products from Florentine Inc. Foliar applications of these products occurred on a weekly basis. In addition to the Florentine products the managers applied compost tea each Thursday morning on all 18 greens and the practice green. The superintendent was dedicated to the weekly applications of tea and had his employees make applications in rain or shine, warm or cold weather. The managers were rewarded for their dedication and hard work. Many of the regular golfers that have been playing at Indian Island for many years complemented the superintendent and his workers. Golfers bragged that Indian Island has not had such beautiful greens in years. The soil building program was a success in 2003 and will continue in 2004 at Indian Island and the other 2 courses. Although aerating practices and applications of organic materials are time consuming and hard to schedule into the already busy days of the turfgrass managers, the County courses are using the resources made available to them to hire extra workers and machinery to get the job done, while minimizing pesticide use. Research Cornell Cooperative Extension performed two research/demonstration programs at Indian Island Golf Course in Riverhead. One project was done in collaboration with Soil Food Web NY to test the effects of compost tea on microbial populations. Another was done in collaboration with a Cornell University faculty member, specializing in weed science. Summaries of the two projects are attached in this report. Timber Point Golf Course participated in a project performed by the entomology specialist for Cornell Cooperative Extension. The project tested the use of nematodes and a bio-control for oriental beetle. Grubs were collected at the golf course and used in the container based research project. Though container based research is not applicable to golf courses, Timber Point continues to support all research that may reduce the use of pesticides in the green industry. This project is aimed at the nursery industry and results may be seen in 2004. Future Due to the constantly changing weather conditions, each year differs in the amount of pesticides that are necessary to maintain a healthy turfgrass stand. The total amount of pesticides decreased in the 2003 season, compared to the 2002 season. In part this can be attributed to the increased cultural and soil building practices and high pest damage tolerance levels. However, this can also be attributed to favorable weather conditions. The amounts of pesticides needed for 2004 may be higher or lower than 2003, regardless of cultural and biological practices. Weather is the most influential factor that determines the need for pesticide applications. Progress towards soil building will continue with aeration, organic product applications and compost applications. New products may be introduced, but it is important to repeat applications of products used the year before because the soil microbes take at least two years to build in the soil in order to see optimal effects of the products used. Fertilizer programs will be closely looked at in 2004. All three golf courses are currently using slow release organic fertilizers to protect against nitrogen leaching. However, the turfgrass is not using this fertilizer efficiently. If the turf could get a quick acting, readily available form of nitrogen when disease problems occur, it may be able to grow out of the problem before pesticide applications are necessary. The quantity of nitrogen used in such an application would be small enough that the plant could make use of it all immediately, so leaching would not be an issue. Scouting and record keeping will continue for 2004. This past year the scouting was efficient and produced valuable data. With proper scouting the superintendents were able to apply necessary pesticides on the greens that expressed disease, and leave the healthy greens pesticide free. This practice of only applying pesticides in the exact areas where necessary is called "spot applications" or "spot treatments". This is another component of IPM. Use of spot applications will hopefully increase next year to decrease the total amounts of pesticides used. Pesticides
approved by the CAC will be changed in 2004, as the needs of the superintendents
change. This past year the superintendents found that some of the pesticides they
asked the CAC to approve were not as effective as hoped, and other pesticides
that would have been beneficial to them were left out of the exemption. Also,
with limited products available to them, the superintendents found that the disease,
dollar spot, showed tolerance to the fungicide used for its eradication. Tolerance
or resistance often develops in an organism when a pesticide is used exclusively
and repeatedly for its control. Therefore, for the 2004 exemption, the senior
superintendent will ask to remove some of the pesticides from the Special Use
Exemption and add other, more effective options. These materials are not necessarily
more toxic. The golf course superintendents are learning more and more each year
about problems that can be overlooked, and those that need treatment. They learn
about products that work, and those that don't, and they learn about what pesticides
can be used in minimal amounts to provide the best control. Changes to the Special
Use Exemption will occur each year as the superintendents learn through experience,
by attending educational conferences, and by being involved in research and demonstration
projects. Knowledge of turfgrass, pests, products and cultural practices is the
best tool the superintendents have to reduce pesticide use. Each year they take
one more step towards the end goal of eliminating pesticides, though a completely
pesticide free management system is still in the future. Identified Issues Roundup (glyphosate) is the pesticide used in the largest volume on Suffolk County properties. Total County use for 2003 is estimated at 120 gallons. This is a 60% decrease from 2002. The CAC has identified the main problems of weed control to be poison ivy in the public areas of the parks, weeds on the campus of Suffolk County Community College, all vegetation on right-of-ways and vegetation growing in and around the runways of Gabreski Airport. For all of these areas of Suffolk County workers are currently using Roundup to control unwanted vegetation in a limited manner. Poison Ivy: Poison ivy must be removed from public areas where people are likely to come in contact with the vine. These areas include picnic areas, recreational paths, beaches, playgrounds, college campuses, golf courses, and right-of-ways. Hand removal of poison ivy is not feasible due to the hazards of worker exposure and irritation from the oils in the plant. In some cases the skin irritation is extremely severe, and requires medical attention. Any handling of the vine may lead to irritation as the oil can be spread easily by equipment. Suffolk County Community College: Weeds grow in the cracks in the pavement of the walkways and the parking lots. The weed roots come up through the pavement, causing the pavement to become uneven, leaving the pavement weak and vulnerable to further cracking. Included in the list of weedy species on the campuses are poison ivy, poison sumac and poison oak, all of which have adverse health effects from exposure. Weeds grow around signs and guardrails where the mowers can not fit. Some areas of the campus have uneven and steep terrain so the mowers can not cut the grass or weeds in those areas for fear of tipping over. The Brentwood campus also has paths in the woods that serve as "health paths" for the students to use for exercise. These paths must be free of weeds and free of poisonous vegetation. Weeds are considered a safety issue on the health paths when they grow into or across the path making them an obstacle for runners, bikers and other pedestrians. In a likely manner, weeds growing in cement walkways are a liability issue if they are large enough for a person to trip over or if they have caused a disruption in the sidewalk. Right-of-Ways: Weeds along the highways are dangerous for many reasons. Vegetation grows around the guardrails making guardrails less visible. Large weeds and vines use roadway signs for support and cover roadsides from motorist's view. All vegetation growing out of the pavement compromises the integrity of the pavement and cause cracks that get larger with fluctuations in temperature and eventually become potholes. Vines and creeping vegetation can grow onto the roads from medians and surrounding areas and cause accidents of motorists and bicyclists. Encroachment of weeds can also cause drainage problems causing a threat to traffic control. In the hot, dry days of summer, weeds are also a fire hazard. Careless smokers that toss cigarettes out the car window can start fires on right-of-ways. Gabreski Airport: Weeds that grow in the runway cracks break apart the runway pavement. Broken and cracked pavement on the runways is a violation of the FAA safety regulations. In 2004, one of the three runways at Gabreski Airport must be repaved or pulled out of use, due to an unacceptable surface, exacerbated by weed growth. Weeds can also attract small animals and birds that can get pulled into the engine of an airplane and cause fatal accident. Roundup Usage for 2003 As stated in Resolution 3-13-03, the CAC restricted the use of Roundup by the Suffolk County Parks Department by only allotting them 10 gallons of concentrate for the 2003 season and by only allowing them to use the product for spot treatments on poison ivy plants. The Department used less than 4 gallons of their allotted Roundup during the 2003 growing season, a quantity similar to that used in 2002. The herbicide was applied around trees in the golf courses where golfers may come into contact with poison ivy when looking for balls that miss the fairway, and around picnic areas and parking lots where park visitors could easily brush up against the poisonous plant. Due to a lack of manpower and a large number of rainy days in 2003 areas of the parks where poison ivy plants typically are sprayed were left untreated. The Department would like to effectively control these areas again in the 2004 season. This means the Department will use slightly more Round Up in 2004 than 2003, however, the Department does not believe it will exceed the 10 gallon limit. The Riverhead Campus of Suffolk County Community College did not use the entire allotment of Roundup in 2003. The unusual amounts of rainfall experienced in the spring made it impossible for the grounds manager to apply herbicides at the beginning of plant growth. Spot treatments were made throughout the season, but not enough to use the entire amount allotted. The grounds manager increased cultural practices by utilizing string trimming and hand weeding. Unfortunately, the amount of staff the managers can allocate towards cultural practices varies each year. Increased cultural practices were feasible in 2003 because there was more summer help available. The Selden Campus did use their entire allotment of 6 gallons of Roundup, though this was a reduction in the amount used in 2002. The limited quantity allotted to them forced the grounds manager to prioritize the areas that need to be weed free. Some weedy areas were left uncontrolled. The grounds managers are increasing their tolerance of weeds. Where the college was completely weed free in the past, it is now lush with vegetation. However, College administration has not increased their tolerance of weeds and pressures the grounds managers to maintain the aesthetics of the college. Pressure from the administration is in contradiction to IPM and to the Pesticide Phase Out Law. The CAC feels as though this issue needs to be addressed. Grounds managers from SCCC have been a strong supporter of the demonstration projects performed by Cornell Cooperative Extension. The Riverhead Campus allowed Cornell Cooperative Extension to perform an organic herbicide trial on the pavement in the Shinnecock parking lot. (See attached report summary). The college will continue to support these efforts until a viable alternative has been identified. Until then, the grounds managers advocate educating the public about weeds and the use of herbicides. A possible way to achieve this would be to create a larger, more visible demonstration garden where weeds are grown in an organized manner and labeled. The CAC will look into this idea in 2004. The CAC also restricted the use of Roundup for the Department of Highways and Fleet Maintenance Division in Resolution 3-13-03. The Department was allowed 200 gallons of Roundup concentrate. The applications were limited to areas where mowing equipment cannot reach and vegetative growth represents a safety hazard, and when a request is received to control poison ivy growing from county roadsides into the yards of adjacent residential or commercial properties. In the 2003 season the Department took great strides to reduce the amount of herbicide that was used. More labor was allocated to string trimming and mulching this year and a demonstration project with weed mats proved effective. This project is discussed in more detail in a later section of this report. The Department only used 20% of their allotted Roundup throughout the growing season. This is a 75% decrease from the amount used in 2002. Despite the great efforts, the Department feels as though some areas should have been controlled to a greater degree. Mulching is not an effective alternative to herbicides in some situations. Mulch allows enough water, sunlight, and oxygen through the bark chips that weeds continue to grow through the mulch. One weed can push the mulch aside, allowing more sunlight and water through for the next weed and so forth. The amount of Roundup used next year may or may not increase, but the Department foresees decreasing the amount they will ask for when reapplying for an exemption. Gabreski Airport: The airport has not used herbicides since 2001. However, the condition of the runways is declining quickly. Airport personnel have been scraping the weeds from the pavement by hand or with a skid-steer and plow. Scraping does not destroy the weeds but cuts the top vegetation within one inch of the ground. The weed quickly grows back from the remaining roots. The root system of the plant is not affected and it continues to grow and break apart the pavement. The airport will need to ask the CAC for an exemption to use a limited amount of Roundup for the 2004 season, or risk losing a runway. CAC Researched Alternatives in 2003 The Department of Highways and Fleet Maintenance Division of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works researched alternatives to Roundup for weed control on right-of-ways. One product that looks promising is a flexible pad made from a material that is permeable to water but does not allow sunlight through. The pads fit tightly around the metal posts of signs, guardrails and other structures that are difficult to mow around. The Department placed these pads in various locations at County buildings in the spring of 2003 and they will remain there through the winter. The pads were effective in preventing weed growth around the hard-to-mow areas. The Department intends to purchase these pads for a larger -scale trial during the 2004 growing season if the financial means are available. In the summer of 2003, Cornell Cooperative Extension conducted a demonstration project at the request of the CAC. Two organic herbicide products were applied on poison ivy and weeds in the pavement of Suffolk County Community College. Both products gave fair results and will be tested again in 2004. For a complete description of the project see the attached report. Identified Control Strategies The CAC has looked into many control strategies including cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical. The following is a brief summary of alternatives that have been considered. Mechanical: Weed steaming systems heat water to the boiling point and push steam down a long, insulated tube that runs from the water boiler to the ground. The weed is covered with steam until the plant cells collapse under the heat, causing the plant to die. The plant cells are affected up to two inches below the ground surface. Steaming weeds may be practical for small, herbaceous annual vegetation where killing the roots of the plant is not necessary, and when vegetation is steamed soon after germination so the roots have not grown deeper than two inches. Woody plants, such as older stands of poison ivy, are not susceptible to the steam because the bark protects the plant cells from the extreme temperatures. Heating poison ivy can be dangerous if the irritating oils are released into the air and inhaled. Steaming is not a feasible alternative for right-of-ways because the steam machines require large amounts of water. The Suffolk County Highway Department is currently maintaining 1,500 miles of roadway, which would require thousands of gallons of water. Also, most of the vegetation on the right-of-ways is too large for the steam machines to control with just one application of steam. The same area would need to be re-steamed three or four times a year. Steaming is an expensive means of control. The cost of a Waipuna steam machine is $800/month and a four-year contract must be signed, plus an additional employee must be devoted to the job. Weed flaming devices are designed to burn the top of vegetation until the cells of the plant collapse. Common types of torches include a propane tank that can either be carried or worn on ones back, and a hose connecting the tank to the flamer that makes contact with the plant. Flaming advantages and disadvantages are similar to the steamers, however, the CAC feels as though the flamers may put county employees at more of a health risk than the steamers. Propane gas exhaust is considered by the State of California to be a carcinogen. Also, the chance of fire in an uncontrolled area is possible. The CAC did not feel as though any of the county agencies could benefit from such a device. Chemical: Some of the products that have been experimented with by the Cornell Cooperative Extension include Nature's Glory (acetic acid:ethanoic acid), Bioganic (Eugenol:2-phenethy propionate) and Broadleaf killer (sesame oil:sodium laurel sulfate). None of the products were proven to be fully effective against weeds (based on >50% death). One product that had not been experimented with by Cornell Cooperative Extension is cornmeal gluten. Producers of natural herbicides that contain cornmeal gluten boast of pre-emergent weed control in turfgrass. However, studies show that turf areas treated with cornmeal gluten has a similar response to turf areas given increased nitrogen applications. Applying large quantities of nitrogen early in the spring creates a flush of top growth. The flush of growth from nitrogen gives the turf a competitive edge over weeds. Unfortunately, this top growth may occur at the expense of root growth, and may compromise the plant's ability to fight disease and insects later in the season. There are also various negative environmental effects to excess nitrogen applications including groundwater contamination. Cultural: Cornell Cooperative Extension has performed research trials where cultivation between rows and in-rows was used as an alternative to herbicides in corn crops. The research showed high cultivation methods between rows of corn was a feasible means of weed control. However, cultivation was not an effective means of weed management in-row. New research performed by Cornell Cooperative Extension shows planting desirable ground covers in right-of-ways may be a way to out compete unwanted vegetation. In the summer of 2003 Cornell Cooperative Extension planted areas of the New York State owned right-of-ways in Suffolk County with various groundcovers to test the effect on weed populations. Success and establishment of each site will be determined in the spring of 2004, but several species are already established and are providing excellent cover. Biological: Biological control of weeds includes using natural herbivores to feed on invasive plants. The herbivore must be host specific to the unwanted species. An example is the beetle Gallerucella spp. ingesting the undesirable purple loosestrife. Biological control can also be a fungus or another disease that is host specific. The disease inoculates the weed and destroys the plant without harming surrounding vegetation. One example is a particular strand of rust called Puccinia spp. that infects and kills unwanted ground ivy in turf areas. Biological control of vegetation is still in the research stage. The CAC plans to remain updated on progress in biological research in order to make use of the findings as soon as they are available. The CAC is also looking into the use of goats for control of unwanted under story brush, including poison ivy. The CAC has found examples of successful control of vegetation on roadsides and fields by goats from the Internet and news articles. The committee plans to look into these success stories to find out more information on vegetation control by goats and to see if goats can meet the needs of Suffolk County. Conclusion The issue of a broad-spectrum herbicide is a reoccurring theme in almost every CAC meeting. One of the largest issues is a general lack of personnel. Most organic herbicides are formulated from chemicals that burn vegetative growth but do not affect the root system. Steaming, burning and scraping are similar in that these methods do not affect the roots. The plants grow back quickly and require another application of organic herbicide. The average organic alternative to Roundup requires treatments occur every two weeks, whereas Roundup can be applied once every month with the same level of control. To make additional treatments the county departments need additional personnel added to their insufficient work crews. 1.3 SCCC Athletic Fields and Citibank Park The Selden and Brentwood Campuses of Suffolk County Community Colleges have college sports teams that practice and compete on the campus fields. The Brentwood Campus contracts the management of their fields to an outside vendor. The grounds crew maintains the fields at the Selden campus. In 2003, both athletic field directors sat down with Cornell Cooperative Extension to derive a maintenance plan that involves increased cultural practices and regular scouting and record keeping. The colleges are hopeful that they will be able to implement this management plan in 2004, however, they currently lack the necessary resources (see Resolution 11-18-03a). Both fields are currently being managed with minimal use of pesticides. However, the CAC believes the fields can be managed without the use of pesticides, but agree that the small budget and lack of manpower are large obstacles. The CAC reached out to Citibank Park in July of 2003. Citibank Park, located in Central Islip, is a 6,002 seat state-of-the-art facility that is home for the Long Island Ducks. The stadium surrounds a 90,000 square foot baseball field. The turf management plan at the stadium is currently being managed with only minor amounts of pesticides. The turf is closely scouted each day and records are kept. Weeds are hand pulled from the mounds and other areas without turf. Even the outfield gets hand weeded. Turf from feavily trafficked areas is removed and replaced on a regular basis. Turf patched with disease or stress is also cut out and replaced. However, there are particular instances where diseases, insects and weeds are not localized in patches or small areas, but widespread across the field. These problems cannot be cut and replaced. Examples of this include dollar spot, chinch bugs and yellow nutsedge. To resolve these pests the grounds manager asked the CAC for the use of a few pesticides. The CAC allotted the turf manager the necessary pesticides with restrictions on the amounts that can be used at one time. The turf manager is limited to spot treatments when problems arise, rather than treating the entire field. In the 2003 season fungicides were applied twice to the field, once for pink snow mold and once for dollar spot. No other pesticides were used on the field. The CAC looks forward to continuing a relationship with the Citibank Park and hopes to learn from their admirable IPM practices. 1.4 SCCC Greenhouses, Eastern Campus There are three SCCC greenhouses used for instructional purposes at the Riverhead Campus, one glass house 40'x 90', and two polyethylene houses 20'x30' and 25'x30'. Plants are grown by the students and sold at the campus plant sale. The greenhouse managers are currently using beneficial insects as their main control measure along with implementing and teaching proper IPM practices. These include keeping the greenhouse clean, scouting and record keeping. The managers use their knowledge of the plant material and pest life cycles, and past history to anticipate problems and release beneficials when problems are still manageable. To avoid the use of chemical plant growth regulators the managers' purchases genetically modified plants or manipulate the growing environment to keep plants shorter and more full. These cultural and biological practices and the implementation of an organized IPM program have allowed the greenhouse mangers to grow crops for 4 years without the use of synthetic pesticides. Most of the diseases and insects that occur in a greenhouse are introduced on purchased plants. Therefore, preventative measures are not always effective. The managers of SCCC are constantly looking for new beneficial species and alternatives to pesticides. The managers would prefer not to use chemicals due to the re-entry period, hassle of paperwork, and high expense of purchasing the products. The greenhouse managers are currently using the least amount of pesticides possible. However, greenhouses have optimal environmental conditions and large quantities of food for insects and disease. Greenhouse crops are often limited to one plant type at a time, such as an entire crop of poinsettias in the winter. Monocultures present the most optimal condition for complete devastation because the pest will never find an unacceptable host. If one poinsettia is infected, then all the poinsettias have the possibility to become infected. The pest must be stopped quickly and effectively or it can spread across the entire greenhouse. In some instances, when pressure from the damaging insects is too great, the beneficial insects are out numbered and are not an effective means of control. Beneficial insects are not effective on all pest species and are not effective on disease pathogens. For these reasons the CAC granted the SCCC greenhouse at Riverhead the use of a limited number of pesticides to be used on an as needed basis. These pesticides are to be used when all cultural and biological means of control are not effective and there is fear of losing a crop entirely. In 2003 the greenhouse had a reoccurring infestation of mealy bugs and scale, two insects that do not respond to the use of beneficials alone. The managers applied Neem oil, an organic biopesticide, to the infected plants in combination with beneficial insects. Next
year (2004) the greenhouse manager intends to employ a more diligent scouting
and reporting program with students. Increased observations and communication
between classes may result in recognizing insects earlier to give the beneficials
a more competitive edge. 1.5 Boat Bottom Paints Requests for the use of anti-fouling paints came from the Suffolk County Departments of Health Services, Public Works and Police. The same three facilities had an exemption in 2002. Since then DPW has ceased using Alumicoat on the aluminum bottom boats. As an alternative, they sandblasted the old paint off the aluminum bottom of the boat and applied primer material that allows softer, less toxic paint to adhere to the boat bottom. The CAC researched alternative products to the currently used anti-fouling pesticide. A product called "Marine Skin" produced by "Performance Marine International Corp." was suggested by Cornell Cooperative Extension. A CCE representative set up an agreement with the company producing Marine Skin so each county facility could receive a free trial. The three county facilities will follow up on the offer and test the product in the 2004 season. All three facilities were granted an exemption to continue the use of copper-based boat bottom paints on a limited number of vessels for the 2004 season. 1.6 The Suffolk County Farm and Education Center The property of the Suffolk County Farm and Education Center, Yaphank Ave., Yaphank is owned by Department of Public Works, but is managed by the 4-H program of Cornell Cooperative Extension. The farm produces beef and pork to feed inmates at the County Correctional Facilities, the Skilled Nursing Facility and the County Office of the Aging. The Farm also raises various animals, such as llamas, chickens, pigs, and dairy cows for educational programs. The farm is self-sufficient in that it grows the forage and grain crops needed to feed the pigs and cows. The farm a unique piece of property in Suffolk County, as it is the only working livestock farm owned by the County. The farm did not use any pesticides in the 2003-growing season. The largest problem the farm has is weeds in between the rows of plants and between each plant. In 2003 the weeds were managed mechanically by means of cultivation between rows. Cultivation is not an effective means of weed control in corn. Once the plants grow to a certain height the cultivating apparatus on the tractor can not pass over the plants without damaging them. Also, the cultivator cannot control weeds between plants, only between rows. The farm purchased a majority of the feed for 2003. Purchasing feed for all of the animals on the farm is not economical and the farm cannot afford to purchase feed again in the upcoming year. In past years the cows and pigs could be fed by the corn grown on the premises and the farm itself was entirely self-sufficient. The farm manger will develop an IPM plan for the 2004 season, however, there again is no guarantee that the farm will produce enough feed for all of the animals. The farm manager will be speaking with the CAC and asking for an exemption to use Round Up in the 2004 growing season. 2.0 Research and Demonstration for Outdoor Pesticide Use 2.1 Alternatives to Roundup for Management of Poison Ivy and Weeds in the Pavement The purpose of this project was to test the efficacy of two organic herbicides and compare their efficacy to that of Roundup (glyphosate), Monsanto. The project was performed by Cornell Cooperative Extension at the request of the Suffolk County Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Pesticide Phase Out Law. The project was performed to comply with the Special Use Exemption 3-13-03, where the Parks Department and the Highway Department were granted the use of Roundup if continued efforts and research continued to identify alternatives to the product.
Site Descriptions: The project was performed on the Orient Parking Lot at the Eastern Campus of Suffolk County Community College (SCCC), and the Point Picnic Area at Indian Island, Suffolk County Park. The applications were made on August 18th with a hand held carbon dioxide pressurized sprayer at 25 psi. Site 1: The SCCC parking lot is vulnerable to weeds that grow in the cracks of the pavement and in the cracks between the cement blocks that make up the walkways. The larger and longer weeds growing through the sidewalk can cause students to trip and interfere with handicap accessibility. Also, weeds that grow directly through the pavement in weakened or cracked areas create an increased number of cracked surfaces and further weaken the infrastructure. If the weeds are allowed to grow up through the pavement the number of cracks will continue to increase until the pavement and cement are destroyed. The majority of the weeds in this parking lot are knotweed, prostrate spurge, crabgrass, Pennsylvania smartweed, dallisgrass, yellow foxtail, woodsorrel, yellow nutsedge, and carpetweed. The treated area was a linear sidewalk made up of large cement segments. Weeds grow between the cement segments, between the cement of the sidewalk curb and the pavement of the parking lot. At SCCC one three-foot cement block was considered a treatment area. Each treatment was replicated four times. Treatments in each replication were grouped together and separated from the next replication by an untreated barrier. Each crack (row of weedy vegetation) between the cement segments was passed over once and each crack between the cement and the pavement was passed over once, both passes were made for approximately 7 seconds each making the total spray per rep 14 seconds. Site 2: The picnic area at Indian Island is plagued with poison ivy. The ivy reaches from the woods into the picnic area where control is necessary for the safety of the visitors. The project was performed in a wooded area away from visitors. This area is dry, sandy, and mostly shaded by oak trees with poison ivy plants growing along the ground and up the trees. Plants were grouped according to approximate leaf surface area and flagged for the study. There were five treatments and four replications, for a total of twenty applications. All mixtures were applied to the leaves until drip. Each poison ivy plant was sprayed with one, even pass, over the entire surface area. Treatments: For the control, water plus a spreader-sticker typically used in herbicide applications, were applied. EcoEXEMPT™ HC, 2-Phenethyl Propionate and Eugenol (clove oil) was used at a rate of 15% - 20% volume with water, which translates to 7 parts water with 1 part product. This product is a minimum risk material and exempt from the EPA list of pesticides under CFR Article 25. Super C, manufactured by American Enzyme, is a protease enzyme that is used as an all-purpose cleaning product. This product has not previously been tested for use as an herbicide. Interest in this product came about when the manufacturer received calls from clients that noticed that when they disposed their unused cleaning solution, the solution was killing their unwanted vegetation in the area it was discarded in. Super C was mixed at a ratio of 1:1 with water and 2:1 with water. Roundup Pro (glyphosate), produced by Monsanto, is a widely used general use herbicide. Roundup Pro is a systemic herbicide and kills all organs of a plant about two weeks after application. The delay from application to death is the time it takes for the chemical to move through the plant. The EPA reported that the active ingredient in the herbicide is non-carcinogenic and does not leach into ground water. However, questions have been raised about the safety of inert ingredients in the formulated product and surface water runoff. Results: Observations were made at 1, 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT) for both treatment sites. Site 1: EcoEXEMPT™ HC: One DAT EcoEXEMPT™ HC burned the spurge and caused the leaves to curl. At 3 DAT the EcoEXEMPT™ HC had achieved 100% control of spurge, carpetweed, and medic. All plants that had contact with EcoEXEMPT™ HC were burnt to some degree, including the hard to kill crabgrass. At 7 DAT the results were similar to that of 3 DAT. At 14 DAT all weeds were growing again and recovering from injury. SUPER-C: At 3 DAT the 1:1 ratio burnt 75% of the spurge and 50% of the carpetweed. At 7 DAT the treatment effects were similar to that at 3 DAT. At 14 DAT the plants began to recover and grow again. No visual effects were seen with the more dilute 2:1 solution of Super-C. Roundup Pro: At 3 DAT all plants treated with Roundup Pro were yellow. At 7, 14, and 21 DAT all plants except crabgrass and nutsedge were brown and dead. The Roundup application resulted in approximately 85% control of the crabgrass and 50% control of the nutsedge. Site 2: EcoEXEMPT™ HC: At 1 DAT poison ivy plants treated with EcoEXEMPT™ HC experienced some leaf curl and discoloration. At 3 DAT the discoloration continued and plants continued to turn brown without any visible pattern. At 7 DAT 65% of the plants expressed red, yellow and orange leaves with a burnt appearance. At 14 DAT the plants began to recover and grow again. The 2:1 and 1:1 treatments of Super C resulted in similar effects. At 3 DAT plants expressed a gray discoloration, leaf curl and yellow mottling. None of these symptoms expressed a pattern. At 7 DAT the symptoms were similar to those at 3 DAT. At 14 DAT, the plants began to recover. Plants treated with Roundup Pro did not express results until 7 DAT when they turned yellow, red, orange and brown. At 14 DAT all plants were brown and dead. The leaves had wilted and began decaying on the ground. At 21 DAT only the woody stems to the plant remained. Discussion: At SCCC the EcoEXEMPT™ HC and the Super C burned the plants enough to create injury, but not cause death. Both products gave better control of the more succulent weeds such as spurge and woodsorrel than weeds like crabgrass. This leads one to believe that if the weeds could be treated when they are at a more succulent and vulnerable stage, such as in spring growth, then control may be optimized. This approach will be tested in the 2004-growing season. Both
organic products were less effective than Roundup Pro, but gave a fair amount
of control of the poison ivy plants. Although neither product gave 100% control,
both showed symptoms of burnt foliage and deformed leaves. In the 2004-growing
season both organic products will be tested at higher volumes. Applications will
be made earlier in the season to time control during a more vulnerable part of
the plant lifecycle. In this demonstration project both organic herbicides expressed some degree of control on herbaceous weeds and poison ivy. In areas outside of the project the solutions were sprayed in high volumes on plants that were not part of the project. This was done as a means to dispose of the extra solution, however, the plants were observed along with the project plants. The plants treated with high volumes of EcoEXEMPT™ HC showed 85% control. The high amounts of control at higher volumes suggest that the product may be more effective when applied at higher rates. This question will be investigated in the 2004-growing season. More research must be done with these organic products to identify the proper conditions (environmental, plant growth stage, frequency of application) to optimize weed management potential. This will enable experts to develop guidelines for economical, feasible and effective use of low-impact and low-risk herbicides. 2.2 Use of Allelopathic Fescues to Reduce Herbicide Use Introduction: Allelopathy is the term used when one plant exerts a negative effect on another plant through natural chemicals. Allelopathy is like a natural herbicide. Plants that exhibit this characteristic produce chemical compounds in their leaves, roots or stems that are released, by various mechanisms, into the surrounding soil. The natural chemical is toxic to other plants and inhibits growth. This is a natural defense against surrounding plants trying to compete for soil nutrients, water and sunlight. Fescues are a type of grass that have allelopathic properties, but not all fescue varieties have these properties. Previous research trials have demonstrated that some fescues have greater allelopathic properties than others (Senesac, 2002). Three varieties that exhibited the most allelopathic properties were Reliant II, Columbra, and Oxford. One fescue type that did not exhibit weed suppressive characteristics was Intrigue. Fescue is a common turfgrass that many homeowners use in their lawn, especially in shaded and low maintenance areas. Fescue is not typically used on golf courses for a number of reasons. Fescue has a rigid texture that may not allow balls to roll as fast as other grasses do. Fescues are slow to germinate so turf that is ripped up by golf clubs and golf balls may be filled in with weeds before the turf can reestablish itself. Also, some grasses, such as Kentucky Blue and Perennial Rye, have a blue color that creates a striped look on fairways when mowed in opposite directions. Fescue is not as aesthetically pleasing. However, there are reasons beyond allelopathic properties that make fescue turf desirable. Fescue requires very little irrigation and fertilizer, two practices that require considerable resources. If fescue plantings could reduce herbicide use as well, then perhaps the less desirable characteristics could be over looked. The purpose of this experiment is to establish four different varieties of fescue in a fairway to observe their weed suppressive characteristics. A secondary objective is to observe how well the fescue fairs in a trafficked fairway. Materials and Methods: On September 2, 2003, 2.5 inches of turf were stripped off half of the 11th fairway at Indian Island Golf Course, Riverhead, NY. The following day, 2 inches of topsoil were replaced onto the fairway. The plot area was tilled and graded. 20'x10' plots were laid out with string and seeded with 4 lbs/1,000ft² (12.8 oz) of either, Reliant II, Columbra, Oxford, Intrigue, or a blugrass/rye mix. The bluegrass/rye mix is the same that is used to overseed the fairways by the golf course manager. This mix served as a control for the project to compare allelopathic fescue to typical fairway turf. Intrigue was added to the project as a comparison between allelopathic fescue and non-allelopathic fescue. Seeds were spread by hand, rolled, and then fertilized. The project is set up like a randomized block design with five blocks in a row north to south. Each block is seeded with a different turf variety. There are four rows representing the four replications of the project. The entire plot is 50' north to south and 80' east to west. Results: As of December of 2003, the fescue plots had poor germination. This may be due to a heavy rainfall that occurred 3 days after seeding. Broadleaf weeds encroached on the plot areas. An additional 1.25 lbs/1,000ft² (4 oz) of seed were applied to each block on October 14, 2003. We are hopeful that the fescue will germinate in the spring of 2004, otherwise, the plots will be renovated and reseeded. 2.3 Effects of Compost Tea on Microbial Populations in a Golf Course Practice Green Cornell Cooperative Extension in collaboration with Soil Food Web, NY Introduction: Compost tea is an aerated, water-based solution of live microbes. Small amounts of compost are placed into a perforated bag and suspend in a cylindrical container of water that is constantly aerated. The compost serves as a source of microbes that escape through the perforations of the bag and multiply in the surrounding water. An activator and food source are added to the cylindrical container of water to supply nutrients to the microbes so they continue to multiply throughout a 24-hour brewing cycle. When the brewing cycle is complete, the compost is removed and discarded. The remaining solution is put into a sprayer where it is mixed with water and applied to turfgrass at a rate of 10 g/acre. The objective of the tea applications is to increase the number of microorganisms in the soil including fungi, bacteria, nematodes, protozoa, and mycorrhizal colonization. These microorganisms influence the soil environment. It is thought that when the organisms are in balance, the soil texture and structure are optimized. The balance of the ratio of fungi to bacteria is of great importance. This ratio constantly changes as the soil environment is influenced by weather and chemical and organic inputs. Optimal ratios are different for each plant species. The Soil Food Web Inc. advises that turf managers try to control the ratio to remain 1:1. However, there is a lack of information available to golf course superintendents that provide a mechanism to manipulate microbial populations. Compost teas can be manipulated to provide microbes at the 1:1 ratio, but there is little research provided that shows these applications produce a 1:1 ratio in the soil. The purpose of this experiment was to test the effect of weekly compost tea applications on the population of the underlying soil microbes. The secondary objective was to observe how the populations change in response to different timings of tea applications and when applied in conjunction with a fungicide. Materials and Method: The experiment was set up as 16 square plots adjacent to one another on one quarter of the practice green of Indian Island Golf Course, Riverhead. The plots were organized as a randomized complete block design with 4 treatments and 4 replications. The treatments compared were 1) applications of compost tea in the morning (MT); 2) applications of compost tea in the evening (ET); 3) applications of a fungicide directly after a morning application of compost tea (TF); 4) control plots without any tea or fungicide applications (control). All tea treatments were applied as a drench at 10 g/acre with a hand held CO² sprayer. The plots were included in any cultural practices that were performed on the practice green. This included mowing, verticutting, aerating, overseeding and fertilizing. The only difference between the plot areas and the surrounding practice green was the absence of pesticide applications. The project began on June 12, 2003 and continued until October 24, 2003. Data were taken from 3' x 3' plots to allow a one foot buffer from the adjacent plot. Data were taken from 3 replications for soil microbial counts. Four replications were used to assess turf quality. Five 1-inch cores of soil 3 inches in depth were taken from each plot and sent to the Soil Food Web NY for microbial counts. Cores were refilled with straight sand. Paul Wagner, from the Soil Food Web NY, took data by a direct count of microorganisms using florescent microscopy and Differential Interface Contrast microscopy. Soil samples were taken 3 times throughout the project, on May 29, representing a spring count before any treatments were applied, August 20, representing a summer count and again on October 24, representing a late fall count. The populations counted were active bacterial biomass, total bacterial biomass, active fungal biomass, and total fungal biomass. From these populations the ratios between total fungal/bacterial biomass, active to total fungal biomass, active to total bacterial biomass, and active fungal to active bacterial biomass were calculated. Population counts and ratios were analyzed as a response to treatment and season using ANOVA. Student's t-test was used to separate and compare treatment means where there was a significant response. Dollar spot lesions were counted weekly from the beginning of the experiment to early summer as an assessment of turf quality. One lesion was considered to be one inch in diameter. Data were taken within the 3' x 3' plot. Mean lesion numbers were compared as a response to treatments. On October 24, 2003, the roots were measured on the soil plugs taken for microbial counts. Each 3' x 3' plot had 5 plugs measured and the average of the 5 plugs represented the root length for the plot. Mean root lengths were compared by treatment. Results
and Discussion: Seasonal Effects: MT plots had a significantly greater total bacterial biomass in the fall than in the summer (P<0.0042). All plots had greater active to total bacteria ratios in the summer than the fall, regardless of treatment (P<0.001). Plots where compost tea was applied in the morning may have the greatest bacterial biomass compared to other treatments because the applied bacteria can efficiently use the energy and heat from sunlight in the hours after the soil has been inoculated. An increase in bacteria in MT plots from summer to fall may indicate the necessary time and repetitive applications required to accumulate enough bacterial growth to express a shift in grand populations. However, despite the larger total populations of the MT plots, the TF plots had the highest ratio of active to total bacteria. The fungicide may be providing an optimal environment or food source to keep the bacteria active. The high ratio of active to total bacterial across treatments in the summer may be a response to temperature. Ratio: There were no significant differences in the ratio of total fungal to bacterial biomass between treatments. However, there was shift in the ratio between seasons, regardless of treatment. The soil samples taken in the fall expressed a ratio lower than 1:1 and those taken in the summer expressed a ratio higher than one. This may be due to an increase in bacterial biomass in the fall. Generally speaking, the MT and TF plots illustrated a ratio closest to 1:1 throughout the experiment. Root length: There were no significant differences in root lengths between treatments. Turf Quality: The plot areas were infested with dollar spot before the project began. All plots were equally infested the first day data were taken. By mid-July the TF plots began to show significantly less dollar spot (P<0.0018) than all other treatments. Plots treated with fungicide expressed a decrease in lesion numbers from early June to the end of July, where the other three treatments expressed an increase in lesion numbers. By the end of July, control plots, MT and ET plots had over 75% coverage of dollar spot lesions, making it impossible to collect data on lesion numbers. Plots remained this infested until late fall. Plots treated with fungicide had less than five dollar spot lesions from July 13 until the end of the project, thereby having the best turf quality. Conclusion: There were no major responses in microbial populations or turf quality from applications of compost tea. The Soil Food Web advises turf managers to apply compost tea for a minimum of 2 years before expecting a significant response from the soil or turf. This project will continue during the 2004-growing season, and more significant results will be expected. In the second year of this project we will hope to be able to better determine the effect of compost tea on fungal population and the effect of the fungicide applications on the soil microbial population. 3.0 Structural Pesticide Uses The final installment of the Pesticide Phase-out Law brought about some tough challenges on how to effectively manage structural pests while maintaining public health and integrity of county buildings. Cornell Cooperative Extension worked assiduously with Department of Public Works, Suffolk County Parks and Recreation, and Suffolk County Community Colleges in order to implement the Law. 3.1 Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Public Works is responsible for 317 buildings within the County. Eighty-nine of those buildings fall under contract for monthly maintenance with pest control operators that are contracted by the county. Over ten thousand people are employed and work in Suffolk County Buildings and properties. Additionally, there are over 3 million visitors that frequent the buildings and properties annually. It is the legal and civic responsibility of the County to keep the buildings safe and provide a healthy environment for those patrons. One accomplishment this year was that Department of Public Works with recommendations of Cornell Cooperative Extension had rewritten their bid contracts for the General Program Requirements for Pest Control. Presently, the General Program Requirements specifically state that the contracted Pest Control Operator must be familiar with Integrated Pest Management as the most effective and up-to-date approach to modern professional pest control. This program incorporates the advantageous use of appropriate control options including education, habitat modification, sanitation, the alteration of maintenance activities, and trapping and chemical controls. Even though Cornell and the County promote the testing of new products and methods, there is an urgency to eradicate pests. If a known pest infestation exists and a person becomes ill as a result, the liability to the County would be great. Also, there are sites such as the skilled nursing home, medical clinics, and cafeterias that have a zero tolerance to any pests. These are such cases where eradication of the pest by the use of products is necessary. Cornell
Cooperative Extension in collaboration with DPW Operations and Maintenance determine
re-occurring pest management problems. Cornell performs on site evaluations, pest
identification, and makes recommendations. In addition, Cornell demonstrates the
use of minimum risk products, procedures, and building modifications such as foaming
or caulking for pest exclusion. However, upon doing any repairs, monitoring or
application of minimum risk products Cornell enlists key personnel to become familiarized
with the Law and the alternative methods used to manage pests. Each site is given
a Pest Management Communication Log Book and training is given to all building
occupants because they too play an important role in helping to manage pests. Projects completed this year have included managing stinging insects at the Children's Shelter in Hauppauge, Suffolk County Health Department at Rabro Drive in Happauge, Timber Point Golf Course, Suffolk County Farm and Education Center, Suffolk County Minimum Security Facility, John Foley Nursing Facility, and the H. Lee Dennison Building. Stinging insects were managed using a combination of alternative products and methods. Cornell tested a new line of "ECO Smart" products with active ingredients of botanical oils that showed promise in eradication and repellency. These products used in combination with bait traps, and filling voids with hardening foam to eliminate nesting sites provided good control of stinging insects. This year Cornell Cooperative Extension in collaboration with NYS IPM program participated in the "Sky Blue Paint Project". This particular trial involved painting man-made nest sites and underside of awnings sky blue to determine whether color was a deterrent in nest initiation for paper wasps. The first year trial results are inconclusive, therefor monitoring will continue next year. Trial locations included the Suffolk County Farm and Education Center, Bayard Cutting Arboretum, and Riverhead County Center Dentist Trailer. Cornell Cooperative Extension helped to manage a severe cat flea problem at Gabreski Airport using an "ECO Smart" Exempt product in combination with the low risk diatomaceous earth. Future recommendations were made, and follow-up showed the treatment to be successful. This
year the high levels of rain exacerbated ant problems in many locations including
the Suffolk County Department of Health. Boric acid baits, caulking, vacuuming
and the application of EPA exempt dusts and diatomaceous earth were tested for
efficacy. 3.2 Suffolk County Parks and Recreation Cornell Cooperative Extension assists Suffolk County Parks with its structural pest challenges as well. Suffolk County is home to 20 parks and 26 preserves situated on more than 42,000 acres of land. The public enjoys camping, swimming, golf, and horseback riding, hiking and fishing. However, along with the out-of-doors some pests become an issue. Many of the parks have concessionaires that also fall under the pesticide phase-out law. Examples of these would be the camp stores, stables, golf pro-shops, and historic buildings. Specifically, Cornell Cooperative Extension has made recommendations and structural modifications to play ground equipment at Cathedral Pines Park for stinging insects. The nests were sprayed with minimum risk product, removed, and the entryways were caulked. Through out the season the wasp did not return. At the West Sayville Greenhouse Cornell Cooperative Extension gave recommendations to remedy a long existing termite infestation. In the basement wooden joists were severely damaged by termite and excess moisture. Cornell recommended the addition of new beams that were treated with a boric acid and product label for termite and wood destroying fungi. These beams were also to be capped by metal to avoid the moisture from the foundation from seeping in the raw ends. Other recommendations were the addition ventilation to the basement in the way of fans or a dehumidifier. Also the installation of gutters or French drains would carry rainwater away from the buildings foundation. These methods although labor intensive would provide long-term protection against wood destroying insects and fungi. Cornell Cooperative Extension hopes to continue involvement by providing staff training to seasonal employees identifying insects as vector of disease and how they can limit their risks. Extension would also extend the offer of educational programs to park patrons at special events during next year's season. 3.3 Suffolk County Community College Cornell Cooperative Extension's structural pest program has also joined forces with Suffolk County Community College Health and Safety Department. For example, Cornell has assisted the college in alternative treatments for rodent infestation at a child day care facility. Non-toxic methods of trapping, sanitation and exclusion helped to rid the day care center of their problem. In the future the structural pest management program will be assisting the food service vendors on the three campuses. At this time, Cornell is in the process of writing up a campus-wide Pest Management Plan to be used as a standard operational procedure for the three campuses. Although much of emphasis is placed on education of staff and building occupants to maintain a pest free environment, there are still challenges to overcome. Limitations to the success in non-pesticide techniques are dependent on sanitation and maintenance to help achieve a pest-free environment. The availability of labor is needed to make modifications and repairs. Another consideration is the fiscal allowance given to DPW to perform the required modifications and repairs. Suggestions may be to designate an Emergency Repair fund to address repairs and/or sanitation improvements that will promote a least toxic approach. 3.4 Other Collaborative Programs Cornell Cooperative Extension's Structural Pest Management Program has collaborated with Suffolk County Cornell's Family Consumer Sciences in dynamic educational programming. Participants include are those enrolled in EFNEP, Bellport Outreach, Apple Incorporated, and other local government funded programs. The outreach program is designed to educate individuals who have limited resources about cleaning products, alternatives to pesticides, and public health related issues. Clean up, close up, and common sense practices of pest management are discussed and with many of their questions being answered. Not only is this outreach rewarding but it is necessary. These people are living in situations where they all too familiar with pests. Cornell Cooperative Extension is successful in providing these individuals with the necessary tools to help protect themselves and their families. In
addition, Cornell Cooperative Extension's Pest Management Program offers to school
districts, scouting groups, and career-day programs it's ever-popular "Live
Bug Show". This educational outreach teaches kids of all ages "Good
bug, Bad bug", lessons in ecology, and protection of the environment. The
hands-on program allows children to get close-up and personal with an array of
giant insects including: African millipedes, hissing cockroaches, Emperor scorpion,
and colorful tarantulas. Not only is this a great opportunity to publicize Suffolk
County's efforts to reduce pesticide use, but it is also a lot of fun. Cornell Cooperative Extension and the CAC are committed in educating the county staff and building occupants in maintaining a pest-free environment. Yet, limitations to the success in non-pesticide techniques are dependent on sanitation, maintenance, sufficient labor and materials to properly manage pests. One solution would be to designate an Emergency Repair Fund to address repairs and/or sanitation improvements that will promote a least toxic approach to pest management. This fund may be contingent on severity of the infestation, extent of necessary repairs, and the threat to public health. PESTICIDE CAC SPECIAL USE EXEMPTION RESOLUTIONS
Achievements in 2003
Outdoor
Pesticide Use When it comes to outdoor pest problems and pesticide use most of the challenges to a management plan void of pesticides can be summed up into three categories: Lack of Resources, Lack of Alternatives, and Lack of Support. Lack
of Resources Increased funding would be used to purchase:
Increased manpower would be used for:
Athletic
Fields
Increased manpower would be used to:
Lack
of Alternatives Yaphank Farm
Turfgrass
Poison Ivy
Boat bottoms
Lack of Support
Structural
Pesticide Use These lists of challenges represent observations, site assessments, accounts from county personnel, and hands-on experience as a Resource Educator for Cornell Cooperative Extension. Building
Repairs
Major repairs conducive to Best Pest Management are too costly or low priority.
Minor repairs become Major because of the accumulation and quantity resulting in tremendous cost throughout the many buildings of the county. Behavior
Modification Through Training
Tolerance levels of structural pests.
"Instant fix" via pesticide application vs. Long term solution via repairs and sanitation.
Key personnel listening to the needs of the custodial and maintenance staff.
Building
Sanitation
The building occupants and staff should be reminded of the importance to keep areas clean via signage or training.
Acquisition
and Trials of Alternative Products
Development
of a Pest Management Team Within the County Infrastructure
|
Click here for the 2002 Annual Report
June 2004
