Turf Manager Response to Changing Pesticide Regulations
Year: 2016

A mail survey was distributed to school turfgrass managers throughout Connecticut focusing on the differences between turfgrass management practices for kindergarten through eighth grade (K 8) school grounds before, during, and after a 2010 ban on pesticide use at these facilities. The results indicate that as turf care protocol transitioned from an integrated pest management (IPM) program to new pesticide free regulatory requirements, school grounds/athletic field managers did not significantly adjust their management programs. The percentage of managers applying pesticides on K 8 grounds decreased, as expected, with the implementation of the new pesticide ban; however, pesticide applications on high school grounds/athletic fields also decreased. Furthermore, it was observed that there had been minimal adoption of minimum risk 25(b) products, the suggested alternative to traditional synthetic pesticides. With respect to other cultural practices, we found that few changes have been made to other cultural practices that would improve turf quality. Budgetary issues facing school grounds/ athletic field managers may have limited their ability to implement potentially costly management practices necessary to offset the loss of pesticides. Educational efforts to promote new management practices have the potential to inform school grounds/athletic field managers about new methods, thereby, potentially increasing adoption. Pesticide usage throughout the United States is coming under increasing scrutiny due to potential environmental and health concerns. Notably, concern about pesticide residue exposure of children at schools has intensified the debate over use of pesticides on school grounds and athletic fields. In particular, some research has indicated that when children come into contact with pesticides on school grounds there is a potential for health risks associated with prolonged pesticide exposure (Alarcon et al. 2005; Gilden et al. 2012) As these perceived concerns have increased in number, states have enacted various regulations to limit or eliminate pesticide exposure at schools. Currently, 40 states have varying levels of school pest management regulations which limit or eliminate pesticide usage on school grounds (Hurley et al. 2014) While regulations vary by state, Connecticut and New York have the most restrictive regulations. In Connecticut, a total ban of pesticides on school grounds from day care through grade eight became effective on 1 July 2010. The Connecticut ban was systematically implemented over several years since the initial legislation was adopted. As noted in PA 05 252, which banned lawn care pesticide use on K 8 school grounds (including athletic fields) school grounds/athletic field managers (hereby referred to as school grounds managers) were transitioned from no restrictions with regard to pesticide use to an IPM programwith a mandated IPM plan, to no use of lawn care pesticides (State of Connecticut, 2005)  2006 through 1 July 2010, managers could use an IPM program in accordance with plans consistent with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) guidelines and monitored by DEEP (State of Connecticut, 2005) The full pesticide ban became law on 1 July 2010 on both public and private K 8 school grounds and corresponding athletic fields. Agronomically, the transition from full pesticide use to a ban on pesticide use has proved to be a challenge for school grounds managers. As noted by Miller and Henderson (2012) a decrease in pesticide use can make it difficult to control weeds, insects, and diseases in turfgrass. To provide guidance to school grounds managers, more specifically turfgrass managers, as they adapt to new pesticide regulations, several studies have put forth suggested alternative management practices to offset the need for regular, scheduled pesticide use (Bingaman and Christians, 1995; KoppenhEURofer and Fuzy, 2008; Liu and Christians, 1997; Miller and Henderson, 2012, 2013) Key recommendations include increased overseeding, cultivation, manual weed pulling, and/or the use of EPA approved minimum risk 25(b) products. Given the transition of regulations from a full, calendar based pesticide program to an IPM program to no pesticide use, Connecticut offers an ideal opportunity to examine how school ground managers adapted to changing pesticide regulations. The intended focus of this paper was to examine the differences between the varying turfgrass management regimes of school grounds managers under no pesticide restrictions, IPM, and pesticide regulations. Our hypothesis was that school ground managers would significantly change management practices as they reduced the amounts of pesticide used in their turf management program. Notably, it was hypothesized that there would be an increase in the use of minimum risk 25(b) products with the implementation of the pesticide ban. Furthermore, although not mandated by the regulations, we examine pesticide usage for 9 12th grade (i.e. high school) school grounds compared with management programs for K 8 school grounds.  To examine school manager maintenance practices, a mail survey was distributed to school grounds managers throughout Connecticut and was administered by the University of Connecticut Extension faculty during the fall of 2012. A list of school grounds managers in Connecticut was developed from various member associations lists (i.e. Connecticut Association of School Business Officials, Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Connecticut Recreation and Parks Association, Connecticut Parks Association, New England Sports Turf Managers Association, Connecticut Schools Building Grounds Association and Connecticut DEEP, Pesticide Management Division) Individual school grounds managers from several towns/cities were consulted to add and/or refine the contact list. Finally, if no contact in a specific city/town could be identified, the city/town clerk's office was requested to provide an appropriate school groundsmanager contact. There are 169 cities and towns in Connecticut and a total of 151 managers were identified, most of whom worked for either the Public Works Department, the Parks and Recreation Department or the Board of Education. The survey of the school grounds managers followed the format described by Salant and Dillman (1994) Contacts from the survey list were sent an initial request for Received for publication 16 Dec. 2015.  2016. Authors share senior authorship for this manuscript. Corresponding author.  2016 participation in a forthcoming survey. The following week managers received a cover letter, survey, and a postage paid return envelope. Two weeks later managers who had not returned the survey were requested again to respond to the survey. A final reminder card followed 2 weeks after the first reminder request. To increase survey participation, school managers attending educational workshops developed by the Connecticut School IPM Coalition were reminded about participation in the survey. If no response had been received after the second reminder card, each nonresponding school manager on the list was contacted by phone to request participation. School grounds managers were told participation in the survey was voluntary and their survey answers would remain confidential. Before the survey was distributed, it was approved by the university internal review board and had been pretested by fivemanagers before the general mailing. Survey questions focused on school turf, grounds budgets, and pest management practices used during the transition from conventional pesticide use to the pesticide ban. Information about demographic and managerial experience also was requested. The response to the pest management questions were of key importance. These questions asked school grounds managers to identify the top three perceived pest problems on school grounds (open answer) and key pest management practices used on school grounds locations (i.e. athletic fields, parking lots, sidewalks, etc. as well as incorporation of minimum risk 25(b) products into their management practices after the bans implementation. A total of 47 completed surveys were returned for a 31% response rate. According to Kaplowitz et al. (2004) and Shih and Fan (2008) a response rate in this range is similar to other mail surveys. Given the total population of school grounds managers in the state is 151, our sample response rate of 31% allowed us to feel confident that our inferences from the results provide an adequate representation of the management practices of Connecticut school grounds managers. However, the sample size is small in absolute quantity which could potentially limit the findings that have occurred if a larger sample could have obtained. To form an opinion about the representativeness of Connecticut town population estimates, we determined our sample was one from a slightly more urbanized area (sample population density 1453; average town population density 738 from Census Bureau estimates) However, this does not invalidate our findings, but is a slight limitation of the study. Given the questions of interest were frequencies; we used a chi square test to test for distributional differences between the variables of interest. Statistical testing is appropriate for determining whether differences are present; however, a more intuitive hands on approach is also viable to evaluate the overall picture over time. We, therefore, used the chi square test, along with an observational approach to understand how Connecticut school grounds managers have managed with changing pesticide regulations over time.  In an attempt to understand how changing pesticide regula