The Quarterly e-bulletiri of EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program	Fall 2015

What are Biopesticides?

by Nicole Berckes, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

When I mention to people that I work in the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) within EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP). one of their first questions is "What ARE biopesticides?" I always seize the opportunity to educate folks on what
I find to be one of the most exciting areas of pest control. These are products that, among other benefits, are battling pest problems
while leaving a lighter footprint on the environment and non-target species. How great is that!

Biopesticides are pesticide products that are made of naturally occurring substances derived from animals, plants, bacteria, fungi and
minerals - like citronella, garlic oil and acetic acid. The great news about biopesticides is that they are virtually non-toxic to people
and the environment. They usually target specific pests, reducing risks to beneficial insects, birds and mammals. Even better, they're
becoming more common - and that means that safer alternatives to control pests are becoming more widely available.

Back in 1994, EPA had the forethought to create BPPD, a division specifically focused on raising the profile of biopesticides and
helping them to get licensed. BPPD is responsible for all regulatory activities associated with biologically-based pesticides. As
of September 2015. OPP has registered over 435 biopesticide active ingredients and has over 1,400 active biopesticide product
registrations. The use of biopesticides in U.S. agriculture has more than quadrupled, going from 900,000 pounds of active ingredient
applied in 2000 to 4.1 million pounds in 2012. Nearly 18 million acres are being treated with biopesticides, producing crops that are
better for people's health and the planet. Many fanners use them as part of their Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs so they
can rely less on higher-risk pesticides and effectively produce higher crop yields and quality with lower impact on the environment.

EPA has long been committed to encouraging the development and use of low-risk biopesticides as alternatives to conventional
chemical pesticides, and our commitment and efforts will continue over time.

It's exciting when new active ingredients are registered, especially if they are a novel
solution to address a pressing pest problem. EPA recently registered potassium salts
of hops beta acids, a new biochemical miticide. to combat the Varroa mite in honey
bee colonies. Varroa mites are parasites that feed on developing bees, leading to brood
mortality and reduced lifespan of worker bees. They also transmit numerous honey bee
viruses.

There are many benefits to using biopesticide products, including that they are:

Usually less toxic than conventional pesticides.

Generally affect only the target pest and closely related organisms, in contrast to
broad spectrum, conventional pesticides that may affect a diversity of organisms.
Effective in very small quantities and often decompose quickly, thereby resulting in
lower exposures and largely avoiding the problems that can be caused by pesticides
with long residual properties.

Preserve beneficial insect (natural predator) populations through their highly
targeted modes of action.

Provide alternative tools as part of resistance management programs.

Biopesticides can be a great tool in your pest control tool kit. Knowledge is power, so
just knowing that such options exist is a positive step. We hope to continue to highlight
biopesticides in upcoming issues of PESPWire. To learn more about biopesticides,
please visit BPPD's newly updated webpage at www2.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides.

In This Issue:

What are Biopesticides,,		1

Urban Ecology and Pest

Management		2

Solid Set Delivery Systems for Fruit

Production	 4

School IPM in the Pacific Northwest..	7

SPA News in Brief.	 8

Upcoming Events	9

Grant Opportunity.	 9

Have Questions on IPM in Schools?

Contact EPA's Center of Expertise for
School IPM!

school. ipm@epa. gov
844-EPA-SIPM

Join our School IPM Listserv

-------
2

Fall 2015

Urban Ecology

and Pest
Management

by Robert Corrigan, PhD
RMC Pest Management Consulting

In his textbook on subject, the urban
ecologist Dr. Jari Niemela. defines
urban ecology as "the scientific study
of the relation of living organisms with
each other and their surroundings in
the context of an urban environment.
The urban environment refers to
environments dominated by high-density
residential and commercial buildings,
paved surfaces, and other urban-related
factors that create a unique landscape
dissimilar to most previously studied
environments in the field of ecology."

Within the context of this definition,
other related factors addresses
the myriad of building operations,
(residential and commercial housing,
mega shopping malls, school campuses,
etc.), and or more important, an urban
system's infrastructures (e.g., railroads,
sewers, subways, highways, parks,
waterways, and so on). Accordingly,,
for those involved in any facet of urban
pest management, it is likely to be clear
how urban ecology and urban pest
management are fundamentally linked.
Because as everyone learns in grade
school, most animals, whether coyote,
moth, whale, or human, require food,
water and shelter to proliferate and
spread.

The urban invasive species such
as pigeons, cockroaches, rats, filth
flies, house mice, and sparrows, (to
name but a few) have adapted well
to opportunistically utilizing human
food and the food discards (refuse
streams). They have also adapted
towards invading portions of our built
environment for their shelter -often
times in an all-too-close proximity to us
humans.

The basic tenet of urban pest
management is that an integrated
approach is essential (i.e. Integrated
Pest Management). The foundation
of impactful urban IPM programs
is to suppress pest populations on a
sustainable basis via three paths:

1.	Maintaining healthy urban
ecosystems (e.g., refuse stream
management, infrastructural
maintenance, community
involvement, etc.);

2.	Formal structural pest exclusion
designs for city structures to
minimize pest entry and direct
human interactions, and,

3.	The use of chemical and mechanical
approaches to supplement (i.e., not
substitute for) Nos. 1 and 2 above.

Healthy Urban Ecosystems

By maintaining healthy urban
ecosystems, pest populations are
minimized in numbers both on private
properties (yards, around foundations,
garages, alleys, etc.) and city properties
(parks, subways, street areas, sewers,
large construction projects, etc.). But
relative to urban pest management -and
more desirable still—pest prevention,
which facets of urban ecology among
the many are most important?

It is no surprise that a city's urban
refuse stream and management comes
to the forefront. Unquestionably, refuse
management on a city scale is multi-
facet and highly complex.

Consider just one week's refuse stream
of the dumpsters of a city's restaurants,
or that of a modern-day mega mall, all
the supermarkets, hotels, hi rise condos,
large multifarnih housing complexes,
schools, and so on. To this add the
food refuse litter stream from the city's
citizens such as street, park and road
litter.

Equal to the refuse itself, are
the operational aspects of refuse
containerization and collection. The
details of these two aspects of "garbage
removal" are typically not thought
about much by the average uibanite,
but play strongly in the health of urban
ecosystems. An important decision that
any city must address relative to health
threatening pests is an overlooked
but elemental detail such as which
styles and models of containers will be
used for litter baskets, the thousands
of commercial food dumpsters and
compactors, and the millions of pounds
generated by private household use.
Precise calculations of container
installments to match the citizen density
use of an area and collection schedules
are obviously also critical.

Moreover is the question as to whether
or not a city will (or even can) elect to
use structural containers for trash at all?
For instance, is an "extra thick" plastic
bag containing food waste placed out on
the curb on a nightly basis of a city with
established rats, raccoons and pigeon
populations an acceptable food trash
container?

What an insightful metric it would be
if a city's (or neighborhood's) daily,
weekly, and annual refuse output could
be graded via a "pest conducive report
card" as to an area's reluse contribution
towards attracting, supporting and
growing important urban health pests
populations such as filth flies, rats,
pigeons, cockroaches, raccoons and the
like.

Pest Exclusion Programs

Following alongside a city's refuse
stream, is the concern as to how much
harborage is rendered available to city
pests along the planes of structures, open
spaces, and a city's infrastructure?

It is not difficult to deny pests entry to most of our
city buildings such as restaurants, schools, work
places, etc. Yet, urbanites often inadvertently grant
pests easy entry beneath everyday doors. Healthy
urban ecosystems include buildings healthy from a
lack of health pests. Note the mouse-chewed door
threshold of this restaurant.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
Fall 2015

3

Even if a pest species exists at some
level within the urban environment,
they are likely to be of significantly less
importance and threat if they cannot gain
entry into homes, food stores, eateries,
schools, work places and the like.

Paradoxically, it is not typically difficult
nor financially exorbitant to pest-proof
the types of structures listed earlier (e.g.,
houses, apartment buildings, malls, etc.).
Nevertheless it remains all too common
to find such structures with most of their
doors not pest-proofed or containing
numerous unrepaired holes and
penetrations through foundations walls,
windows, garage doors and the like.

It is short sighted for property owners to
allow the doors of a supermarket, office
building, or private home for example
to contain threshold gaps allowing
pests entry and to repeatedly hire pest
professionals to treat with a pesticide or
to install traps or poison baits to kill the
mice that repeatedly enter the structure
year after year.

The urban entomologist Hugo Hartnack
in 1939 emphasized in his classic
textbook on city pests how pest
prevention via pest exclusion — not
pesticides or traps— within the built
enviromnent are the cornerstones of
urban pest management:

"We should have little trouble with
vermin if our builders would hear
and understand the "language" of
vermin and would do a better job in
eliminating entrances and hiding
places for them."

City properties such as sidewalks, curbs,
rail lines and sewers often go unrepaired
for years allowing for pest harborage,
when simple repairs can help to
minimize the occurrences of important
health pests/risks within neighborhoods.
For instance, just one unrepaired hole
in a busy pedestrian city sidewalk
containing a litter basket nearby can
support several families of rats.

New buildings — especially those of
significant size and complexity ~ can
be pest-proofed concurrently as they are
constructed.

This is the most efficient (and thus
the smartest) approach to take in
designing this critical portion of a
healthy ecosystem. But rarely is this
done because building professionals
are not usually cognizant of future pest
issues post completion or trained in
even a modicum of pest biology. There
is a presents an obvious gap in urban
ecology—and its not a new gap.

Even earlier than Hartnack's comment
in 1939, the German entomologist F.
Zacher in a 1927 publication addressing
keeping structures healthy via denying
pests entry, wisely advised: "From the
very start of a building s construction,
an experienced biologist should be
consulted."

Many segments of the public often
inquire of pest companies: "How much
will you charge to treat my property
(home, store, etc.) on a monthly basis to
keep pests away?". The better question
of any commercial or residential
property owner in the context of healthy
urban ecosystems is: "How much will
you charge to pest proof my building
and to then inspect each month to
monitor and possibly treat for pests?"

Chemical and Non-Chemical Pest
Management

Even with well-maintained urban
ecosystems and the most carefully
thought out structural exclusion designs,
urban pests remain extremely impressive
in their abilities to adapt and persist.
What's more, several of the more
important health-related urban pests are
simply delivered in goods within boxes
and supplies even into the cleanest, most
pest-proofed building in the city.

So, there can be little doubt. Pesticides
and a wide range of additional pest
management technologies are essential
tools in maintaining healthy ecosystems
via progressive urban pest management
programs. But a simple understanding of
the most elemental biological principals
of pests clearly demonstrates that
chemicals and traps rarely are the most
appropriate first response to pests.

Urban ecological maintenance comes
not only first, but also as the larger
potion of the solutions to nearly every
urban pest infestation. It's a clear case
of the 80/20 rule. A quality pest brush
(vs. a weather strip) is pest management
technology. So is smart purchasing of
the most appropriate refuse dumpster
and dumpster placement by any town's
average eatery.

Conclusion

The origins of the word ecology comes
from the Greek "oikos" which means
"house". Of course, our cities and towns
as complex and integrated systems
provide the house for not only each
of our own individual houses, but for
our daily lives outside of our houses
in our work and recreational spaces,
and our (all too taken for granted)
food production, gathering, and food
consumption lives.

Homo sapiens is our genus and species
name. It means "wise man". When it
comes to urban pest management, we
must put first tilings first. It is time to
do it right. Global population statistics
show that most humans (3.9 billion) now
live in urban areas. Our numbers are
expected to reach 6.4 billion by 2050.

The most effective, most
commonsensical, and most sustainable
efforts lie with healthy and maintained
urban ecosystems which then results in
more natural suppression of urban pest
populations. These natural systems can
be then be supplemented with chemical
and non-chemical tools as necessary.
That means we live up to our scientific
name in the use of our one and our only
"house".

Dr. Robert Corrigan has been working
in urban 1PM programs for over 25
years. He is an urban entomologist, an
urban rodentologist, and president of
KMC Pest Management Consulting.

If you are conducting research in the
area of community-scale IPM, we
encourage you to contact EPA's Lee
Tanner (tanner.lee@epa.gov) about
articles for future issues.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
4

Fall 2015

Re-envisioning
Agrichemical
Input Delivery:

Solid Set Delivery
Systems for High
Density Fruit
Production

by Matthew Grieshop & Paul Owen-Smith
Michigan State University

The Concept

Temperate fruit production is in the
midst of a planting density revolution,
with apples leading the way. Over the
past 25 years, apple orchards have
been transforming from low density,
freestanding tree systems to high-
density, trellised tree systems. This
has been accomplished by the careful
engineering of tree canopy architectures
from individual tall spheres into
continuous narrow "fruiting walls"
(Robinson, 2007).

These intensive systems have greatly
increased production efficiency and
early returns on investment. However,
the delivety of agricultural chemicals
—pesticides, foliar nutrients and plant
growth regulators— to these systems
still relies on tractor-pulled airblast
sprayers designed for large, broad
canopies.

Meanwhile, growers have been faced
with an unprecedented range of
challenges including: consumer demand
for reduced pesticide inputs, increasing
urban/rural overlaps, the promulgation
of Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
for international markets, loss of
traditional pesticides to national
regulations, rapid development of pest
resistance, an influx of invasive insect
pests, an increasingly volatile labor
market and a less predictable climate.

Growers' responses to these issues have
included the adoption of expensive
technologies (e.g. insect netting for
spotted wing drosophila $10,000+ an
acre, wind machines $4,000+ per acre)
and the development of mechanical
replacements for human labor (e.g.
picking platforms and harvest assist
machines).

Solid Set Canopy Delivery Systems
(SSCDS) provide a single solution for
many of the new problems growers are
facing while replacing costs associated
with tractor driven sprayers.

Solid Set Canopy Delivery Systems
are a logical evolution of agricultural
chemical delivery for modem high-
density orchards. SSCDS consist of a
network of microsprayers positioned in
the tree canopy /trellis and connected to a
pumping/mixing station. This approach
was first demonstrated by Agnello and
Landers (2006) in a small proof of
concept study in NY.

Application of inputs from a fixed
system versus a tractor-based system
provides many potential advantages to
growers utilizing high-density apple
systems.

Targeted applications via the SSCDS
could virtually eliminate applicator
exposure problems common to tractor
based sprayers, While increasing the
ability to apply sprays during critical
weather periods, including when the
ground is too wet for heavy equipment.

The adoption of SSCDS will make
frequent applications at low rates
possible for modern agricultural
chemicals, including foliar nutrients,
bio-pesticides, and reduced-risk
pesticides -to improve efficacy of "soft
impact" integrated pest management
(IPM) programs. Commercialized
SSCDS will also require less skilled
labor to operate compared to tractor
based sprayers due to a 4-10 fold
decreased application time and because
the systems will not rely on heavy
machinery.

Development of new input delivery
technologies is extremely meaningful to
a specialty crop such as apples because
pesticide inputs can account for up to
50% of a grower's yearly production
costs.

With this in mind, we initiated a major
exploration of SSCDS in a multiple
year U S Department of Agriculture
(USD A) funded project in NY, WA and
MI beginning in 2011. The experiences
shared in this article come from the
project team based at Michigan State
University (MSU) and cover some
of our findings in the first three years
of research and development of this
revolutionaiy approach towards apple
pest management.

Figure 1: SSCDS system at MSU Clarskville
Research Center making an application.

Figure 2: SSCDS applicator
(Courtesy of Jay B runner WSU)

Figure 3: Upper, single
microsprayer

Figure 4: Lower, double
microsprayer

www.epa.gov/pesp

Solid Set Canopy Delivery System Design

-------
Fall 2015

5

Project Goals: Engineering of the
system and the collection of proof of
concept data including:

1.	Develop, engineer, and optimize
SSCDS for orchard-scale use and
materials delivery

2.	Evaluate Coverage provided by
SSCDS compared to standard
airblast applications

3.	Evaluate pest management provided
by SSCDS

4.	Determine relative costs of SSCDS
vs. current airblast sprayers

System Design. The prototype SSCDS
developed at MSU, Cornell and
Washington State University consist of
the canopy delivery system (Fig. 1) and
applicator (Fig. 2). The canopy delivery
system is a network of polyethylene
irrigation tubing run through the orchard
block in a continuous loop with an
input and output line that attaches to
the applicator. The applicator consists
of a pumping system, air compressor,
and tank for mixing, providing and
recapturing spray material.

SSCDS were established in an apple
orchard at the MSU Clarksville
Research Center (Fig. 1). Single
horizontally oriented microsprayers
were inserted at 6' intervals on the
upper hose (Fig. 3). Twin vertically
oriented microsprayers were inserted
at 6' intervals into a "T" bracket on the
lower line (Fig. 4). Microsprayers on the
two lines were staggered providing fluid
coverage every 3' in the tree canopies.

Coverage: Coverage evaluation is of
critical importance for any new input
delivery system. Simply put, without
adequate coverage, pest management
relying on traditional insecticides and
fungicides is likely to fail. We have
evaluated SSCDS coverage using three
approaches: 1) water-sensitive cards,
2) tartrazine dye, and 3) laboratory
bioassays of insect pests exposed
to foliage treated with insecticides
in the field. Spray cards allow us to
characterize the coverage provided
on both the top and bottom of leaves.
Dye tests provide a robust test of leaf
deposition. Bioassays provide data on
how coverage translates into insect pest
management.

Coverage Conclusions: The results
from our three coverage measurement
(water-sensitive cards, dye deposition,
and insect bioassay) evaluations strongly
suggest that our prototype SSCDS
provides equivalent coverage to an
airblast sprayer. The spatial arrangement
of coverage was variable between the
two trials relative the tops and bottoms
of leaves as well as distribution of
coverage from the bottom to the top
of the tree canopy (Fig. 5), however
SSCDS provided at least as much
deposition as our airblast sprayer (Fig.
6) as well as the ability to kill a target
pest (OBLR). The next logical question
was whether SSCDS could provide
adequate, season long pest management.

100

rs

J (0

* 2!

l™	High U— Mid* High

(Icflrjfn	Tup

Figure 5: Mean ± SEM % coverage on spray cards
facing down (bottom) or up (top).

1»

s

E
o
?

AirDlUI
iiiTCD 5

Figure 6: Mean ug/g tartrazine/leaf mass from
coverage trial at three canopy heights

Pest Management Efficacy: Season-
long insect pest and disease management
data were collected in 2013 and 2014.
The SSCDS was directly compared
with conventional airblast application of
materials in the apple research plots to
evaluate efficacy of insect and disease
pest management programs using the
two methods of delivery.

Insect Pest Management Efficacy:
Insecticide programs at both locations
utilized reduced risk products (e.g.
acetamiprid, chlorantraniliprole. Bacillus
thuringiensis kurstaki, and thiacloprid).
We made assessments for codling moth.
Oriental fruit moth, plum curculio and
obliquebanded leafroller. Results from
both years were consistently promising
with SSCDS plots providing insect
control equivalent to airblast sprayers.

Disease Management Efficacy: Apple
scab management was compared
between SSCDS and airblast applicators.
A copper spray was applied at green
tip followed by a series of fungicide
applications made at approximately
1-week intervals for 4 weeks. The
SSCDS provided comparable apple scab
control to the airblast treatment in 2013
and 2014.

Pest Management Conclusions: Our

initial evaluation of SSCDS provide
strong proof of concept supporting that
this technology is capable of providing
pest management services comparable
to those provided by traditional airblast
sprayers. One of the most striking
differences we noticed in conducting
these trials was the speed and quietness
of SSCDS applications versus tractor
based applications. Sprays delivered
through SSCDS were put on in only
12 seconds of application time with
two 5 hp water pumps! Our airblast
applications took five to 10 minutes
to apply and created a great deal more
noise.

Implications and Economics

Implications: Our proof of concept
data makes a strong case for further
development of SSCDS technology. The
next phases of research will focus on
novel applications and engineering. One
of our next questions to address will be
whether SSCDS could be used to make
short-interval, reduced-rate applications
of pesticides to better manage coverage
to meet both pest management and MRL
needs. SSCDS also promise to provide
growers with a unique opportunity to
alter orchard microclimates through
evaporative cooling.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
6

Fall 2015

Preliminary research conducted by
Jim Flore (MSU) has shown that
SSCDS could provide a new approach
to evaporative cooling through the
application of water mists during the
early spring. Our hypothesis was that the
many low water volume microsprayers
used in our SSCDS could provide
cooling at a fraction of the rates used by
conventional sprinklers. We set up small
scale SSCDS at two different apple and
cherry sites in Michigan. Microsprayers
were placed above and within the
canopy to deliver misting based on
ambient air temperature and humidity.

Our mist cooling system delayed bloom
by 7-10 and 4-10 days in apples and
sweet cherries, respectively
(Fig 7). Furthermore, our
systems provided this
delay using a range of 6-9
ac inches of water. This is
a 4-6x reduction in water
compared to evaporative
cooling systems utilizing
impact sprinklers! Fruit
maturity dates for apples
and cherries were not
affected by cooling. We are
confident that with further
refinement this system
could provide 7-14 days of bloom delay
with only 3-5 acre-inches of water (per
acre of protected fruit).

Economics. Solid Set Canopy Delivery
Systems require significant up-front
capital investment. Capital investment
costs can vary, depending on the
presence or absence of trellis training
system, the capacity of that training
system, and the design of the SSCDS.
Initial estimates of SSCDS operating
costs, including system installation,
exceed conventional systems.

Conventional air-blast applications of
pesticides generally require $36 per acre
including equipment. Costs for operating
the MSU SSCDS were estimated at $60
per acre. We expect commercialization
to conservatively reduce SSCDS costs
by 20% or more yielding an expected
cost of $48 per acre. While more
expensive to operate, it is important to
note that SSCDS may provide additional
value to growers in the form of services
that airblast sprayers cannot provide.

These include: protection from frosts or
sunburn, potential irrigation applications
as well as the ability to more rapidly
apply inputs under adverse ground
conditions. The next step in economic
evaluation will depend on collecting
data on the relative value of these
services.

Next Steps

Although we have provided proof of
concept data for SSCDS use in high
density apples, a great deal of work
remains before the technology will
be ready for commercialization and
expansion into additional perennial fruit
systems. Our prototype SSCDS systems
have major engineering
challenges that we are
preparing to tackle: 1)
development of a hybrid
pneumatic/hydraulic
system, 2) optimization
of microsprayers, 3)
automated fault detection
and 4) real-time mixing
and monitoring of
agrichemical applications.
Our current prototypes
requires 2-3 times the
delivered volume of inputs
to apply the needed amount to the crop
because of the large volume of piping.

Our proposed solution is to use air
to deliver "packets" of liquid to
microsprayers via a distributed reservoir
system with pneumatic pressure
to fill and evacuate the reservoirs
- consolidating the current 4 stage
application into 2 stages (charging/
filling and application/cleaning) and
eliminating the need for a return line.
Presently, the microsprayers used in our
systems are based around commercially
available sprinkler bodies and nozzles.

While we have experienced good
performance from these components,
it is likely that specialized bodies
and nozzles could improve the throw
distance and particle size consistency.
Automated fault detection may be
possible using thermal detectors.
Metering and monitoring of pesticide
applications could also be integrated into
this system.

MSU engineers have been engaged to
evaluate these aspects of the system but
at present this work is unfunded.

We expect that solving the engineering
challenges listed above would require
an investment of $200,000-300,000 over
a 2-3 year period with an additional
$100,000-$200,000 budgeted towards
continuing field testing of coverage,
pest management and microclimate
modification. Theoretically any crop
utilizing a supportive trellis could utilize
this technology this includes: grapes,
hops, apples, pears, and some stone and
berry fruits.

For more information visit
www.canopydelivery.msu.edu

Acknowledgements

Our project was funded by the USDA
Specialty Crops Research Initiative
Project 2011-01494 and generous
contributions from the Michigan Cherry
Committee, Michigan Apple Committee,
Michigan State Horticultural Society
and MSU Project GREEEN as well
as contributions of land, labor, and
materials from individual Ml tree fruit
growers. We would like to provide
a special thank you to John Nye of
Trickl-eez Irrigation for his work on
conceptualizing our prototype system.
Lastly, many thanks to our important
MSU SSCDS team members: Ron Perry,
Larry Gut, George Sundin, John Wise,
Jim Flore, Greg Lang, Emily Pochubay
Mike Haas, Nick Zachary and Pete
McGhee.

References Cited

Agnello, A. M„ and A. J. Landers. 2006.
Current progress in development of a
fixed spray pesticide application system
for high-density apple plantings. NY
Fruit Quarterly 14 (4): 22-26.
www.nvshs.org/fq/06winter/
NYFOWinterQ6.pdf

Robinson, T.L. 2007. Effect of
tree density and tree shape on light
interception tree growth, yield, and
economic performance of apples. Acta
I Iorl. 732:405-414.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
Fall 2015

7

School IPM in the Pacific Northwest

School IPM Success Recognized in Washington

On October 1st. the Washington State School IPM Enhancement Project recognized
school districts making strides in school IPM implementation. The project formed
a joint partnership with Washington State University and EPA Region 10 to build a
strong program to help school districts adopt IPM. a smart, sensible, and sustainable
approach to managing pests that focuses on reducing the unnecessary use of pesticides
and the conditions that encourage pests. The project accomplishments included
forming focus groups to clarify the support schools need for their IPM programs,
developing state partnerships, documenting what works and doesn't in an IPM
program, and recognizing school districts that are doing it right!

Speakers at the event included Thomas Green, President of the IPM Institute of North
America, and Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention. Dr. Green spoke about the benefits of IPM for schools, such as
reducing the risk of pests and pesticide exposure, creating a healthier school environment,
and saving schools money in treatment and energy costs. Mr. Jones spoke about the roles
everyone lias, from the federal government down to the school district staff, in making IPM
a widespread practice.

Nancy Larson, Bellevue School District; Tom
Green, IPM Institute; Forrest Miller, Lake
Washington School District; Carrie Foss,
Washington State University; Jon Kollman,
Lake Washington School District; Rick Leavitt,
Federal Way Public Schools; David Johnson,
Mukilteo School District; Gary Schimmel,
Kelso School District; Gary Spears, Kelso
School District; Jim Jones, EPA (L-R)

Carrie Foss, Washington State University Urban IPM Director, recognized the school districts of Kelso, Mukilteo, Lake Washington
and Federal Way for receiving IPM Institute of North America's IPM STAR certification. IPM STAR is a certification program that
raises the bar for districts implementing sustainable school IPM programs. Other Washington school districts that previously
received IPM STAR certification include Bellevue. Marysville, Colville, Pasco, Walla Walla, South Kitsap, North Thurston, and
Vancouver.

WSU organized coalition events to provide school districts the opportunity to network and learn about IPM from their peers. This
event was part of a statewide school IPM implementation project, supported by EPA's School IPM program. This project builds
upon existing partnerships and tools, including WSU's School IPM Clearinghouse and the Urban Pesticide Education Strategy
Team, a group of WA stakeholders who address urban pesticide issues. For more information on EPA's School IPM program, visit

www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools.

EPA Grantees Implement IPM in Pacific Northwest Schools

In 2012, Washington State University and Oregon State University formed the Pacific Northwest (PNW) School IPM Consortium,
with funding from EPA. to promote school IPM. The initial goal of the project was to impact 30%, or nearly 470,000 students in
Washington and Oregon. The project far exceeded it's goal, impacting 39% of students in Washington and 49% of school districts in
Oregon. Over 670,000 students in the Pacific Northwest now attend school districts with IPM programs.

The universities took a multi-pronged approach to increase IPM implementation in the PNW. They started by forming a consortium
of stakeholder organizations in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska to coordinate and promote school IPM in their respective states.
Then, they formulated an education and training plan to reach stakeholders, school district staff, and parents. Multiple IPM coalition
events and working sessions were held in both Oregon and Washington. Hands-on training was offered to school district staff. School
IPM was also taught as a part of Washington's pesticide applicator recertification training, resulting in a measureable increase in
school IPM knowledge among the 1,000 licensed pesticide applicators. Twelve newsletters were distributed broadly in Washington
and Oregon, with up to 80% of the recipients sharing the newsletters with others in their districts. Seven school districts in
Washington were evaluated under a third-party IPM STAR certification program.

The universities disseminated their successful model of school IPM implementation through collaboration and education in a national
webinar. Work on school IPM in the Pacific Northwest continues with the Washington State School IPM Enhancement Project, in
partnership with EPA, and Oregon State University's School IPM program, partially supported by USD A.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
8

Fall 2015

EPA News in Brief

EPA Updates Standards to Increase Safety and Protect the Health of America's

Farmworkers

EPA has announced increased protection for the nation's two million agricultural workers and
their families. The revised standards give farmworkers health protections under the law similar to
those already afforded to workers in other industries. EPA's updates reflect extensive stakeholder
involvement from federal and state partners and the agricultural community including farmworkers
fanners and industry.

Press release

Blog by EPA Administrator McCarthy and Department of Labor Secretary Thomas Perez
New site and resources including a factsheet. comparison chart and O/A

Videos

EPAs Revised Worker Protection Standard

EPA's Revised Worker Protection Standard: Thoughts from a Former Farmworker
Amv Liebman. Migrant Clinicians Network. Supports EPAs Revised Worker Protection Standard
Farmer Speaks in Favor of EPA's Revised Worker Protection Standard (in Spanish with English subtitles)

En Espanol

• Web

Comunicado de prensa
Blog

These revisions will publish in the Federal Register within the next 60 days. A pre-publication version is available now.

EPA Signs Cooperative Agreement with the Association of Farmworker Opportunity

Programs to Support Farmworker Training

EPA has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) to develop and
administer a pesticide safety training program for farmworkers, their families and other members of the agricultural community.
The AFOP cooperative agreement will support a national network of over 150 pesticide safety trainers in more than 30 states to
provide pesticide worker safety training to migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families. The training will include educational
material appropriate for low-literacy and multilingual audiences.

Pesticide safety training helps prevent pesticide exposure incidents for farmworkers and their families. With the recently announced
revisions to the Worker Protection Standard, farmworkers will now receive annual training on many topics, including proper use of
personal protective equipment and how to reduce take-home exposure. Previously, federal law only required training once every five
years.

The total funding for the five-year period of the cooperative agreement is about $2.5 million, with $500,000 available for the first
year of the agreement. The application solicitation for this agreement was announced in April 2014.

To learn more about pesticide worker safety, visit www2.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safetv.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
Fall 2015

9

EPA Registers New Biochemical Miticide to Combat Varroa Mites in Beehives

EPA has registered a new biochemical miticide, potassium salts of hops beta acids (K-HB As), which
is intended to provide another option for beekeepers to combat the devastating effects of the Varroa
mite on honey bee colonies and to avoid the development of resistance toward other products.

Rotating products to combat Varroa mites is an important tactic to prevent resistance development and
to maintain the usefulness of individual pesticides.

The registrant. Beta Tech Hop Products, derived K-HBAs from the cones of female hop plants. To control mites on honey bees,
the product is applied inside commercial bee hives via plastic strips.

Varroa mites are parasites that feed on developing bees, leading to brood mortality and reduced lifespan of worker bees. They also
transmit numerous honey bee viruses. The health of a colony can be critically damaged by an infestation of Varroa mites. Once
infested, if left untreated, the colony will likely die.

As with all biochemical active ingrediants, this one is naturally-occurring with minimal toxicity and a non-toxic mode of action
against the target pest. There are numerous advantages to using biopesticides, including reduced toxicity to organisms not intended to
be affected, effectiveness in small quantities, and reduced environmental impact.

More information on this registration can be found at www.regulations.gov.

Find out about other EPA efforts to address pollinator loss at www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection

Learn more about biopesticides: www2.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/

EPA Launches New Pesticides Website

EPA's Pesticides website lias a new look, feel, and address. Many of our stakeholders have noticed our gradual move to new versions
of our content as part of the larger EPA effort to build a more user-friendly website. With the new pesticides website, information
should now be easier than ever to access, regardless of the type of electronic device you use, including tablets and smarlphones.

With the transition to our new site completed, web page addresses will be different. The majority of the old pesticide pages will
redirect to the new web areas, but we encourage you to update your bookmarks. Our new "Page Not Found" notification will help
you find what you are looking for by providing suggested search terms, links to our A-Z index, and other helpful links.

If you have trouble locating information try using the search feature available on every EPA web page and in the archive.

Check out the new website at www2. epa. gov/pesticides

To help you find some of our most requested information, below are the updated URLs for some of our most popular web areas:

Pesticide Registration: www2 .epa. gov/pesticide-registration
Bed Bugs: www2.epa.gov/bedbugs
Worker Safety: www2.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safetv
Pollinator Protection: www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection
Endangered Species: www2.epa.gov/endangered-species

Reporting Unintended Exposure and Harm from Pesticides: www2.epa.gov/pesticide-incidents
Biopesticides: www2.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides
Pesticide Labels: www2.epa.gov/pesticide-labels
School 1PM: www2.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools

Pest Control and Pesticide Safety for Consumers: www2.epa.gov/safepestcontrol

IP m*t

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
10

Fall 2015

Upcoming Events

Lvme & Other Tick-Borne Diseases: Science Bridging the Gap
Nov. 14-15, 2015
Warwick, RI

National Pest Managment Association - PestWorld 2016
Oct. 18-21,2016
Seattle, WA

Entomological Society of America - Entomology 2015.	School IPM Webinars

Svnergv in Science: Partnering for Solutions	Presented by EPA's Center of Expertise for School IPM

Nov. 15-18, 2015
Minneapolis, MN

National Environmental Health Association Annual
Educational Conference and Exhibition
Jim. 14-16, 2016
San Antonio, TX

National Association of School Nurses Annual Conference
Indianapolis, IN
Jun. 29-July 2, 2016

International Congress of Entomology
Sept. 25-30, 2016
Orlando, FL

Grant Opportunity

Southern IPM Center's IPM Enhancement Grants Program

Deadline: Nov. 20,2015
Apply: http: //bit. h-71 gIJ mkaD

Nov. 10, 2015 — Writing an IPM Policy for Your
School District

Dec. 15, 2015 - Bed Bugs in Schools

Jan. 26, 2016 ~ Stop School Pests and iPestManager -

School IPM Educational Programs

Feb 23, 2016 ~ Procuring IPM-Based Pest Management

Services

Mar. 15, 2016 — IPM for Turf on School Grounds

Apr. 19, 2016 ~ Vertebrate Turf Pests

May 17, 2016 — Ants - The #1 Pest in Schools

Jim. 7, 2016 -- Termite Mitigation in Schools - A Holistic

Approach

The IPM Enhancement Grants Program is a foundational mechanism used by the Southern IPM Center to address important issues
affecting the region that has produced many significant outputs and favorable outcomes addressing global food security challenges
including invasive species, endangered species, pest resistance, and impacts resulting from regulatory actions.

Any IPM setting is applicable to the IPM Enhancement Grant program, including agriculture, urban and school, forestry and
recreation. Project directors can apply for one of three project types:

•	Seed (up to $30,000) - Successful proposals will have a strong potential to initiate, enable, facilitate and/or catalyze effective
solutions to important IPM issues and challenges. These projects plant a seed that lias good potential to grow into a solution.

•	Capstone (up to $30,000) - Successful proposals build on previous research and development efforts for projects involving
outreach, implementation, and/or educational approaches.

•	IPM Working Group (up to $40,000) - See the RFA for requirements

For questions, contact:

Joe LaForest (laforest@uga.edu. 229-386-3298) or Danesha Seth Carley (danesha_carleyi@ncsii.edii. 919-513-8189)

» 1 »J H —



P' i ¦

¦m







-







www.epa.gov/pesp

-------