Community IPM Program Progress Report, 1994 - 1998

From Urban to Community

In 1993, the government of New York State and a number of agencies began approving resolutions and policies for practicing IPM in and around state office buildings, schools, parks, and arboreta. These forms of "mandated" IPM programs created numerous requests for education and training in IPM methods. Many of these requests came to Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), the New York State IPM Program, nongovernmental organizations, and the New York State Departments of Health, Environmental Conservation, Education, and Agriculture and Markets.

That year, Cornell scientists, Extension field staff and IPM program staff met to discuss an IPM program that could address the needs of the urban environment. Attendees at the meeting agreed that a new program should educate pest managers; produce written resources that would convey the latest IPM methods; form a coalition with advocacy groups and professional associations; and continue building a research base. With this group, which soon became known as the Urban IPM Working Group, a small but ambitious effort of outreach and education began.

Three watchwords of those early years continue today: listen, network, and educate. In March 1995, the Working Group surveyed, then met with, representatives of the structural pest control and landscape industries to discuss the direction for the program and ways to be helpful. To promote networking, the Program orchestrated a meeting of governmental officials, pest managers, Extension personnel, environmental advocates, and others. This group, now known as the Community IPM Coordinating Council, still meets semiannually to anticipate problems, dialog about pest management concerns, coordinate educational efforts, and reinforce commonalities.

In 1995, CCE Smith-Lever 3(d) funds were used for urban IPM demonstration and implementation projects. These continue today (see below). Community IPM projects have resulted in specific details about IPM:

• Sampling procedures can accurately determine whether controls for European chafer larvae are necessary on lawns. Using these procedures could mean that pesticides are applied 50-80% fewer times than with prophylactic sprays.

• Using IPM on Kentucky bluegrass promotes better color and density than using IPM on a tall fescue blend or low-maintenance grass mix. For color and density, IPM surpassed low maintenance and organic methods, according to a three-year study conducted on CCE grounds in Nassau County.

• Certain composts, such as Sustane, can suppress development of dollar spot in turf if applied at the proper time and if disease pressure is not severe.

• Tiny beneficial worms (nematodes) will manage grubs in turf when applied correctly.

In 1996, in response to guidance from the Working Group, the Program began to focus on IPM for educational facilities. Staff drafted an IPM manual for school buildings that became the backbone of a pilot training project in Rockland County. A web site was established for the program, and three educational brochures were produced.

In the spring of 1998, the program changed its name from Urban IPM to Community IPM to better reflect the breadth of the program’s audience.