Pest Management in Schools Committee

Activities Update/Report

Seattle, WA

August 28, 2012

PMSC Members • Michael Page (co-chair) Florida DACS

• Josh Wiley (co-chair) Georgia Department of Agriculture

• Jim Burnett* North Carolina DACS

• Dr. Brian Forschler* University of Georgia

• Beth Carter Office of Indiana State Chemist

• Dr. Faith Oi University of Florida

• Carl Falco DuPont

• Gene Harrington NPMA

• Dennis Howard Maryland Department of Agriculture

• Janet Hurley Texas Agrilife Extension Service

• Dan Suomi Washington State DOA

• Lee Tanner* US EPA (BPPD)

Mission Statement

• The ASPCRO Pest Management in Schools Committee’s mission is to assist member states with the improvement and implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles and concepts in the interests of promoting and protecting children’s environmental health.

Pest Management in Schools Committee

• 2008 ASPCRO “re-formalized” its interest in SIPM

• 2011 an informal meeting with a few EPA Region IV representatives

– 20 people representing more than 15 different states

• 2011 ASPCRO invited to be a part of PPDC subcommittee on IPM

• 2012 ASPCRO invited to be a part of IPM Institutes National Steering Committee on IPM

Florida State Profile Facts that Impact IPM Implementation

• Voluntary IPM State • 67 counties/school districts • 3928 public schools in Florida • 4.5M children • Version of “No Child Left Behind”

– FCAT: Florida comprehensive assessment test – Punitive action for not meeting benchmarks

• Budget, tied to real estate (no income tax) – Emphasis on sustainability issues

• As a result, the PMSC has mirrored FL’s efforts at developing a strategy for implementation

PMSC’s “Philosophy” for SIPM • Goal of SIPM is to

reduce children’s exposure to pests!

• SIPM needs the support of partnerships to survive

• SIPM is about balancing the risk, not toxicity

• Enforcement is key to sustainable SIPM

Reduce Exposure to Pests • Uptick in pest problems in schools

– Ants, cockroaches, rodents, dust mites…bed bugs – Cockroaches and rodents degrade quality of living

environments

• Once viewed as a “monthly service” • Chemical tools, technology have changed • Our understanding of pest behavior has

improved • PMP treatment paradigm has changed

– Need to rely on non-chemical interventions for successful PM

– Sanitation, exclusion & “de-cluttering”

Reduce Exposure to Pests

PMSC’s Solution:

• Develop model BMPs for IPM in schools

• Derived from NPMAs Quality Pro Green Standards

• Establish standards for PMPs to follow when performing pest management in schools – Sanitation, exclusion, monitoring, education

• Help to communicate expectations and benefits of IPM to school administrators

Partnerships in IPM • Lack of implementation

expertise and resources to address pest problems is problematic in schools

• Acceptance of low bid is also problem

• Results in low priority for PM in schools

• PMPs contracted in 70 – 90% of schools nationwide

Partnerships in IPM PMSC’s Solution:

• Promote partner ships with key stakeholders – Extension

– PMPs

– SLAs (other agencies)

• Establish PMPs as “change agents” in a 3-way partnership

• Serves as a model for other states

Partnerships in IPM

PMSC’s Solution:

• Develop model RFP for use by schools to avoid acceptance of low bid contracts

• Helps schools obtain quality PM

Balancing Risk, not Toxicity • National dialog on what constitutes a SIPM

program dominated by NGOs – Focus discussion on pesticide toxicity

• Based on premise that pesticides should not be used until all other non-chemical means have been exhausted – “a last resort”

• In addition, pesticides are vilified in the media! • Problem is lack of understanding of:

– The nature of pest problems and how rapidly they can get out of control

– How to use non-chemical modalities – General public lacks a rudimentary grasp of science of

modern pesticide chemistries

Balancing Risk, not Toxicity PMSC’s Solution:

• Use its position on national committees to balance the arguments in a way that

– Supports the product registration system used by EPA - “pose no unreasonable adverse effects”

– Recognizes that application techniques and some pesticides pose inherently lower risks for exposure and are more appropriate for use in a school

– Include considerations for regional differences in pest pressures and the use of a pesticide when needed

– Include a place for Extension, PMP’s & SLA’s in the national strategy for implementation

Enforcement Equals Sustainable SIPM

• Almost 80% of states in US have SIPM Laws

• However, only 5% - 8% of schools nationwide have implemented verifiable and sustainable IPM programs

• Legislation in some states influenced by NGOs

States with SIPM Laws

• Most include statements concerning – Interior posting

– Outdoor posting

– Notification

– Re-entry or other requirements beyond the label

– Minimum requirements for applicators

States with SIPM Laws

• Some also:

– Define the products that can be used

– List products exempt from notification

– Defines IPM

– Requires training for school staff

Enforcement Equals Sustainable SIPM

PMSC’s Solution:

• Develop a position paper on legislation that includes

– Components of IPM

– Applicator certification

– Need for Enforcement

– Funding and resources

Where Do We Go From Here?

• Plan to survey states on

– Willingness to consider assisting with implementation and maintenance of IPM programs in schools

– Draft model regulations aimed at State enforcement of IPM in school programs

• Complete development of “Continuum Concept” for measuring success in implementation

Questions?

Continuum concept • IPM is practiced on a continuum ranging from no IPM to verifiable and

sustainable IPM • Use of traditional PC services (timed spraying) to implementation of some

of the classical components of an IPM program (physical, biological chemical, sanitation, monitoring, etc) but still rely on PMPs for pest control; schools expanding their IPM programs by adding components and expertise; schools that meet “verifiable” and “sustainable” program status.

• It recognizes schools that progress toward sustainable programs but also accounts for schools that regress, or fail to develop sustainable programs

• The key is to measure progress toward implementation is an important factor in the model concept.

• Schools can be “graded” base on the level of IPM components implemented in their program, offering IPM professionals (and EPA) the ability to assess implementation efforts

• At each level of the continuum, there is a predictable metric - inverse relationship to the measure of IPM implemented and the level of pesticides used/needed to control pests; and allergens

• The models can be used to assess the success of an individual school program and account for progress on a local, state or national level

“Verifiable”

• Understanding your pests

• Setting action thresholds for key pests

• Monitoring for pests, their locations and populations

• Removing conditions that allow pest infestation

• Using one or more effective pest control methods including sanitation, structural maintenance, and nonchemical methods in place or in combination with pesticides

• Monitors

• People know where to report

• No Pests

• VERIFIABLE