IPM Standards for School Interiors

IPM Standards for Schools Tactics and Resources for Reducing Pest and Pesticide Risks in Schools and Other Sensitive Environments

Version 3.2 Released July 22, 2004

Also available in html and PDF formats at http://www.ipminstitute.org

Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc. V 3.2 Page 2 IPM Standards for Schools

About Version 3.2

Version 3.2 is available in html and PDF format from the IPM Institute’s Web site. Version 3.2 includes minor updates to web site urls that have changed since Version 3.1 was released in June of 2003. Version 3.0 had been revised to become a companion document to the IPM STAR® certification program. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

About the IPM Institute

The IPM Institute of North America, Inc. is a non-profit membership organization formed in 1998. The Institute’s mission is to accelerate adoption of IPM in agriculture and communities through consumer education and development of IPM standards for self-evaluation and IPM certification. The Institute’s Board of Directors includes IPM experts from Land-Grant Universities and representatives from industry and environmental organizations. To join the Institute, please visit our Web site at http://www.ipminstitute.org or contact us at the address below.

The IPM Institute of North America, Inc. 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 USA (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org

Permission is granted to use this document in whole or in part for non-commercial educational use with proper credit to the source, including publication name, publisher and publication date. Any commercial use for sale or profit requires prior permission from the IPM Institute.

Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org IPM Standards for Schools V 3.2 Page 3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 6 Introduction...... 7 Why IPM in Schools?...... 7 IPM Standards for Schools ...... 8 IPM Certification for Schools ...... 8 Becoming an IPM Certified School ...... 9 Other Sensitive Environments ...... 9 Join the IPM Institute! ...... 9 Resources for Starting an IPM Program at your School...... 10 Using the IPM Standards for Schools ...... 13 Part I. IPM Standards for School Buildings...... 15

MODULE ONE: IPM FOUNDATION for School Buildings...... 16 Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication ...... 16 Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion...... 17 Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management...... 17 Resources for IPM Administration and Policy ...... 18 IPM Planning and Communication ...... 18 Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion ...... 21 Pest and Pesticide Risk Management ...... 21 MODULE TWO: IPM FRAMEWORK for School Buildings ...... 25 Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication ...... 25 Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion...... 26 Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management...... 26 MODULE THREE: Administrative & Policy Practices for School Buildings ...... 28 Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication ...... 28 Section 2. Inspection, Exclusion and Sanitation...... 28 Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management...... 32 MODULE THREE: Pest-Specific IPM Practices for School Buildings ...... 34 Section 4. Ants...... 34 Section 5. Birds...... 37 Section 6. Cockroaches...... 39 Section 7. Fleas ...... 41 Section 8. Flies, Gnats & Midges...... 43 Section 9. Head Lice...... 46 Section 10. Microbial Pests ...... 49 Section 11. Mosquitoes...... 52 Section 12. Occasional Invaders: Bats, Booklice, Centipedes, Firebrats, Millipedes, Mites, Scorpions, Silverfish, Snakes, Spiders, Ticks ...... 54 Section 13. Rodents: Mice, Rats ...... 56 Section 14. Stinging Insects: Ants, Bees, Wasps...... 60 Section 15. Stored Product Pests: Moths, Beetles...... 63 Section 16. Wood-Damaging Pests: Carpenter Ants and Bees, Fungi, Termites, Wood-Boring Beetles ...... 65

Part II. IPM Standards for School Grounds ...... 67

MODULE ONE: IPM FOUNDATION for School Grounds...... 68 Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication ...... 68 Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion...... 69 Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management...... 69 Resources for IPM Administration and Policy ...... 71 IPM Planning and Communication ...... 71 Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion ...... 62 Pest and Pesticide Risk Management ...... 63 MODULE TWO: IPM FRAMEWORK for School Grounds ...... 78 Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication ...... 78 Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion...... 79 Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management...... 79 MODULE THREE: Administrative & Policy Practices for School Grounds ...... 81 Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication ...... 81 Section 2. Inspection, Exclusion and Sanitation...... 82 Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management...... 83 MODULE THREE: Plant and Pest-Specific IPM Practices for School Grounds...... 86 Section 4. Landscape Plant Cultural Management ...... 86 Resources for Landscape Plant Cultural Management...... 88 Landscape Plant Disease and Nematode Pests...... 90 Section 5. Canker Diseases ...... 90 Section 6. Leafspots & Blights ...... 91 Section 7. Nematodes...... 92 Section 8. Root & Crown Diseases...... 93 Section 9. Rusts...... 94 Section 10. Virus Diseases...... 94 Section 11. Wilts ...... 95 Section 12. Other Landscape Plant Disease Pests...... 96 Resources for Landscape Plant Disease and Nematode Pest Management ...... 96 Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests...... 98 Section 13. Bark, Trunk & Twig Borers...... 98 Section 14. Caterpillars...... 99 Section 15. Leaf Beetles & Weevils...... 100 Section 16. Sap-feeding Pests: Aphids, Adelgids, Lacebugs, Leafminers, Mealybugs, Mites, Psyllids, Scales, Spittlebugs, Thrips, Whiteflies...... 101 Section 17. Sawflies...... 102 Section 18. Other Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests...... 103 Resources for Landscape Plant Insect and Mite Pest Management...... 104 Turf Management ...... 106 Section 19. Turf Cultural Management...... 106 Turf Disease & Nematode Pest Management...... 110 Section 20. Dollar Spot ...... 110 Section 21. Fairy Ring...... 110 Section 22. Gray Leafspot ...... 111 Section 23. Leafspot & Melting Out ...... 111 Section 24. Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch...... 112 Section 25. Powdery Mildew...... 112 Section 26. Pythium ...... 113 Section 27. Red Thread...... 113

Section 28. Rhizoctonia Blight (Brown Patch) ...... 114 Section 29. Rusts...... 114 Section 30. Other Turf Diseases & Nematode Pests ...... 115 Resources for Turf Disease and Nematode Pest Management...... 116 Turf Insect & Mite Pest Management ...... 118 Section 31. Billbugs ...... 118 Section 32. Chinch Bugs ...... 119 Section 33. Mole Crickets ...... 120 Section 34. Turf-Feeding Caterpillars: Armyworms, Cutworms, Sod Webworms...... 121 Section 35. White Grubs...... 122 Section 36. Other Turf Insect & Mite Pests ...... 123 Resources for Turf Insect and Mite Pest Management: ...... 123 Vertebrate Pests...... 123 Section 37. Vertebrate Pests: Coyotes, Deer, Feral Cats and Dogs, Gophers, Moles, Rabbits, Raccoons, Rodents, Skunks, Snakes, Woodchucks, etc...... 125 Vertebrate Pests...... 126 Section 38. Weeds...... 127 Appendix A. Reduced-Risk and Least-Risk Pest Control Option Definitions ...... 130

Appendix B. Glossary...... 132

Appendix C. Additional Resources for Implementing IPM in Schools...... 134

General Resources...... 134 Model Legislation...... 139 School Pest Management Practice Surveys ...... 144

School IPM Success Stories………………………………………………………………………………….128 IPM Curricula and Workshop Ideas...... 148

School IPM and Related Resources in Spanish and Other Non-English Languages…………………..133 Organizations with Resources for School IPM...... 155 School Pest Management in the News ...... 162

Acknowledgements

These IPM Standards would not have been possible without the generous contribution of time and thought from many individuals, including the following:

Trevor Battle and Mark Buffone, Massachusetts Department of Agriculture; Lynn Braband, Jody Gangloff and Curtis Petzoldt, Cooperative Extension, Cornell University; Kristine Braman, Cooperative Extension, University of Georgia; Paul Burns, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, Boston MA; John Carter, Monroe County Community Schools Corp., Bloomington IN; Alan Cohen, Bio-Logical Pest Management Inc., Washington DC; William Coli, Reg Coler and Craig Hollingsworth, UMass Extension; Robert Corrigan, RMC Consulting, Richmond IN; Edward Crow, Maryland Department of Agriculture; Dan Dickerson, Director, Pest Control, NYC Board of Education; Philip Dickey, Washington Toxics Coalition, Seattle WA; Doug Dickson and Dan Bach, Newton IPM Advisory Committee, Newton MA; Carrie Foss and Arthur Antonelli, Cooperative Extension, Washington State University; Lynn Garling, Cooperative Extension, Penn State University; Ellie Goldberg, Healthy Kids, Newton MA; Daniel LaHart and Denise Frye, Anne Arundel County Public Schools, Pasadena MD; Marc Lame, Indiana University; Will Lanier, Cooperative Extension, Montana State University; Michael Merchant, Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University; Kathy Murray, Maine Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources; Jane Nogaki, NJ Environmental Federation; Kagan Owens, National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides, Washington DC; Michael Pierce, Robert DeLuca and Michael Davis, Newton Public Schools, Newtonville MA; Don Prostak, American IPM, Glen Gardner NJ; Debbie Raphael, IPM Coordinator, City/County of San Francisco; Don Rivard, Rivard’s Resources – IPM, Waltham MA; Robyn Rose and Kathy Seikel, US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs; Cliff Sadof, Cooperative Extension, Purdue University; Clay Scherer, Cooperative Extension, University of Florida; Paula Shrewsbury and Betty Marose, Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland; Deborah Smith-Fiola, Cooperative Extension, Rutgers University; John Stier, Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin; Michael Waldvogel, Cooperative Extension, North Carolina State University; and Megan Terebus.

Technical information was drawn from the experience of contributors and publications listed in Appendix C and especially from Daar et al. (1997), Driestadt et al. (1994), Hollingsworth (2000), Mallis (1997) and Vail and Croker (1999). Any errors or omissions are those of the editor. Information contained in this document does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the contributors or their organizations, and no endorsement is implied.

The following IPM assessment systems for agriculture provided models for these Standards:

Guillebeau, P. and G. Van De Mark, 1999. Georgia Farm*A*Syst/Cotton*A*Syst Cotton IPM: Farm Assessment System. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Athens GA.

Hollingsworth, C. S. and W. M. Coli, eds., 1999. Massachusetts Integrated Pest Management Guidelines: Crop Specific Definitions. University of Massachusetts Extension Integrated Pest Management Program, Amherst MA. Available at http://www.umass.edu/umext/programs/agro/ipm/ipm_guidelines/.

National Potato Council, 1998. The National IPM Protocol for Potatoes: A Pest Management Assessment Tool and Educational Program Developed for America’s Potato Growers. Englewood, CO. More at http://:www.npcspud.com.

Petzoldt, C., J. Kovach and A. Seaman, eds., 1999. Integrated Pest Management Standards for New York Crops. New York State Integrated Pest Management Program No. 124. 64 pp. Available at http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/indyintro.html.

Funding has been provided by the IPM Program of the United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA-CSREES), and members and supporters of the IPM Institute.

Dedicated to Ronald J. Prokopy who is responsible for my IPM foundation. – The Editor

Introduction

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) maintains a high standard of pest control while reducing reliance on pesticides. IPM includes:

! regular monitoring to detect problems early; ! acting against pests only when necessary; ! choosing the most effective option with the least risk to people and the environment; and ! applying biological knowledge about pests to create long-term solutions.

Routine pesticide applications, made on a Children Face Greater Risks regular calendar-based schedule, are not part of from Pests and Pesticides IPM. Allowing pests to flourish, increasing health risks to building occupants and others, is “Pound for pound of body weight, children not only breathe more, eat more, and have a more rapid metabolism than adults, also not part of IPM. but they also play on the floor and lawn where pesticides are commonly applied. Children have more frequent hand-to- mouth contact as well. Children generally are more susceptible Why IPM in Schools? than adults to environmental toxics because they are growing and developing. Also, their enzymatic, metabolic and immune By improving pest control, reducing reliance on systems are immature, allowing in some cases for less natural pesticides and incorporating least-risk control protection than that of adults.” options, IPM reduces both pest and pesticide - Office of Children’s Health Protection, US EPA, risks. Using IPM in the school environment is http://www.epa.gov/children/ especially important. Children spend a great “…pests are more than a nuisance. They can pose a serious deal of time in schools and face greater health threat to young children who are unaware of the danger. potential for health effects resulting from pest Consider these statistics: and pesticide exposure. By reducing risks, IPM • Rats bite more than 45,000 people annually, mostly infants can also reduce potential liability to school and children. systems from accidental poisoning, allergies or • other harmful effects of pests and pesticides on Seven to 8 percent of the U.S. population is allergic to cockroaches. Studies of inner-city children in Atlanta with children and adults. chronic wheezing, runny eyes and noses revealed that 44 percent were allergic to cockroaches. Depending on your school system’s current • Rodents are responsible for, or implicated in, the spread of practices, IPM has potential to save time and numerous diseases, including hantavirus, plague, acute money. By taking actions to avoid pest food poisoning, rat-bite fever and typhus. problems and applying pesticides only when • Lyme disease, transmitted to humans by the deer tick, necessary, many schools will reduce costs over infects thousands of Americans annually  and the the long term, while achieving excellent pest numbers are rising. control. • Cockroaches transmit a variety of digestive tract disorders, including food poisoning, dysentery and diarrhea. Finally, IPM has a critical role to play in • Mosquitoes are prime carriers of several types of agriculture, our homes and throughout our encephalitis, a devastating illness that attacks the central communities. Schools adopting IPM set an nervous system of humans.” important example and can be instrumental in teaching staff, students and parents about the - Excerpt from “Why Children are Especially at Risk,” Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment practice and benefits of IPM.

IPM Standards for Schools

How do you know if the pest management practices in your school are the least risk, most effective available? Are you doing as much as possible to prevent and avoid pest problems? How many of the available IPM practices is your school implementing? IPM Standards for Schools serve as checklists of IPM practices for school buildings and grounds. Use them to help you answer these questions.

In agriculture, the use of IPM checklists is increasing. Farmers using IPM checklists are implementing a greater number of IPM practices than non-participants. IPM Standards for Schools have the same potential for increasing both the number of schools implementing IPM and the level of IPM practiced.

These IPM standards for schools are designed to function as a:

1. Learning Tool. Review IPM Standards to learn about the many options available to you. Follow up by reviewing the references listed and discussing practices appropriate for your school with your IPM committee, professional pest control provider, in-house professional pest control staff, administration and interested parents and teachers.

2. Self-Evaluation and IPM Planning Tool. Use the Standards to score your school. What additional IPM practices can you implement to improve your performance over the next year? The next three years? Use the practices you have identified as priorities to justify pest control budget requests.

3. Become Certified as an IPM STAR School. By meeting certain minimum requirements, your school can become certified as an IPM STAR school by the IPM Institute. Learn more about the IPM STAR certification program and process at http://www.ipminstitute.org/ipmstar.htm.

IPM STAR Certification for Schools

By implementing IPM, your school can improve pest management results and reduce liability and risks from both pests and pesticides. Certification clearly establishes your school’s IPM achievement in a way that is readily recognized by others both in and outside of your community.

By working towards and achieving IPM STAR Certification, your school will:

! establish a formal schedule for IPM evaluation, planning and training including site visits and comprehensive program review by a qualified outside IPM professional every three years;

! receive regular feedback on your IPM program from a school IPM professional;

! build a professional image and create goodwill with staff, parents and other community members;

! create an ongoing focus on pest and pesticide risk reduction, ensuring that your school continues to meet the highest standards for effective, reduced-risk pest management; and

! access a package of professionally prepared materials, including a brochure, certificate and window stickers to communicate your accomplishment.

Your school can use these materials to inform parents, teachers, students and others in the community about your IPM program, saving time for busy school professionals, reducing costs and duplication of effort, and facilitating clear and accurate transfer of information.

Certification may also exempt schools from certain legislative mandates or administrative requirements, as a clear demonstration that your school has an effective, state-or-the-art IPM program in place.

Implementing IPM can involve startup costs for training and pest preventative measures to improve sanitation or exclude pests. Although these measures can reduce costs over the long term, these

expenses may exceed a school's available budget for pest control in the first years. The IPM Institute is working to recruit community members interested in promoting IPM to provide funding for these IPM startup costs. See the IPM STAR’s website at http://www.ipminstitute.org/ipmstar.htm for more information.

Any school may use these IPM Standards to assist in developing and maintaining an IPM program. Certification is a voluntary step for schools or school systems.

Becoming an IPM STAR Certified School IPM Success Stories School The New York City Board of Education, representing approximately 1200 school buildings, has eliminated To become an IPM STAR Certified School or indoor dust formulations of every kind to reduce airborne Daycare Facility, you must contact the IPM Institute particulates, eliminated all "pelleted" rodenticides to to set up an on-site evaluation. IPM STAR reduce possibility of translocation, eliminated outside certification is effective for three years. After three rodenticide baitsets opting to bait and close existing years, your certification can be renewed by burrows only, increased reliance on glue updating the application and evaluation. IPM board monitoring as both indicator and precursory control agents, and reduced the use of one class of STAR certification is also available for school and pesticides from 918 to 22 lbs. per year. Since 1988, the private IPM professionals working in your school. school system has used over 8000 tubes of sealing See the IPM Institute website, silicone glue to close potential pest entries. As of the http://www.ipminstitute.org, or contact the Institute September 2001 school opening, the New York City for further details. Board of Education has totally eliminated the use of carbamates, organo-phosphates, pyrethroids, and even Other Sensitive Environments pyrethrin treatments anywhere in their buildings. Also, they still use no aerosols of any kind in classrooms and Many of the IPM practices listed in the IPM use no dust products whatsoever anywhere in their Standards for Schools can also be implemented in schools. other sensitive environments, including day cares, A demonstration project at two public schools in Santa nurseries, pre-schools, hospitals and nursing Barbara County CA reduced the costs by 30%, and homes. improved effectiveness of the pest control program. More information available from 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Many of the resources listed throughout are also Barbara, CA 93109, Phone: (805) 963-0583, Fax: (805) useful for professionals working in these other 962-9080, Email: [email protected]. environments. We welcome your comments on the need for Standards for these other environments, The Monroe County School Corporation, Monroe County and are willing to work with you to adapt the IPM IN, implemented a pilot IPM program that eliminated Standards for Schools for your industry. 90% of pesticide applications in three elementary schools. More at http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/ strategies/2004/mccsc04.htm. Join the IPM Institute! Your school can become an Any individual or organization can support the work IPM success story too! of the IPM Institute by becoming a member. Members enjoy a periodic newsletter with information about IPM, certified institutions and businesses, and the knowledge that they are supporting the growth and development of IPM certification programs in schools, communities and agriculture. Join by signing on to our Web site, or by mail, phone, fax or e-mail (see contact information below).

Resources for Starting an IPM Program at Join the School IPM E-Mail List your School Post your questions to a forum of school IPM These IPM Standards are intended as a guide to IPM practices professionals from around the country. Read available to schools. To implement these practices, you will need questions and responses from school resources such as professional Pest Managers with a successful administrators, Extension specialists, pest track record implementing IPM, Cooperative Extension personnel management professionals and others working to and information, environmental and public interest organizations reduce pest and pesticide risks in schools. The active in school pest management and a broad selection of print list is open for membership to any person or Web-based resources, including those listed throughout these interested in IPM in schools and wishes to IPM Standards for Schools. discuss this subject with others on the list.

Resources developed by Extension and others in your state and To subscribe, send an e-mail to region are especially important, as these will include information [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank specific to your region (e.g., laws, regulations, region-specific pest and in the text of the message type the following: issues). subscribe Schoolbugs-L Your Name Resources for Starting Your IPM Program: Replace Your Name with your own name. When Boise, P., and K. Feeney, 1999. Reducing Pesticides in Schools: you subscribe, you will be e-mailed a list of How Two Elementary Schools Control Common Pests Using instructions on how to use the list. For more Integrated Pest Management Strategies. S. information, visit the Web Site at Wright, ed. Community Environmental Council, Santa Barbara, http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/listsrvr.htm. CA. To request a copy, contact 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, Phone: (805) 963-0583, Fax: (805) 962-9080, Email: [email protected].

Building Blocks for School IPM. 2002.Crouse, Becky, Ed.; Owens, Kagan, Ed. (Beyond Pesticides, Washington, DC) The manual provides comprehensive information on implementing school IPM, including a practical guide to identifying, preventing, and controlling common school pest problems. It is designed for individuals who are responsible for school pest management. It includes information on why schools should adopt IPM programs, how to develop and implement a program, pest management strategies for structural pests, school IPM experts, a model policy and contract, a non- and least-toxic product guide, and fact sheets on the toxicity of commonly used pesticides in schools. 287p. Contact Beyond Pesticides at National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, 701 E Street, SE, Suite 200, Washington, DC, 20003, Phone: 202-543-5450, Email: [email protected].

California Safe Schools. 2003. Los Angeles Unified School District Integrated Pest Management Policy. Web page includes sections entitled Policy Statement, Decision Making Process, Product and Use Approval, Training, Method of IPM Control, Notification, Record Keeping and Reporting, and IPM Procedures Manual. Available at http://www.calisafe.org/policy.htm or in PDF format at http://www.calisafe.org/policy%20&%20forms.pdf.

Daar et al., 1997. Appendix B. How to develop an IPM program. Pp. 159-167. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Hollingsworth. 2000. Integrated Pest Management Guidelines for Structural Pests: Model Guidelines for Training and Implementation. Developed by the Structural Working Group of the Massachusetts IPM Council. Provides a systematic strategy for addressing specific structural pest situations. Serves as an educational tool for pest control professionals, building managers and homeowners who wish to practice integrated pest management. Specific pests include ants, bedbugs, cockroaches, fleas, flies, rodents, subterranean termites and more. Also includes a list of pest information Web sites. 58 pages. Contact UMass Extension Bookstore, Draper Hall, 40 Campus Center Way, Amherst, MA 01003-9244; phone (413) 545-5539; fax (413) 545-5174; email [email protected].

Koehler, et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. The national Web site for IPM in schools, including how to get started for parents, administration, faculty/staff and pest managers; basic education and advanced technical information about school IPM; downloadable presentations in html, Acrobat and Powerpoint formats; and links to web sites for state-specific resources, IPM teaching curricula, general IPM, pest control and identification, pesticides and health, State Departments of Education and Health, national and state pest control associations, and fun WWW sites related to school IPM. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/.

Integrated Pest Management Policy Statement for Maine Schools. 2-page document includes thoughts on IPM techniques, pest management objectives, the IPM coordinator, record keeping, notification and posting, pesticide storage and purchase and pesticide applicators. Available in Word or PDF format at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm/.

Merchant and Merchant, 1997. The ABC’s of IPM Video Series: Module 1. An Introduction; Module 2. Structural Pest Control; Module 3. Food Handling Areas; Module 4. Bids and Contracts; Module 5. The Administrative Challenge; Module 6. Landscape IPM. Available from Distribution and Supply Office, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, P.O. Box 1209, Bryan TX 77806-1209. (979) 845-6571, Fax (979) 862-1566. Also available from the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, http://tcebookstore.org/browse.cfm?catid=116%20.

NC State University and NC A & T State University Cooperative Extension. 2002. IPM for North Carolina Schools. This 49-page document is divided into six parts: 1. What is IPM? 2. Adopting and IPM Program 3. Implementing a School IPM Program 4. Sample Forms 5. How to Develop Bid Invitations for IPM Service in Schools and 6. Resources. Available in PDF form at http://ipm.ncsu.edu/urban/cropsci/SchoolIPM/ schoolipm_manual.pdf.

Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES), 2002. Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Introduction that answers the questions What is IPM? and Why Practice IPM in Schools?; Chapter on the Components of an IPM Program; Chapter on Establishing an IPM Program in Your School; Chapter on Managing Pests Found in Northeast Schools including a detailed list of common pests. Also includes appendices on School IPM Checklist, Examples of Action Thresholds and General Recommendations for Pesticide Applications. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

NC State University, Michael Waldvogel. 2003. IPM in Schools PowerPoint. Includes slides on SEPA, inspection and exculsion, roach management, mice management, fly management, and ant management. Available online at http://ipm.ncsu.edu/urban/cropsci/SchoolIPM/presentations.html.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2004. Model School IPM Plan for New Jersey Schools. The Model provides schools with a template for compliance with the December 2002 New Jersey School IPM Act. Use of the Model Plan itself is voluntary; schools may directly edit it to suit their needs and pest management issues. The Model Plan specifies what things schools MUST do to be in compliance with the New Jersey School IPM Act. The Model Plan is currently available in both pdf and Word files on the Rutgers Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office School IPM webpages, http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/ipm/ schoolipm/plan.htm. The NJDEP will shortly post the plan on the Pesticide Control Program website, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforcement/pcp/index.html.

Pennsylvania IPM Program. 2004. Pennsylvania School IPM Manual. New edition of the manual contains sections on mosquito and tick IPM as well as more references and information on new IPM legislation. The manual also includes chapters on suggestions for setting up an IPM program in schools and developing an IPM policy and a sample policy from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. Additionally, the manual contains a listing of commonly encountered pests in and around schools as well as information on the biology, identification and management of various types of pests. Available for purchase through the Publications Distribution Center, Penn State University, 112 Agricultural Administration Bldg., University Park, PA. Call (877) 345-0691(toll free) to order by phone.

Purdue University. 2003. Offering Sound Pest Management Advice to the Public. (PPP-62). 40-page softcover book offers sound and simple advice targeted at retailers (pesticide consultants according to Indiana law) and others who sell pesticides and offer pesticide advice. Covers topics such as Customer Needs, Pest Identifications, Buying Pesticides, Caring for Pesticides at Home, Following Labels, Safety Equipment, Container Disposal, Spills, Hiring a Professional, and web resources. Available to be downloaded for free at http://www.btny.purdue.edu/PPP.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2003. How NY & NJ Schools Can Make the Grade in School IPM. The one-page brochure details how to get started in IPM. Outlines where to get information on national and regional (New York and New Jersey) resources and contacts in School IPM. Available at http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/IPM/SchoolIPM/ brochure.html.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2003. IPM Report Card for School Grounds. These cards provide a series of self- assessment tools that will allow schools to measure their adoption of IPM on school grounds. There are five report cards divided into the following categories: General Requirements, Athletic Fields, Turf, Ornamental Plants and Landscape Plantings. Available at http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/IPM/ SchoolIPM/reportcard.html.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2003. School IPM Resource Guide for New York and New Jersey. This 39-page resource guide is separated into three sections: General Resources for School IPM & IPM, NJ Resources for School IPM and NY Resources for School IPM. Available at http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/IPM/SchoolIPM/ resources.html.

Safer Pest Control Project. IPM Handbook. 38pp. This PDF document includes chapters entitled IPM and notification checklist, summary of state laws requiring IPM and notification, definition of IPM, IPM policy, IPM participants, practicing IPM, and pesticides applications notifications. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/IPM_handbook.pdf.

Safer Pest Control Project. Flow chart entitled the ABC's of IPM Implementation in Your School District. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/schchart.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 1: Essential elements of IPM. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Florida. 2001. School IPM Model Contract. Extensive outline designed to be used by officials working in schools, such as purchasing agents, who are responsible for procuring pest management services. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/model_contract.htm.

Washington Toxics Coalition. 2001. Model Least Toxic IPM Policy. Includes sections entitled Pesticide Use and Selection, Notification and Timing, Recordkeeping, Pest Management Committee, Progress Review, Right to Appeal, and Identification and Notification of Sensitive Individuals. Available at http://www.watoxics.org/content/pdf/IPMPolicy.pdf.

Using the IPM Standards for Schools

IPM Standards are included in two parts, one for school buildings and one for school grounds. If your school grounds are managed by a separate department, such as a city or county parks office, please refer the school grounds part to the appropriate personnel. Schools may become IPM certified for their school buildings, school grounds, or both, and on an individual school or system-wide basis.

To help you set priorities for implementing IPM practices, both Buildings and Grounds sections are organized into three Modules:

MODULE ONE: Building the IPM Foundation

By completing MODULE ONE, you will be putting your IPM program on a firm foundation:

! meeting all legal requirements; ! identifying resources necessary for an effective IPM program; ! creating an IPM policy, committee and coordinator to guide decision-making; ! setting up basic record keeping; ! establishing community right-to-know; and ! ending routine pesticide applications.

These essential IPM practices are recommended for all school IPM programs and represent an excellent starting point for new programs. Each MODULE ONE practice should be substantially completed before moving on.

MODULE TWO: Raising the IPM Framework

MODULE TWO practices build on the foundation by:

! establishing roles and training for key players; ! identifying priorities and creating a pest management plan; and ! limiting pest control actions to effective, reduced-risk options.

MODULE THREE: Achieving IPM Excellence!

MODULE THREE practices put your IPM program on the map, systematically addressing administrative and policy as well as pest-specific issues. Implementing practices for the pests you experience problems with at your school will help you manage pests effectively with a minimum of risk. Most schools will need to complete just a few of these sections.

Calculating Your IPM Score

The Standards include administrative, policy and pest-specific IPM practices. Each practice is assigned a point value. By implementing a listed practice, you earn the points assigned to the practice.

Priority Practices are clearly marked. Priority Practices are required for certification, in addition to all MODULE ONE and TWO practices. Score 80% or more of the points available for each Priority Practice, just as you must for each practice in MODULES ONE and TWO.

Bonus Practices are also clearly marked. Points for these practices are not included in the total points available in each section, but if earned, should be added to your score.

Partial Credit can be applied to practices that are only partially implemented, or implemented on only a portion of possible sites, occasions, etc. For example, if door sweeps are placed on most but not all doors, partial credit is permitted based on the proportion of doors with sweeps. Obviously, any door without a sweep is a potential pest entry and should be scheduled for correction.

Use partial credit to signal practices that have been implemented but can be improved, and make a note of the improvement needed. For certification purposes, the verifier will determine how many points to apply, and may decline to give any credit for partial completion of a practice that is adversely affecting pest or pesticide risk management in a significant way.

Reduced-Impact and Least-Impact Pest Control Options are referred to throughout the Standards. These options are defined in Appendix A. Certified schools may use only materials meeting these definitions. A growing list of these options, including products and trade names, is available at the IPM Institute website.

Pests or Practices Not Applicable (N/A). Some sections of the Standards refer to pests that may not be a problem at your school, or may include practices that are not applicable. Mark these sections or practices as N/A (not applicable) and move on. The Scorecard provides a column to note the points available for these sections, and instructs you how to adjust your score for non-applicable sections and practices.

IPM Scorecards. By working through the Standards, you accumulate points towards your total score. Use the two IPM Scorecards (one for school buildings and one for school grounds) to calculate your overall score and convert your score to a percentage.

Glossary. Unfamiliar terms are defined in Appendix B. When these terms first appear in the text, they appear in italics.

For IPM STAR Certification by the IPM Institute, review the IPM STAR Certification Program for Schools and Daycare Facilities. An IPM professional will visit your school and evaluate your IPM program and make recommendations for improvement. A satisfactory evaluation will make your school eligible for certification.

IPM STAR Certification materials are available at http://www.ipminstitute.org, or by contacting the IPM Institute at (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected]

Part I. IPM Standards for School Buildings

MODULE ONE: IPM FOUNDATION for School Buildings I = In place Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication N = Needs Improvement

1. Appropriate personnel (e.g., superintendent, facilities manager, principal, IPM Coordinator) understand and ensure that the school meets all Federal, State and local legal requirements related to pest management in schools (e.g., posting, notification, pesticide management, etc.). Legal requirements that exceed or conflict with practices in these Standards supercede those listed here.

2. Resources are identified and acquired to assist in developing and implementing IPM (e.g., state/county Extension personnel, publications and on-line resources; non-governmental organizations, pest management professionals with expertise in school IPM).

3. A written IPM policy is adopted which

a. states a commitment to IPM implementation;

b. identifies overall objectives relating to pest and pesticide risk

management;

c. is used to guide decision-making; and

d. is reviewed at least once every three years and revised as needed.

4. An IPM Committee is formed to create and maintain the IPM policy, provide guidance in interpreting the policy, and provide oversight of the program.

5. An IPM Coordinator is designated to provide day-to-day oversight of IPM implementation.

6. A plan is developed and implemented to provide necessary IPM training for the IPM Coordinator.

7. Pest Manager is aware of and has access to resources to identify key pests.

8. A pesticide notification policy is implemented such that:

a. At least 24 hours prior to pesticide application, postings are placed in a designated public area detailing locations to be treated and contact

information for further information (exceptions may be made for

applications made for emergencies, where an imminent threat to

health exists (e.g., stinging insects), or for applications of anti-

microbials and for pesticides defined as Least-Risk (Appendix A); for

emergency applications, postings must be placed as soon as

practical);

b. this notice remains posted for at least 48 hours post-application; and

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

c. copies of the pesticide label and MSDS sheet for the material(s) to be used are available on request and maintained on file in a central location (e.g., main office).

9. Complete, legible records of each pesticide application, including product, quantity used, date and time of application, location, application method and target pests are maintained for at least three years.

10. Public access is provided on request to all information about the IPM policy, IPM plan and implementation.

Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion

1. At least a preliminary review of school buildings is conducted to determine nature and extent of pest problems and contributing factors.

This information is used to set IPM priorities.

Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

1. All pesticide applications are made by a person certified and/or licensed

by the state to apply pesticides in commercial facilities.

2. All pesticide applications are made only after detection of a verifiable pest problem and accurate identification of the pest. Applications are not made on a routine or regularly scheduled basis (e.g., weekly, monthly applications are not made).

3. At least a preliminary review of pesticide use practices in school buildings is conducted to evaluate pesticide risks. This information is used to set priorities for reducing or replacing high-risk pesticides and use practices.

Notes:

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

IPM Planning and Communication

Becker, B., 2000. Qualities to Look for in a Professional Pest Control Operator (PCO). Guidelines for evaluating pest management professionals, including qualifications, services offered, IPM approach, use of pesticides, record keeping. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_con.htm.

Browner, C., 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 43 pp. Model IPM policy statement.

Mertz, et al. Maryland Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Regulation Section publishes report entitled Contracting Guidelines for IPM Services in Maryland Public Schools. Includes an introduction to IPM in schools, general contracting components of IPM in schools, and general information on pest control, program reporting, evaluating and training. Also includes a synopsis of Maryland Pesticide Applicators Law and Regulations. Available in PDF form at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_con.htm.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 3. Setting injury and action thresholds, pp. 15-18; Appendix A. IPM-related curricula and resources for the classroom, pp. 157-158; Appendix B. How to develop an IPM program, pp. 159-167; Appendix C. Developing an IPM policy statement for school pest management, pp. 169-170; Appendix D. Integrated pest management (IPM) contract performance specifications, pp. 171- 175. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Setting action thresholds; descriptions and contact information for IPM-related games, projects and curriculum guides; pest management roles; model IPM policy statement; model pest control service contract specifications. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Illinois EPA. 2003. Green Schools Checklist: Environmental Actions for Schools to Consider. 24-page checklist includes sections entitled management strategies, energy use, indoor air quality, solid waste, hazardous material, mercury use, laboratory waste, mold growth, water consumption, building construction and renovation, purchasing, pest management, groundskeeping, and food service. Available in PDF form at http://www.epa.state.il.us/ green- illinois/green-schools/green-schools-checklist.pdf.

Illinois State Board of Education. 2000. Integrated Pest Management and Notification Handbook. 38 pp. Model documents: IPM policy statement, contract specifications, inspection checklist, pest sighting log, trap/bait monitoring form, application notification form; summary and text of IL state laws; guidelines for pest tolerance levels. Available at http://www.isbe.net/construction/pdf/IPM.PDF.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Model IPM policy statement; model pest control service contract specifications; model IPM training and workshop agendas; model pest sightings log; model intent to apply pesticides notice; setting action thresholds; links to national and state resources for IPM in schools and IPM- related curricula resources. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu.

Krieger, R. 2000. Policing Pests: Why Boards Need Pest-Management Policies. American School Board Journal. Vol 187. pp. 52-54. Article divided into three sections: "Educating the Community", "Alternatives to Pesticides" and "What Parents Need to Know." "Educating the Community" advocates developing a school plan to let parents know schools are using pesticides responsibly. "Alternatives to Pesticides" recommends IPM as a strategy for schools to use. "What Parents Need to Know" talks about IPM policy and keeping parents involved. Insert entitled "Schools Curtail Pesticide Use" briefly discusses LAUSD use of IPM.

Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation Inc., 1998. Community Action to Manage Pesticide Use in Schools (Campus): A Georgia Guide. 70 pp. Summary of pesticide and pest control regulations and policies; model IPM policies; step-by-step guide to establishing an IPM program in schools; model job descriptions for IPM committees and IPM coordinators; model facilities survey form; model IPM service log, pest report log, pesticide application logs. Available from LEAF, 1114 Thomasville Rd., Suite E, Tallahassee FL 32303-6290, (850) 681-2591, Fax (850) 224-1275. E-mail: [email protected], Website: http://www.leaf-envirolaw.org.

Maine School Integrated Pest Management Program. A Model Integrated Pest Management Policy Statement for Maine Schools. 2-page document includes thoughts on IPM techniques, pest management objectives, the IPM coordinator, record keeping, notification and posting, pesticide storage and purchase and pesticide applicators. Available in Word or PDF format at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Maine School IPM Program. Suggested [ Pest ] Notification Template. Document in the form of a letter to parent, guardian or staff form the school available with or without registry option for parents. Available in PDF or Word format at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. Action Thresholds in School IPM Programs. Pesticide Regulation Section, Annapolis, MD. 10 pp. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Merchant and Merchant, 1997. The ABC's of IPM Video Series: Module 1. An Introduction; Module 4. Bids and Contracts; Module 5. The Administrative Challenge. Available from Distribution and Supply Office, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, P.O. Box 1209, Bryan TX 77806-1209. (979) 845-6571, FAX (979) 862-1566.

Minnesota Department of Health, 2000. Model Pesticide Notice. Model notices to parents and school employees of pesticide applications, conforming to requirements of MN State law. Available at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/pesticide/notices/index.html.

Nagy, J. 2000. ESchool News Online. "School Pesticide Question Challenges Policymakers." Discusses federal and state's school pesticide legislation, as well as adjustments to local school district policy.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 1994. Model IPM policy statement. Available at http://www.pesticide.org/default.htm.

Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES), 2002. Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Introduction that answers the questions What is IPM? and Why Practice IPM in Schools?; Chapter on the Components of an IPM Program; Chapter on Establishing an IPM Program in Your School; Chapter on Managing Pests Found in Northeast Schools including a detailed list of common pests. Also includes appendices on School IPM Checklist, Examples of Action Thresholds and General Recommendations for Pesticide Application. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Pennsylvania State University, 1999. IPM in Schools. Model IPM policy statement. Available at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schools/schoolIPM.html.

President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. 2003. Inventory of Federal School Environmental Health Activities. Inventory systematically lists all federal agencies' school environmental health programs. Includes the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor, Interior as well as extensive lists of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current projects and resources. In PDF at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/Inventory.htm/ $file/Inventory.pdf. Also available in HTML version at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/whatwe_tf_proj.htm.

Safer Pest Control Project. Model IPM policy statement conforming with IL State Law; "Cost of IPM in Schools, " two- page fact sheet in PDF format includes cost comparisons from school systems; "Guidelines for IPM in School Pest Management Contracts," one-page PDF fact sheet designed to help schools incorporate IPM into existing contracts with pest management professionals; pesticide application notification guidelines and model language. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org.

Safer Pest Control Project. 4-page model school pest management policy statement for schools. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/schpolicy.pdf.

Safer Pest Control Project. Integrated Pest Management in Schools: A Better Method. This 12-minute video is aimed at helping schools, parents, pest control operators, and other groups understand and promote School IPM. Filmed at a Chicago-area school that has practiced IPM since 1994, it features testimony and advice from the school's pest control operator and operations manager. It addresses concerns about pesticide use, the advantages of practicing IPM, and the basic components of IPM. For more information, see School IPM Video Brochure and Order Form or call Safer Pest Control Project at (312) 641-5575.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Stauffer et al., 1998. Chapter 3.0. Administration of an IPM program. Pp. 3-1 to 3-26 In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. IPM policy statements, roles, education and training, record keeping, notification, model bid specifications, model rating system for evaluating pest control bids. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/ schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 6: Pest Management Plan. In Wisconsin's School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Model IPM policy, IPM plan, model reporting forms. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

"Sustainable Schools Minnesota: High Performance Schools for Higher Performing Students." 2000. LHB Engineers and Architects, Factor 10, LLC, Intep/AW Consulting, and Elk River Area School District. Funded by the MN Office of Environmental Assistance, this free 56-page document is aimed at school board members and other decision-makers involved in the design, construction, and management of schools, and aims to help them with pre-design decisions that can lead to higher performing schools and students. Sections of this report include: Introduction: Schools as Symbols, Highlights of High Performance School Design, Financial Implications of High Performance Schools, Process Overview, Components of High Performance School Design, and Case Examples. Free copies of the report are available from the OEA's Education Clearinghouse at (651) 215-0232 or (800) 877-6300 or [email protected].

Texas Cooperative Extension. Model IPM Policy Statement. Includes definitions, development of IPM plans, essential IPM principles, pesticides use is school facilities, cooperation with IPM coordinator, contractual agreements with IPM providers, facilities planning, cooperation with regulatory agencies, and licensing and training for pesticide applicators. Available at http://schoolipm.tamu.edu/resources/resources/Technical _Information/model_policy_statment.pdf.

Texas Cooperative Extension. Model Contract Bid Specifications. Model of bid specifications for schools. Includes sections entitled description of services, bid requirements, scope of work, general contractor responsibilities, pest control responsibilities and list of site(s) to be treated. Available at http://schoolipm.tamu.edu/ resources/resources/Technical_ Information/BIDSPEC2.htm.

Texas, State of, 1999. Integrated pest management in schools. Structural Pest Control Board. Texas law and regulations, model IPM policy statement, model IPM bid specifications, most frequently asked questions regarding IPM, downloadable IPM forms and information. Available at http://www.spcb.state.tx.us/ipm/ipmindex.htm.

US EPA. 2002. EPA Guide to Protecting Children's Health in Schools. The US EPA has created an online or downloadable guide to identifying potential hazards in schools. The guide includes planning tools, a virtual tour of a school to help identify hazards, a section on case studies as well as a list of resources and contacts. Available at http://www.epa.gov/seahome/child.html.

US General Services Agency, 1999. Contract Guide Specifications for Integrated Pest Management Programs in Government Buildings and Schools. 7 pp. Suggested guidelines for use when contracting with a pest management professional for services, including inspection, IPM plan, use of pesticides, recordkeeping. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_con.htm.

University of Florida. 2001. Intent to Apply Pesticides document. One page model of intent to apply form. Available in PDF version at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/Apply.pdf.

Vermont School IPM. 2002. Sample School IPM Plan, Draft School IPM Policy Statement for Vermont Schools, Draft Notification and Registry Letter for parents, staff and faculty, Draft Notification Letter for parents, staff and faculty, Pest Reporting Forms, Pest Sighting Log and Pesticide Use Log all available on the Vermont School IPM website, http://pss.uvm.edu/pd/schoolipm.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture, 1999. Integrated Pest Management in Schools and Other Public Institutions: Best Management Practices. Model IPM policy, setting action thresholds, vendor evaluation criteria and contracts. Available from the WV Dept. of Agriculture, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard E., Charleston WV 25305-0170 .Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. 2002. Frequently Asked Questions About School IPM Pesticide Use on Public School Grounds. Includes sections entitled definitions, pesticides use requirements, applicability of pesticide use law, responsibilities of the school board and pesticide applicator, product labels, exemptions from the law, certification categories, licensing of certified applicators, hiring a commercial applicator, warning signs, and record keeping. Available at http://datcp.state.wi.us/arm/ agriculture/pest- fert/pesticides/pdf/ipm_faqs.pdf.

Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion

Daar et al., 1997. Appendix E. Sample monitoring forms, pp. 177-194; Appendix F. How to collect and preserve specimens for identification, pp. 195-196; Appendix I. Inspection checklist for detecting structural decay and structural pest damage, pp. 209-213. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Model monitoring forms for roach traps and landscapes, model pest control trouble call log; collecting pest and plant specimens; locations and features to inspect in and around structures with detailed instructions. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Fournier. 2001. IPM Inspections Web Site. Purdue University. Pest vulnerable areas, Tools and Access, Inspection Questions, Recommendations, Inspection Forms and Checklists, and IPM Inspection of School Grounds. Index and PDF version available at http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomology/ outreach/ choolipm/1pmp/pmpins.htm.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Model cafeteria inspection checklist, importance of sanitation. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ index.html.

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. 259 pp. Basic and advanced monitoring methods, record keeping, site mapping, equipment. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers University, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick NJ 08901-8520. (732) 932-9762, Web site http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 1: Essential Standards of IPM. In Wisconsin's School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Indoor/outdoor sanitation and exclusion checklists. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

American School and University. 1999. "A Bug's Life." Explains the use of integrated pest management (IPM) to help make schools safer and provide a healthier environment for students and staff. Cost considerations when implementing an IPM are discussed as are key factors in establishing a program. Available at http://asumag.com/ar/ university_bugs_life/index.htm.

Ard, J. IPM Associates, Inc. "Fundamentals of a Low Maintenance, Integrated Pest Management Approach to Landscape Design." Published on the Integrated Pest Management Practitioners Association Web site, this article discusses the design/maintenance interface; key considerations for low maintenance IPM-based landscape designs, and construction practices. Available at http://www.efn.org/~ipmpa/des-cnsd.html.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Attorney General of New York, New York State Dept. of Law, and Environmental Protection Bureau. 1996. Pesticides in Schools: Reducing the Risks. Based on concerns that children and staff may be unnecessarily and unwittingly exposed to pesticides in their schools, the New York Attorney General's Office initiated a state-wide study of pesticide use in New York State in the public schools. This report describes this state-wide survey, provides information about some of the potential dangers of these chemicals, and recommends steps that schools and communities can take to minimize pesticide use. 33p. Available on http://www.oag.state.ny.us/environment/schools96.html.

Beyond Pesticides. 2000. Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools. 2-page chart summarizes the effects of 48 commonly used pesticides in schools on children's health. Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/ SCHOOLS/publications/index.htm.

Beyond Pesticides. 2002. Ten Myths Behind Pesticide-Dependent Pest Management in Schools. 4-page fact sheet that "debunks opponents to school integrated pest management, pesticide bans and notification programs." Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/SCHOOLS/publications/ index.htm.

Bio-Integral Resource Center, 2000. Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control Products. The IPM Practitioner 21: (11/12) 1-38. List of least-toxic controls by target pest, including insect, plant disease, weed and vertebrate pests; list of suppliers with contact information. Available from BIRC, PO Box 7414 , Berkeley CA 94707. (510) 524-2567, FAX (510) 524-1758, E-mail [email protected], Website http://www.birc.org.

Braness, G., 1997. Chapter 23. Insecticides used in pest control. Pp. 1061-1101. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, chemical classifications, mode of actions, formulations and table of insecticides with trade names, common names, US EPA signal word and uses. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Brown, A. E., 1999. Pesticide Information Leaflet Series. University of Maryland. Series of 29 downloadable leaflets in pdf format including insect repellant safety, pesticide safe use checklist, protecting ground water, pesticides associated with skin diseases, reading pesticide labels, multiple chemical sensitivity, pesticides and cancer, pesticides and the endocrine system. Available at http://www.pest.umd.edu/spatc/Leaflets/LeafletList.html.

California State Parent Teacher Association Newsletter. 1998. "Pesticides In Our Schools." Newsletter discusses use of pesticides on school grounds, parking lots, tracks, play areas, cafeterias, classrooms, gymnasiums and rest rooms, causing acute and chronic health problems.

City of Seattle, 1999. Pesticide Use Reduction Strategy. Model pesticide use and risk reduction strategy. Available at http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/environment/pesticides.htm.

Cleaning and Maintenance Management Online. 2000. "EPA Encourages Schools to Adopt Pest-Control Option." The Environmental Protection Agency says school administrators and facility managers who make pest control decisions for school buildings and grounds should become aware of the pest control options available to them. Schools across the nation adopting such programs have reported successful, cost-effective conversion to IPM, which can reduce the use of chemicals and provide economical and effective pest suppression. Available at http://www.facility-maintenance.com/ article.asp?IndexID=6630599.

Daar et al., 1997. Appendix G. Pesticide information resources. Pp. 197-198. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Contact information for non-governmental sources of information on pesticides and pesticide risk management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/ toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Dahlgren, S. 2000. Athletic Business. "Fowl Play." Discusses ways some universities have dealt with eliminating insects and wildlife from their athletic fields, the types of problems to look for, the damage pests can cause, the safety issues involved, and tips on remedies are examined. Available at http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articlearchive/content/AB-0100-62.pdf.

Green, S. G., 1997. Chapter 28. Itches, illusions and phobias. Pp. 1271-1323. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Potential causes of itching and rashes, including insects, mites and causes unrelated to pests; chemical sensitivity. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Healthy Schools Network, Inc. 1999. Children, Learning, and Poisons Don't Mix: Kick the Pesticide Habit. This 8- page brochure examines basic information about pesticides and their use in and around schools, how children are exposed to pesticides and their health effects, and how a school can kick the habit of using pesticides. To order, write Healthy Schools Network, Inc., 773 Madison Avenue, Albany, NY 12208; Tel: 518-462-0632, ERIC NO: ED447680.

James, A. 2000. School Planning and Management. "Keep Pests from Becoming a Problem in Your School." Examines the use of pesticides in an integrated pest management (IPM) program. The three steps to creating an IPM are discussed along with IPM personnel communication requirements and the need for written policies managed by a knowledgeable coordinator.

Mueller, D. K., 1997. Chapter 24. Fumigation. Pp. 1103-1152. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, line drawings, mode of action, safety, heat treatment. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. 2003. National Pesticide Competency Guidelines for Medical & Nursing Education and the National Pesticide Practice Skills Guidelines for Medical & Nursing Practice. The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF), in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Labor, has published guidelines that will serve as tools for focusing schools and practicum programs on pesticide health education, provide guidance directly to nurses and physicians to advance their awareness and skill in recognizing and managing pesticide-related illness, and act as a model for faculty and administrators in integrating specific pesticide issues into education and training. These documents can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.neetf.org/Health/publications.shtm Paper copies will be available later this year. For more information, contact: The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticides Initiative; 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC, 20006-3915; 202-833-2933 x 535.

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network. Toll-free telephone service provides pesticide information, fact sheets on pesticides and anti-microbials. (800) 858-7378. More at http://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/index.html.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 1999. School Pesticide Use Reduction Program. Fact sheets on pesticides and alternatives to pesticides, Journal of Pesticide Reform quarterly newsletter. Available at http://www.pesticide.org/default.htm.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. 2000. Unintended Casualties: Five Stories of Children Whose Lives Were Profoundly Affected by Exposure to Pesticides at School. This 5-page supplementary packet highlights five school pesticide exposure incidents and personalizes them in a way not possible in the Appendix of the larger report. Available at http://www.pesticide.org/ UnthinkableRisk.html.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. 2000. Unthinkable Risk: How Children are Exposed and Harmed When Pesticides are Used at School. 50-page report includes a Summary and Introduction, Pesticide Contamination of Indoor Air and Surfaces, Pesticide Contamination of Soil, Vegetation, Turf, and the Outdoor Environment, Breathing, Touching, Tasting: How Children can Inhale, Absorb, or Ingest Pesticide Residues and Vapors, Learning the Hard Way: Actual School Pesticide Exposure Incidents, Recommendations for Parents, Schools, States, and the Federal Government, References, List of School Pesticide Exposure Incidents, California Incidents, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington Incidents, and Incidents in Other States. Available at http://www.pesticide.org/UnthinkableRisk.html.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Pesticide Action Network. 2000. PAN Pesticide Database. Comprehensive online database on the health hazards of more than 5,100 ingredients in pesticides including whether a pesticide is a carcinogen, a reproductive or developmental toxicant or causes other harm to health and which chemicals pollute ground water or kill aquatic wildlife. Sources include the World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and independent published and peer-reviewed research. Available at http://www.pesticideinfo.org.

Ross, Z and Walker, B. 1998. An Ill Wind: Methyl Bromide Use Near California Schools. The Environmental Working Group provides a 40-page California study that examines the use of methyl bromide near public schools. Available at http://www.ewg.org/reports/an_ill_wind/pressrelease.html or, to order, write the Environmental Working Group, 1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009; Tel: 202-667-6982.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2003. IPM Report Card for School Grounds. Report cards provide a series of self- assessment tools that will allow schools to measure their adoption of IPM on school grounds. There are five report cards divided into the following categories: General Requirements, Athletic Fields, Turf, Ornamental Plants and Landscape Plantings. Available at http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/IPM/ SchoolIPM/reportcard.html.

Safer Pest Control Project. 2-page fact sheet entitled Pesticides in Schools: What are the Health Risks? Includes information on health risks, cancer and asthma, and IPM as a possible solution. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/schheal.pdf.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Safety precautions and personal protection for the applicator and worker. Pp. 6-1 to 6-16. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Protective equipment and clothing for pesticide applicators; pesticide transport, handling, storage, application and cleanup safety. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/ publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Appendix: Pesticide comparison and evaluation. In Wisconsin's School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Pesticide classification and selection for least risk. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Texas, State of, 1999. Integrated pest management in schools. Structural Pest Control Board. Red/Yellow/Green pesticide risk ranking system. Available at http://www.spcb.state.tx.us/ipm/ipmindex.htm.

Tucker, J.B., 1997. Chapter 29. Sensitive environments. Pp. 1325-1366. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Pest management principles and strategies for sensitive environments including schools. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

United States Poison Control Center Central Hotline. Officials launched the national hotline, 1-800-222-1222, and applauded it as an overdue coordination of the country's 65 separately-run poison centers. Callers dialing the number will be automatically linked to the closest poison center.

United States Senate. 1999. Pesticides: Use, Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs. The 18-page report addresses the following questions: 1) what federal requirements govern the use of pesticides in schools? 2) what information exists on the use of pesticides in schools? 3) what data exist on the incidences of short and long term illnesses linked to exposure to pesticides in schools? 4) are the EPA and the states taking actions, where appropriate, to reduce the use of pesticides in schools, and if so, what are the results of these efforts? Available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00017.pdf or, to order a hard copy, contact the U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013; Tel: 202-512-6000. Report NO: GAO/RCED-00-17.

University of Florida. 2001. IPM Cafeteria Inspection Checklist. A model IPM cafeteria inspection checklist for schools. Available in PDF version at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/cafe2.pdf.

University of Nebraska. Pesticide applicator training manuals. Includes Applying Pesticides Correctly, Private Applicator Self-Study Manual, and a series of category manuals including aerial, agricultural, aquatic, ornamentals, structural, etc. Manuals include self-study guides and tests. http://pested.unl.edu/training.htm.

Evaluating Your Performance

Perfection is an ideal rarely accomplished in the real world. When evaluating your performance on IPM practices listed in these standards, use a critical eye to identify areas for improvement make a note of the action needed. Remember, continuous improvement in reducing pests and pesticide risks is the goal!

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

MODULE TWO: IPM FRAMEWORK for School Buildings Points Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication Earned

1. Pest management roles are developed for and communicated at least annually to:

a) administrators (e.g., principals regarding posting, notification, reporting, etc.);

b) teachers (e.g., do not bring in/apply pesticides, sanitation, etc.);

c) custodians (e.g., pest sightings log, inspection, sanitation, exclusion, etc.);

d) food handlers (e.g., sanitation, exclusion, etc.); and

e) outside contractors (e.g., IPM policy, posting, pest control options to outside pest management professionals).

2. Pest management roles are developed for and communicated at least on an as needed basis (e.g., headlice incident):

a) students (e.g., reporting, sanitation, head lice prevention, etc.); and

b) parents (e.g., no nit policy)

3. A written IPM Plan is prepared that includes a schedule for inspection and monitoring of buildings and adjacent grounds, including a schedule for areas requiring more frequent inspection/monitoring (e.g., food storage, preparation and serving areas).

4. If outside contractors provide pest control services, a written contract is signed identifying specific IPM practices to be used including regular inspections, monitoring where appropriate, record-keeping and agreement to abide by the IPM Policy and IPM Plan, including use of only Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options for schools pursuing certification. If outside contractors are not used, score as N/A.

5. A Pest Sightings/Damage Log is kept in a designated area (e.g., main office). Building staff are instructed to report all pest-related incidents to the log including date, time, exact location, a description of the pest or pest damage and the name of the person reporting. Pest Manager reviews reports promptly and records and dates responses taken to each report. This log may be part of a general maintenance reporting system.

6. School notifies all students, staff and others requesting special consideration in the event of a pesticide application:

a) school provides direct notification to those individuals at least 48

hours in advance of any pesticide application; and

b) school communicates that this notification option is available to parents and staff at least annually.

MODULE TWO IPM Practices

Exceptions may be made for applications made where an imminent threat to health exists (e.g., stinging insects), or for applications of pesticides defined as Least-Risk (Appendix A), or for situations where the school will be unoccupied for five days following the application. For emergency applications, postings must be placed as soon as practical.

7. Key staff (e.g., IPM Coordinator, Pest Manager, custodians, food service) participate in IPM training at least annually. Training is adequate and appropriate to the IPM roles fulfilled by these staff members.

Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion

1. A comprehensive inspection of all buildings is conducted by an in-house or contracted professional Pest Manager for defects including cracks, crevices and other pest entryways; food, moisture and shelter resources available to pests; moisture, pest or other damage to structural elements; termite earthen tunnels, pest fecal matter or other signs of pest activity; etc. A report of all defects is prepared, corrective actions are identified.

2. Legible records are maintained of inspection results, pest management actions and evaluations of results and maintained for at least three years.

3. A timeline is established for completion of corrective actions and evaluation of results.

Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

1. Pesticide inventories are maintained only if personnel properly licensed to apply those pesticides are on staff. Storage is tightly controlled to

prevent unauthorized access. If pesticide inventories are not maintained

by the school, score as N/A.

2. Baits (e.g., for ants, cockroaches, rodents), if used, are:

a) placed in areas inaccessible or off-limits to children;

b) placed in a locked, distinctively marked, tamper-resistant container designed specifically for holding baits and constructed of metal, plastic or wood;

c) used in bait containers securely attached to floors, walls, etc. such that the container cannot be picked up and moved;

d) placed in the baffle-protected feeding chamber of the bait container and not in the runway;

e) parafinized or weatherproof if used in wet areas ; and

f) not used outdoors unless bait containers are inaccessible to children (e.g., placed underground in pest nests or on building roofs).

If pests are managed effectively without baits, score as N/A.

MODULE TWO IPM Practices

3. If dust formulations are used, these are applied only to areas that are sealed after treatment (e.g., wall voids) to prevent exposure of students to airborne dust particles. If pests are managed effectively without dusts, score as N/A.

4. Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used.

Note items requiring additional action:

MODULE TWO IPM Practices

MODULE THREE: Administrative & Policy Practices for School Buildings

Points Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication Earned

1. Priority: The IPM Plan includes a list of key pests and action thresholds for each key pest (even if threshold is one, i.e., no tolerance).

2. Priority: The IPM Plan includes a list of management options to be used when key pest problems occur and specifies lesser risk options (e.g., sanitation, exclusion) to be used before resorting to actions with greater risk factors. (See Appendix A for discussion on risk ranking.)

3. The IPM Plan includes a list of actions to prevent and avoid key pest problems (e.g., building maintenance and repair, waste handling equipment upgrades) and a timeline for implementation.

4. If outside professional pest management contractors are used, bids are evaluated not only on the basis of cost but also on contractor:

a) experience and performance history with an IPM approach;

b) ability to conduct preventative inspections;

c) ability to apply treatments after school hours; and

d) demonstrated practice of using lowest risk control options first.

If outside contractors are not used, score as N/A.

5. The IPM plan specifies policies for new or renovated building design that include opportunities for Pest Manager input regarding preventative and avoidance strategies for pests.

6. School notifies staff and parents at least 48 hours in advance of the application of any pesticide not on the Least-Risk Pest Control Option List. Such notification may be incorporated in any notice being sent to staff or parents meeting the 48-hour advance timing. Exceptions may be made for applications made for emergencies, where an imminent threat to health exists (e.g., stinging insects). For emergency applications, notification must be made as soon as practical.

7. Bonus: Teachers incorporate school building IPM, or general IPM concepts into curricula and/or class projects.

Section 2. Inspection, Exclusion and Sanitation

1. A written IPM inspection checklist or form is used for periodic inspections, listing each building feature (e.g., foundation, eaves, etc.) and room to be inspected, including specific locations within features or rooms (e.g., vents, storage closets) to be included in the inspection, and specific conditions to be noted (e.g., repair, cleaning needs).

2. Building eaves, walls and roofs are inspected at least quarterly (e.g., for bird and other nests, puddling, etc.) and these conditions are corrected.

MODULE THREE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

3. Vegetation, shrubs and wood mulch are kept > 12 in. away from structures.

4. Tree limbs and branches that might provide vertebrate pest access to structures are maintained at least 6 ft. away from structures (10 ft. if tree squirrels are a problem).

5. Exterior doors throughout the building are kept shut when not in use.

6. Windows and vents are screened or filtered.

7. Weather stripping and door sweeps are placed on doors to exclude pest entry and are maintained in good condition.

8. Cracks and crevices in walls, floors and pavement are corrected.

9. Openings around potential insect and rodent runways (electrical conduits, heating ducts, plumbing pipes) are sealed.

10. Floor drains are screened.

11. Sewer lines are in good repair.

12. Pest Manager inspects all new construction for conditions conducive to pests (e.g., unsealed pipe chases or electrical conduits; potential bird roosts or nesting areas, etc.).

13. Floors are cleaned (free from spillage) and carpets vacuumed daily in areas where food is served, and at least weekly in other areas.

14. Pest management roles communicated to staff and students include removing food or food wrappers from lockers and desks on a daily basis.

15. Lockers and desks are emptied and thoroughly cleaned at least twice per year (e.g., winter break and at the end of each school year).

16. Bonus: Lockers and desks are emptied and thoroughly cleaned at least three times per year (e.g., winter and spring breaks and at the end of each school year).

17. Any food items on hand in classrooms (e.g., snack food in kindergartens) at end of year are removed.

18. Students are advised at the start of the school year not to exchange hats, combs or hairbrushes.

19. Incoming shipments of food products, paper supplies, etc. are inspected for pests and rejected if infested.

20. Stored products are rotated on a “first in, first out” basis to reduce potential for pest harborage and reproduction.

21. Inspection aisles (> 6” x 6”) are maintained around bulk stored products.

MODULE THREE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

Bulk stored products are not permitted direct contact with walls or floors, allowing access for inspection and reducing pest harborages.

22. Potential pest food items used in classrooms (e.g., beans, plant seeds, pet food and bedding, decorative corn, gourds) are refrigerated or stored in glass or metal containers with pest-proof lids.

23. Food products not delivered in pest-proof containers (e.g., paper, cardboard boxes) and not used immediately are stored refrigerated or transferred to pest-proof containers.

24. Bonus: Empty food/beverage containers to be recycled are washed with soapy water before storage to remove food residue, stored refrigerated or in pest-proof containers.

25. Food-contaminated dishes, utensils, surfaces are cleaned by the end of each day.

26. Wiping cloths are disposable or laundered daily.

27. Mops and mop buckets are properly dried and stored (e.g., mops hung upside down, buckets emptied).

28. Surfaces in food preparation and serving areas are regularly cleaned of any grease deposits.

29. Appliances and furnishings in these areas that are rarely moved (e.g., refrigerators, freezers, shelve units) receive a thorough cleaning around and under to remove accumulated grease, dust, etc., at least monthly.

30. Vending machines are maintained in clean condition inside and out.

31. Bonus: Food and beverages are allowed only in limited designated areas.

32. Waste materials in all rooms within the school building are collected and removed to a dumpster, compactor or designated pickup location daily.

33. Packing and shipping trash (bags, boxes, pallets) is promptly and

properly disposed of or recycled.

34. Food waste from preparation and serving areas is stored in sealed plastic bags before removal from school grounds.

35. Bonus: Waste with liquid food residues (e.g., milk cartons, juice boxes) are drained of excess moisture before discarding.

36. Animal wastes from classroom pets or laboratory animals are flushed or placed in sealed containers before disposal. If pets and animals are not present, score as N/A.

37. Trash/recycling rooms, compactors and dumpsters are regularly inspected and spills cleaned up and leaks repaired promptly.

MODULE THREE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

38. Indoor garbage is kept in lined, covered containers and emptied daily.

39. All garbage cans and dumpsters are cleaned regularly.

40. Outdoor garbage containers and storage are placed away from building entrances.

41. Outdoor garbage containers, dumpsters, compactors and storage are placed on hard, cleanable surfaces.

42. Outdoor garbage containers have spring-loaded lids to exclude pests.

43. Stored waste is collected and moved off site at least once weekly.

44. Bonus: Stored waste is collected and moved off site at least twice weekly.

45. Recyclables are collected and moved off site at least weekly.

46. Bonus: Recyclables are collected and moved off site at least twice weekly.

47. Floor and sink drain traps are kept full of water.

48. In food service areas, drain covers are removed and drains are cleaned weekly (e.g., with a long-handled brush and cleaning solution).

49. In other areas, such as drains under refrigeration units, drains are

cleaned monthly.

50. Bonus: Out-of-date charts or paper notices are removed from walls monthly.

51. Furniture in classrooms and offices that are rarely moved (e.g., staff desks, bookcases, filing cabinets) receive a thorough cleaning around and under to remove accumulated lint, etc., at least annually.

52. Vent or heater filters are cleaned or replaced as per manufacturer’s recommended interval or more frequently.

53. Bonus: The inside of vents and ducts are inspected at least every three years and cleaned by a certified contractor when needed.

54. Moisture sources are corrected (e.g., ventilate areas where condensation forms frequently, repair plumbing, roof leaks, dripping air conditioners).

55. Bonus: Permanent bulletin boards, mirrors and other wall fixtures are caulked.

56. Bonus: Trash/recycling storage rooms are refrigerated.

57. Bonus: Purchases of new kitchen appliances and fixtures are of pest-

resistant design (i.e., open design, few or no hiding places for roaches, freestanding and on casters for easy thorough cleaning).

MODULE THREE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

58. Bonus: Purchases of new office and classroom furniture that is rarely moved (e.g., staff desks, bookcases, filing cabinets) are of a design that permits complete cleaning under and around the furniture, or ready movement for cleaning purposes.

Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

1. Priority: When pest problems requiring action occur, appropriate lesser risk options are used first.

2. If baits or traps of any kind are used:

a) a map or floor plan of each area where baits or traps are located is prepared;

b) each bait station or trap is numbered and entered on the map;

c) they are marked with appropriate warning language; and

d) they are checked at least once per month.

If pests are managed effectively without baits or traps, score as N/A.

3. Inventory is managed to track current stock and use and ensure proper disposal of unused materials and empties. If pesticide inventories are not maintained by the school, score as N/A.

4. Food that has come in direct contact with pests (e.g., ants, cockroaches, mice) is considered contaminated and is discarded.

5. Bonus: Least-Risk Options are the only pest controls used.

6. Bonus: No pesticides are stored on school grounds.

7. Bonus: No pesticides are applied for pests causing aesthetic damage only.

8. Bonus: Teachers incorporate pest and pesticide risk management into curricula and/or class projects.

About MODULE THREE IPM Practices

Not all MODULE THREE IPM practices are appropriate for all schools. Choose the ones that will be most effective for your IPM program. Most schools will need to complete just a few of the pest-specific sections.

MODULE THREE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

Note items requiring additional action:

MODULE THREE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

MODULE THREE: Pest-Specific IPM Practices for School Buildings

Section 4. Ants Points Points

For Carpenter Ants, see section 16.0; for Fire Ants, see section 14.0. Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key ant pests are defined in the IPM Plan 20 in and effectively implemented. Schools

2. When ant problems occur, ants are identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the problem ant.

3. When ant problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., seal cracks or crevices, resolve sanitation problems).

4. Pest management roles communicated at least annually to maintenance 5 and food preparation/serving staff include preventative sanitation, prompt reporting of ant problems, and killing or removing lone, wandering ant “scouts” whenever they are spotted in buildings.

5. Non-bait insecticides are used for ants only at the nest. If ants are 10 managed effectively without non-bait insecticides, score as N/A.

6. Insecticide baits (If ants are managed effectively without baits, score as N/A):

a) are used only against species for which baiting has been shown to be 5 effective (e.g., Harvester and Pharaoh Ants; plus Argentine, Big Headed, Ghost, Little Black, Odorous House, Pavement, Pyramid, Small Honey Ants if nests cannot be located; and not Large Yellow Ants; these may change as new baits become available);

b) are used only if a thorough inspection is undertaken to ensure that 5 baits are placed along all active trails as close to the nest as possible

(including outside the building, inside electrical outlets and fixtures,

etc.);

c) Bonus: are checked for feeding within 48 hours of placement, and replaced with an alternate bait if no feeding activity occurs; 5 d) are replenished as long as feeding activity persists; and 5 e) are used only if ants are denied access to all alternate food sources during baiting programs. 5 7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for ant management.

8. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify pest ants common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., Big-Headed Ant, Argentine Ant, Fire Ant, Odorous House Ant, Pavement Ant, Pharaoh Ant, Thief Ant), and knows their typical nesting sites.

9. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for ants into curricula and/or class 10 projects.

Ants

10. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for ant management. 5

“Proper identification is the most important skill to master, for About KEY PESTS without the identity of the target ant, one will not know its habits, and therefore, where to look for its nest location. Not locating ant A key pest is one that is usually colonies is the primary cause of ant control failures.” encountered at unacceptable levels -Excerpt from Hedges 1997 at least once each school year. Geographic region and climate; surrounding landscape features; and Resources for Ant Management: type of construction, age and condition of school buildings Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 5. IPM for ants in schools. Pp. 27-34. In IPM for influence which pests become key Schools: A How-to Manual. US EPA. Line drawings, identification, pests for your school. communication, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html. Typical key pests in and around school buildings include ants, birds, Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. University of California cockroaches, head lice, Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and management. yellowjackets and rodents.

Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.home.html. Routine or regularly scheduled

Hedges, S. A., 1992. Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting pesticide applications can mask key Ants. 155 pp. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification keys, pests, which may not become biology, management. Available from Amazon.com or from Franzak & Foster apparent for some time after routine Co., Cleveland, OH. Phone (800) 456-0707. pesticide applications have been stopped. Hedges, S. A., 1997. Chapter 12. Ants. Pp. 503-589. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification For key pests, it makes sense to keys, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from plan ahead and determine which Amazon.com. inspection and monitoring procedures will be used to detect Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Ants. Pp. 21-23. In Integrated Pest Management problems early, and how many pests for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and nonchemical measure to or how much pest damage can be prevent ant invasions. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 tolerated before taking action. Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Illinois Pest Control Association, Illinois Department of Human Health, Structural Pest Control Advisory Council and University of Illinois Extension. 1999. A Practical Guide to Management of Common Pests in School. 3-part guide designed to assist Illinois school officials. Part One gives a definition of IPM. Part Two includes five steps in how to build an IPM program. Part Three provides pest-specific IPM practices for schools. These pest-specific practices include cockroaches, pantry pests, ants, spiders, bees, termites, ants, mice and lice. Available in PDF format at http://www.idph.state.il.us /envhealth/pdf/schoolpests.pdf.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Ant IPM checklist, ant trails fact sheet, downloadable presentation (html, Acrobat or Powerpoint) on IPM for ants in schools. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/pres_pst.htm.

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 12 Ants. Pp. 94-97. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

New Jersey Environmental Federation. 2003. Protecting Our Homes, Our Schools, Our Children: Basic Steps to Indoor Pest Control Without Pesticides. 12-page document includes information on fleas, mosquitoes, rats and mice, ants and roaches. http://www.cleanwateraction.org/pdf/nj_pests.pdf.

Ants

Pinto, L., 1998. Ants. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. Line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/ants.html.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Ants. Pp. 4-21 to 4-27. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Biology, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Limited color photos, identification keys, biology, management checklist. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Notes:

Ants

Section 5. Birds Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if birds are not a problem requiring Available Earned action in your school and proceed to the next section.) Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Persons handling bird traps, inspecting bird roosts, cleaning bird 20 in mess or removing bird nests are trained in proper hygiene and wear Schools appropriate protective gear.

2. Priority: Action thresholds for key bird pests are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and effectively implemented.

3. When bird problems occur, birds are identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the problem bird.

4. When bird problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., roosts on buildings or trees on school grounds are

modified with repellant gels, spikes, pruning, etc.).

5. Traps or other surfaces contaminated with bird droppings are properly 10 disinfected or disposed of.

6. Methods that result in harm to birds (toxic baits, lethal traps) are used 10 only by certified applicators and only after non-lethal methods (exclusion, repellants) have been proven ineffective. If birds are managed effectively with non-harmful methods only, score as N/A.

7. Pest management roles communicated at least annually to building staff 5 include prompt reporting of bird problems and personal health issues regarding bird droppings.

8. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for problem bird management.

9. Roost modification (e.g., with netting, sticky gels, wire, spikes, tree 5 pruning, nest removal, etc.) is undertaken prior to or after nesting season, unless there is an immediate health concern (e.g., nesting in or near vents, accumulation of fecal matter).

10. Roosting surfaces to be modified are thoroughly cleaned prior to 5 application of netting, gels, wires or spikes.

11. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem birds commonly found in the 10 region on sight (e.g., geese, gulls, pigeons, sparrows, starlings, woodpeckers).

12. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for problem birds into curricula and/or 10 class projects.

13. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for problem bird 5

management.

Birds

Resources for Bird Management:

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Technical information on non-pesticidal products for bird management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu.

National Audubon Society. Available at http://www.audubon.org.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Birds. Pp. 4-31 to 4-33. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 4: Outdoor vertebrate pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Canadian geese, pigeons, biology, management. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Timm, R.M. and R.E. Marsh, 1997. Chapter 21. Vertebrate Pests. Pp. 955-1019. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification keys, biology, management of sparrows, pigeons, starlings and woodpeckers. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Migratory Bird Management. Conservation, monitoring, regulations pertaining to migratory birds, including links to educational and other bird-related Web sites. Available at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov.

Notes:

Birds

Section 6. Cockroaches

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if cockroaches are not a problem Points Points requiring action in your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key cockroach pests are defined in the 20 in IPM Plan and effectively implemented. Schools 2. When cockroach problems occur, the problem cockroach is identified 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem cockroach.

3. When cockroach problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., seal cracks or crevices, drill and treat hollow walls).

4. Priority: An inspection/monitoring program for cockroaches is specified 20

in the IPM Plan and implemented to detect problems early and indicate cockroach movement patterns and potential infestation sources.

10 5. If non-bait insecticide applications are used, insecticides are not permitted to come in contact with monitoring traps or surfaces near traps.

If cockroaches are managed effectively without non-bait insecticides, score as N/A.

6. Pest management roles communicated at least annually to maintenance 5 and food preparation/maintenance staff include preventative sanitation and prompt reporting of cockroach problems.

7. Public health officials involved in regulating and inspecting food 10 preparation and serving areas in schools are made aware of the school’s IPM Policy, IPM Plan and cockroach monitoring procedures.

8. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for cockroach management.

9. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify cockroaches common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., American, Australian, Brown-Banded, German, Oriental).

10. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for cockroaches into curricula and/or 10 class projects.

11. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for cockroach 5 management.

A Cockroach a Day…

“In an 1886 issue of the New York Tribune, the curious medical practices in Louisiana were described. These included the prescribing of cockroach tea for tetanus, supplemented by a poultice of boiled roaches over the wound. The Blattaria were also fried in oil with garlic -- a time-honored treatment for indigestion. Years later, the legendary New Orleans jazz singer Louis Armstrong recalled being served a broth made from several boiled roaches, whenever he was ill. Whether this treatment soothed or caused Armstrong's gravelly voice has yet to be resolved.”

Cockroaches

Resources for Cockroach Management: CASE STUDY: Cockroaches at Peabody Charter School

Benson, E. P. and P. A. Zungoli, 1997. Chapter 3. "Cockroaches have been a perpetual problem at Cockroaches. Pp. 122-203. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Peabody Charter School. Teachers reported flicking Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, on the lights at night and having to tiptoe through identification, biology, management. Available from GIE the swarming insects. To control the roaches, Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com. teachers either sprayed with neurotoxic pesticide or stepped on them. Like many old Santa Barbara Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 6. IPM for cockroaches in schools, the problem was one of habitat, not schools. Pp. 35-48. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. sanitation. Basically, the occupants maintained a Line drawings, identification, communication, monitoring, very high tolerance for the pests. management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/ toxic/pest/school/index.html. Identification: The insect was identified by the Agricultural Commissioner's office as the Oriental Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. Cockroach (Blatta orientalis). University of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and management. Available at Information: Research indicated the preferred http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ selectnewpest.home.html. habitat is low, moist, dark areas, and revealed that Oriental roaches do not like to climb. This Gordon, D. G., 1996. The Complete Cockroach: A information alone allowed the IPM team to limit its Comprehensive Guide to the Most Despised (and Least time and materials to areas of preferred habitat, and Understood) Creature on Earth. 192 pp. ISBN 0898158532. prevented unnecessary action in areas of greater Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA. Phone (510) 559-1600. human activity, such as countertops. More information at http://www.olympus.net/ biz/dggordon/index.htm. Observation and Record Keeping: Monitoring traps were placed broadly throughout the building to Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Cockroaches. Pp. 28-33. In show areas of high pest activity and direction of Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. travel. This narrowed the treatment area yet further, Photos, descriptions and ways in which to inspect, monitor and prevented unnecessary pesticide applications. and manage cockroaches in schools. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Action: Treatments were made with caulk, low Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact toxicity baits placed in inaccessible areas, and a NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 very light dusting of boric acid in inaccessible or e-mail at [email protected]. voids.

Illinois Pest Control Association, Illinois Department of Evaluation and Modification: Continued Human Health, Structural Pest Control Advisory Council and monitoring aided in refinement of bait station University of Illinois Extension. 1999. A Practical Guide to placement. Roach numbers dropped from an Management of Common Pests in School. 3-part guide average of 8.25 (and a high of 20) per trap before designed to assist Illinois school officials. Part One gives a treatment, to an average of 3.3 six weeks after definition of IPM. Part Two includes five steps in how to initial treatment. This number dropped even further build an IPM program. Part Three provides pest-specific 12 weeks after treatment to an average 0.5 per trap. IPM practices for schools. These pest-specific practices Traps were monitored on 14-day cycles, with the include cockroaches, pantry pests, ants, spiders, bees, number of traps reduced after treatment, based on termites, ants, mice and lice. Available in PDF format at need. One year after treatment, cockroach http://www.idph.state.il.us /envhealth/pdf/schoolpests.pdf. populations continue to be suppressed."

- Excerpt from Reducing Pesticides in Schools: How Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Two Elementary Schools Control Common Pests Florida. Technical information on non-pesticidal products for Using IPM Strategies, To request a copy, contact cockroach management, inspection, identification, 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, monitoring, identification, downloadable presentation (html, Phone: (805) 963-0583, Fax: (805) 962-9080, Acrobat or Powerpoint) on IPM for cockroaches in schools. Email: [email protected] Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Cockroaches

Ogg, B., D. Ferraro and C. Ogg. 1996. Cockroach Control Manual. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Color images of adults and egg cases, identification, biology, least-risk management, public health issues. Available at http://www.ianr.unl.edu/ianr/ pat/cocktoc.htm.

Safer Pest Control Project. Ten Steps to Roach Control You Can Live With. 2-page fact sheet providing ten basic steps to roach control. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/ roach.pdf.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Cockroaches. Pp. 4-4 to 4-9. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Biology, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Color photos, management checklist. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Section 7. Fleas Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if fleas are not a problem requiring action Available Earned in your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for fleas are defined in the IPM Plan and 20 effectively implemented.

2. When flea problems are confirmed, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., rodent or wildlife problems are resolved, domestic animal access is restricted, classroom pets are checked for fleas).

3. Pest management roles communicated at least annually to school staff 5 working with classroom pets include preventative sanitation and prompt reporting of flea problems.

4. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for flea management.

5. When flea problems occur, affected areas are cleared of clutter. These 5 areas are vacuumed daily, with special attention to difficult locations where dust and dirt accumulate that may harbor flea larvae: cracks and crevices, junctions of floor and walls, under furniture, in closets, and window sills and shelves near classroom pets or lab animals. After vacuuming, vacuum bags are sealed and removed from the premises.

6. Bonus: When flea problems persist in buildings, fleas are identified to 10 species to help determine the source of the problem.

7. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for fleas into curricula and/or class 10 projects.

8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for flea management. 5

Cockroaches

Resources for Flea Management:

So, naturalists observe, a flea Brammer, Angela. 2002. "Pull up your socks, early fall is 'flea Hath smaller fleas that on him prey; season'" Fact Sheets. The University of Florida School IPM website And these have smaller still to bite 'em; has press releases on fleas (1 page, 2/3 page, 1/3 page) in both And so proceed ad infinitum. HTML and Word formats for available for downloading and using in Thus every poet in his kind, school district or other newsletters. Contains information on Is bit by him that comes behind. transmission, biology, prevention and management of fleas. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/pres_art.htm. - Jonathan Swift

Casey, C., 1998. Fleas. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. Identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/fleas.html.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 8. IPM for fleas in schools. Pp. 27-34. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual.Line drawings, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Dryden, M. W., 1997. Chapter 16. Fleas. Pp. 747-770. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. University of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and management. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.home.html.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Technical information on non-pesticidal products for flea management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ tp.htm.

Notes:

Fleas Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org Part I. IPM Standards for School Buildings V 3.2 Page 43

Section 8. Flies, Gnats & Midges Points Points Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key fly, gnat or midge pests are defined in 20 in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented. Schools

2. When fly, gnat or midge problems occur, the problem pest is identified 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem pest.

3. When fly, gnat or midge problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., repair leaking drains, repair/install screens and vent filters, allow potted plant soil to dry out between waterings for fungus gnats, correct breeding sites for fruit flies, etc.).

4. Pest management roles communicated at least annually to maintenance 5 and food preparation/serving staff include preventative sanitation and exclusion and prompt reporting of fly, gnat or midge problems.

5. If fly traps are used for monitoring or population suppression (If flies are managed effectively without traps, score as N/A):

a) these are permitted for use where children are present (check label); 5

b) they are serviced properly (e.g., sticky traps are replaced when dry or 5 fly-covered, ensure baits are not used as fly breeding sites);

c) outdoor, baited traps are placed as close to breeding areas as 5

possible; and

d) all traps are placed away from building entrances. 5

6. Public health officials involved in regulating and inspecting food 10 preparation and serving areas in schools are made aware of the schools IPM Policy, IPM Plan and pest fly monitoring procedures.

7. Fly specks are not allowed to accumulate on walls, windows, ceilings, 10 drains, etc., indoors or out.

8. Surfaces with fly specks are thoroughly cleaned with water plus detergent 5 to remove any residual odor.

9. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for fly, gnat or midge management.

10. Any fruit left unrefrigerated for ripening is placed in container that does 5 not allow fruit fly access (e.g., a paper bag with top sealed by folding and clipping with clothespin or paper clip). If fruit is not left unrefrigerated, score as N/A.

11. Dumpsters or other outside trash storage containers are positioned so as 5 to avoid drawing flies to building entrances.

12. Soil around dumpsters or dumpster pads is regularly inspected for liquid- 5 soaked, odorous areas where flies may breed. These areas are scraped and soil collected, sealed in a plastic bag and disposed of.

Flies, Gnats & Midges

13. Where flies are a persistent problem, frequently used entrances are 5 equipped with vertical plastic strip barriers, fans directing air down and out, or “air walls” that allow human access but prevent fly entry. If flies are managed effectively without these, score as N/A.

14. Indoor and outdoor lighting is shielded, of a color less attractive to insects 5 than white, or placed at a sufficient distance from building entrances to avoid drawing flying insects into buildings.

15. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify fly, gnat and midge pests common to 10 the region on sight (e.g., blow flies, bottle flies, cluster flies, dump flies, fruit flies, houseflies, phorid flies; fungus gnats).

16. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for flies, gnats and midges into 10

curricula and/or class projects.

17. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for fly, gnat or midge 5

management.

Resources for Fly, Gnat and Midge Management:

Abe, Thomas. 2002. Shockwave program. This 732 KB program on fly integrated pest management is available for downloading from the web. The program emphasizes the use of insect light traps, but also presents detailed information for pest control managers in the entire area of fly management. The program is written at the level of pest management supervisors and other experts. Available at the Pest Alert site, http://extlab7.entnem.ufl.edu/PestAlert.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 5. IPM for flies in schools. Pp. 63-70. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Line drawings, identification, communication, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. Flies. 16 pp. Limited line drawings, description, biology, monitoring, management of flies associated with public health issues. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm.

Ehmann, N.R., 1997. Chapter 7. Flies, gnats and midges. Pp. 773-834. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456- 0707 or from Amazon.com.

Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. University of California Statewide IPM Project. Line drawings, description, biology and management. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.home.html.

Genetics Society of America. 1997. Flybase Web Site. Curriculum aid: B&W photos, line art, advanced genetics of Drosophila fruit flies. Available at http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu:82/.

Hedges, S.A., 1993. Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Flies. 151 pp. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification keys, biology, management. Available from Amazon.com or from Franzak & Foster Co., Cleveland, OH. Phone (800) 456-0707.

Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Flies. Pp. 34-36. In Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and ways in which to inspect, monitor and manage flies in schools. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607- 255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Technical information on non-pesticidal products for fly, gnat and midge management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Flies, Gnats & Midges

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 11 Flies and Mosquitoes. Pp. 88-93. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm/.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Flies. Pp. 4-28 to 4-30. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Biology, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Limited color photos, management checklist. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Notes:

Flies, Gnats & Midges

Section 9. Head Lice Points Points Available Earned Common Key Pest 1. Priority: School rooms are never treated with pesticides for head lice. 20 in Schools 2. Priority: When head lice are detected, all children in the classroom are 10 checked for lice and any students found infested are sent home with a

minimum of disruption until free of lice and nits.

3. Parents of all children in classrooms where lice infestations are found are 10 provided with information on lice detection and treatment.

4. Priority: Pest management roles communicated to teaching staff of 10 grades six and below include prompt reporting of head lice infestations and instructing students to avoid head-to-head contact.

5. An annual head lice check is conducted at the beginning of each school 10 year for students of grades six and below.

6. Sleeping mats or towels brought by students from home to school are 10 individually labeled and not shared, and sent home regularly for washing. If sleeping mats or towels are not used, score as N/A.

7. Students are provided with a way to store coats, hats and scarves is such 10 a way that they are not in contact with those of other students, e.g., adequately spaced coat hooks, cubbies, or labeled plastic bags.

8. Communications to parents when head lice are detected caution against:

a) ineffective and/or dangerous treatments (e.g., pesticide treatment of 5 homes, use of shampoos containing lindane, folk remedies such as gasoline or kerosene treatment of hair);

b) use of over-the-counter or prescription treatments at greater than the 5 recommended dose or frequency;

c) treating children not infested with live head lice or viable eggs; and 5

d) include information on manual removal of lice and nits. 5

9. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for head lice into curricula and/or class 10

projects.

10. Information on head lice prevention, detection and reporting and the 10 school’s policy on head lice management is sent home with children at the beginning of each school year.

Resources for Head Lice Management:

Caffrey, D., P. Girouard, and K. Tucker, 1998. Yikes-Lice! Head lice infestation and treatment explained in rhyme, aimed towards readers of ages 4 to 8. 32 pp. Albert Whitman & Co. ISBN: 0807593745.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 5. IPM for head lice in schools. Pp. 81-85. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Line drawings, identification, communication, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Head Lice

Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: www.ipminstitute.org Part I. IPM Standards for School Buildings V 3.2 Page 47

Guillebeau and Van De Mark. 2002. A Parent's Guide to the 'Nitty Gritty' About Head Lice and A School's Guide to the 'Nitty Gritty' About Head Lice both available online from the School IPM Website. The 2-page brochures take a look at "the basics" and "the facts" of head lice, prevention of head lice and removal. The brochures are available under Technical Information, Pests or Latest Additions. Direct links are available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/headliceparents.pdf and http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/headliceschools.pdf.

Hedges, S.A., 1997. Chapter 15. Lice, pp. 731-745. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Head Lice. Pp. 37-38. In Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and ways in which to inspect, prevent and manage head lice in schools. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Color photos, frequently asked questions, sample head lice notification letters, biology and control of head lice, downloadable presentation (html, Acrobat or Powerpoint) on IPM for head lice in schools. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

National Pediculosis Association. Information about head lice and scabies management, catalog or related products and information. National Pediculosis Association, Inc., P.O. Box 610189, Newton MA 02461. Phone (781) 449-6487, FAX (781) 449-8129. Available at http://www.headlice.org.

National Pediculosis Association. Information about lindane, including health effects, ecotoxicity, labels and MSDS sheets, legislation banning/restricting its use. National Pediculosis Association, Inc., P.O. Box 610189, Newton MA 02461. Phone (781) 449-6487, FAX (781) 449-8129. Available at http://www.lindane.org.

Pollack, Richard J. Harvard School of Public Health. Head Lice Information. Comprehensive website that answers many questions about and related to head lice including removal methods. Available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/headlice.html.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Lice. Pp. 4-34 to 4-36. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Biology, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Color photo, management checklist. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2003. Removing Head Lice Safely Video. 8-minute video covers all aspects of head lice management, highlighting live lice (highly magnified), nits (lice eggs), inspection, treatments and prevention. Each video tape comes with the reproducible fact sheet and quick guides. Available in English, Arabic and Spanish. To request a brochure/order form by mail or fax, or for prices on shipping outside the United States or Canada, call 402-441-7180 or email [email protected].

Head Lice

Notes:

The No Nit Policy: A Healthy Standard for Children and their Families

“The National Pediculosis Association recommends the No Nit Policy as the public health standard intended to keep children lice free, nit free, and in school. Pediculosis represents one of the most common communicable childhood diseases and whether or not we understand how this has evolved, it is important to acknowledge head lice as a problem when raising or caring for children. We can begin to improve the current situation by assuring that the health programs of every school, camp and child care facility operate with an acceptable head lice management protocol.

The Spirit of the No Nit Policy is to minimize head lice infestations as a public health problem and to keep children in school.

The No Nit Policy encourages each family to do its part at home with routine screening, early detection, accurate identification and thorough removal of lice and nits. Establishing consistent guidelines and educating the public about procedures in advance of outbreaks helps minimize inappropriate responses.

Early intervention provides the needed assurance for those who have successfully eliminated an infestation that everything possible is being done to prevent new outbreaks when children return to groups where close contact is inevitable. Repeated exposures to pesticidal products with each infestation put children at risk. Parents need to be informed that chemical treatments may also be dangerous for children with certain pre-existing medical conditions and/or medication regimens. Families with pregnant or nursing mothers should be given advance notice that early detection with manual removal of lice and nits can serve as a safe alternative to pesticidal lice treatment products.

The No Nit Policy calls for:

1. Community education to help parents understand why there is the No Nit Policy and do what they need to do to carry it out.

2. The exclusion of a child from a school, camp or child care setting until all head lice, lice eggs (nits) and egg cases have been removed.”

- Excerpt from National Pediculosis Web site, more at http://www.headlice.org/

Head Lice

Section 10. Microbial Pests Points Points Available Earned

1. Priority: Tasks requiring cleaning are clearly distinguished from 20

disinfecting tasks.

2. Priority: Products used for routine cleaning do not contain disinfectants. 20

3. Priority: When use of a disinfectant is appropriate, the product is used 20 according to all label regulations and instructions.

4. Priority: Staff who use cleaning and disinfecting products are 20 adequately trained in appropriate use.

5. Priority: Cleaning and disinfecting products are stored in secure areas 20

inaccessible to children

6. Custodial cleaning and disinfectant products are evaluated and selected 5 on the basis of environmental and public health criteria related to their

active ingredients, as well as performance and cost.

7. Custodial product suppliers are required to submit information on inert 5 ingredients in addition to active ingredients and this information is used in

the evaluation process.

8. Custodial product suppliers are required to certify that no ingredients are 5 used which require reporting under the US EPA’s Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (floor care products and metal polishes may be exempted from this requirement).

9. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for microbial pests into curricula 5 and/or class projects.

10. Bonus: Custodial products in aerosol cans are not used (except graffiti- 5 removal products).

Resources for Microbial Pest Management:

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1999. BioAerosols: Assessment and Control. 200 pp. Sampling, prevention, remediation of microbial pests, including dust mites and antigens. Available from Kemper Woods Center, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati OH 45240-1634. Phone (513) 742-6163, FAX (513) 742- 3355, E-mail: [email protected]. More information at http://www.acgih.org.

City of Santa Monica CA, 1998. Custodial Products Bid Specifications. 6 pp. Details on criteria used by the City to evaluate custodial/maintenance products. Prospective suppliers are required to submit a complete information package on each product. Available at http://www.ci.santa-monica.ca.us/environment/policy/purchasing/ bidspecs.htm.

Cokendopher, J.C. and J.F. Haukos, eds., 1996. The Practical Application of Disinfection and Sterilization in Health Care Facilities. 250 pp. American Society for Healthcare Environmental Services (ASHES) of the American Hospital Association (AHA). Thorough explanation in non-technical terms of when, where and how disinfection and sterilization should occur, choosing materials, chemical profiles, regulatory agencies, contacts, etc. More information available at http://www.ahaonlinestore.com/default.asp?pc=org&OrgID=1.

Microbial Pests

Culver, A., et. al. 2002. Cleaning for Health: Products and Practices for a Safer Indoor Environment. This report is a guide to environmentally preferable cleaning products and methods that have been effectively used in office buildings, schools, hospitals and other facilities in the United States and Canada. It describes pioneering product evaluation programs and lists the brands that were chosen based on environmental and performance criteria. It also provides a model specification, as well as manufacturer contacts and other resources for those who want to develop a safer cleaning program for their buildings. 86 pp document available for order at http://www.informinc.org/cleanforhealth.php. Price is $30, $15 for government or non-profit use.

Dickey, P., 1998. Purchasing Environmentally Preferable Cleaning Products: A Critical Review of Programs. 88 pp. Descriptions of programs used to evaluate and select cleaning products on the basis of health and environmental criteria, including those instituted in Santa Monica, Minnesota, Massachusetts, the US General Services Administration and others. Available from Washington Toxics Coalition, Seattle WA. Phone (206) 632-1545. More information at http://www.watoxics.org.

Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Microbial Pests. Pp. 43-44. In Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and ways in which to manage microbial pests in schools. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607- 255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

New York State Association for Superintendents of School Buildings and Grounds. 1999. Healthier Cleaning & Maintenance: Practices and Products for Schools. 8-page paper provides checklist for prevention of dirt and grime and discusses tips on purchasing environmentally preferable cleaning products, including a checklist of human health and environmental considerations. Final sections cover vendor, price and performance considerations. To order, mail The Healthy Schools Network, 773 Madison Avenue, Albany, NY 12210; Tel: 518-462-0632 or visit http://www.healthyschools.org.

Petruzzi, M., 1998. Choose Green Report: General Purpose Cleaners. 8 pp. Green Seal. How to identify cleaning products with reduced risks to health and the environment including ingredients to avoid, list of recommended products by brand name. Available at http://www.moea.state.mn.us/lc/greenseal/cgr_9803.pdf.

US EPA. 2000. Antimicrobial Pesticide Web Site. Antimicrobial science, registration policy, label review manual. http://www.epa.gov/oppad001.

US EPA. 2002. "A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture, and Your Home." The guide provides information and guidance for homeowners and renters on how to clean up residential mold problems and how to prevent mold growth. Available in HTML and PDF (278 KB file size) formats at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/index.html. The printed version is also available from IAQINFO and NSCEP. [EPA 402-K-02-003]

US EPA. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Database: Cleaning supplies and equipment. Links to contract language, voluntary product standards or guidelines and additional information on cleaners, deodorizers, detergents, finishes, paint removers, polishes and other cleaning products. Includes program contacts, methodology and attributes (e.g., biodegradability, emissions, health impacts, packaging, etc.). http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/database.htm.

US EPA. 2003 Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings Web Site. Includes sections entitled Introduction, Prevention, Investigating, Evaluating, and Remediating Moisture and Mold Problems, Checklist for Mold Remediation, Resource List, References, Appendix A - Glossary, Appendix B - Introduction to Molds, and Appendix C - Communication with Building Occupants. All available online in HTML format at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/prevention.html or in PDF format at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/images/moldremediation.pdf.

United States Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. Website. Comprehensive website includes information and links on green janitorial products and services including PowerPoint presentations and links to which state and local governments use green cleaners. Available at http://www.ofee.gov/gp/greenjanitorial.html.

Western Regional Pollution Prevention Project. Janitorial Products. Website contains general and in-depth information on cleansers and chemicals commonly used in cleansers. Includes fact sheets, commentaries and tools on the topic. Available at http://www.wrppn.org/Janitorial/jp4.cfm.

Microbial Pests

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP). 2002. A School's Guide to Dealing with Mold using Integrated Pest Management. This 4-page document addresses mold in schools, a topic of concern to many school administrators. Document available online at www.ipminstitute.org/pdf/arm-pub-100=Mold.pdf. Contact Ms. Patricia Kandziora of WDATCP at 608/224-4547 or email at [email protected] for more information.

Notes:

Microbial Pests

Section 11. Mosquitoes

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if mosquitoes are not a problem requiring Points Points action in your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned

1. Priority: Action thresholds for key mosquito pests are defined in the IPM 20 Plan and effectively implemented.

2. An inspection/monitoring program for standing water and/or mosquito 20 larvae and adults is specified in the IPM Plan and implemented to detect and correct problem sites early.

3. When mosquito problems occur, the problem mosquito is identified 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem mosquito.

4. When mosquito problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20

corrected (e.g., repair/install screens and vent filters; correct standing water on building roofs, in gutters, drainage sumps or channels, or on school grounds in items that collect water such as tarps, equipment, cans, etc.).

5. Pest management roles communicated at least annually to maintenance 5 staff include prompt reporting and/or correction of standing water, mosquito problems and safe and effective use of repellants (e.g., as per EPA recommendations).

6. Public health officials involved in regulating and inspecting mosquito 10 management in schools are made aware of the school’s IPM Policy, IPM Plan and mosquito monitoring procedures.

7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for mosquito management.

8. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify mosquitoes common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., Asian Tiger Mosquito, Common Malaria Mosquito, House Mosquito, Yellow-Fever Mosquito).

9. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for mosquitoes and information on 10 diseases vectored by mosquitoes into curricula and/or class projects.

10. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for mosquito 5 management.

Resources for Mosquito Management:

Beyond Pesticides. 2003. "The Truth About Mosquitoes and West Nile Virus." Four-page fact sheet includes information about the West Nile Virus, mosquitoes, pesticide spray programs, safer mosquito management strategies, and a list of communities that have adopted safer mosquito and West Nile Virus management programs. Available in Word format.

Brammer, Angela. 2002. "Insect Repellents Provide Safe Relief With Proper Use." PCT Magazine. The article mentions types of repellents, safety guidelines and where to obtain additional information as well as providing a PDF version of the mosquito handout designed to be torn out of the magazine so that companies can reproduce it, stamp their company name and address on the top and distribute to customers. The article and PDF handout is available at http://www.pctonline.com/articles/article.asp?MagID=1&ID=1638&IssueID=166.

Mosquitoes

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. Webcast entitled Managing Rodents and Mosquitoes Through Integrated Pest Management. Includes sections entitled Introduction, Managing Rodent Infections, Managing Mosquito Infestations, CDC's Promotion of IPM, Implementation of IPM in Marion County Indiana, and a question and answer session. Available at http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/phtn/webcast/ipm/default.asp.

Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. National Public Health Pest Control Manual. Chapter 3. Mosquitoes. 18 pp. Line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management of larval and adult stage mosquitoes. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm.

NYS Community IPM Program, 2000. What's all the buzz about Mosquitoes? 2 pp. Line art, description, biology, management, resources. HTML in English: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/mosquitobro/index.html In Spanish: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/mosquitobro/mosq_esp.html PDF in English: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/mosquitobro/mosquito.pdf.

O’Neill, J., 1997. Chapter 18. Mosquitoes. Pp. 837-880. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Pinto, L., 1998. Mosquitoes. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. Line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/mosquito.html.

Notes:

Mosquitoes

Section 12. Occasional Invaders: Bats, Booklice, Centipedes, Firebrats, Millipedes, Mites, Scorpions, Silverfish, Snakes, Spiders, Ticks

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if these pests are not a problem requiring action Points Points in your school and proceed to the next section.) Availabe Earned

1. When problems with occasional pests occur, the pest is identified before 20 taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem pest.

2. Contributing factors are identified and corrected (e.g., repair/install door 20 sweeps, modify nesting sites, adjust humidity, cut high grass, etc.).

3. Action thresholds and monitoring for occasional pests encountered more 20 than once per year are specified in the IPM Plan and implemented.

4. Pest management roles communicated to maintenance staff at least 10 annually include prompt reporting of occasional pest problems, humane removal of harmless invaders, and injury prevention and first aid procedures for potentially dangerous pests.

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for occasional invader management.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify occasional invaders common to the 10 region on sight.

7. Bonus: Teachers take advantage of encounters with occasional pests to 10 educate students on the organisms biology, disease vector potential, behavior, and/or beneficial aspects.

8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for occasional invader 5 management.

Resources for Occasional Invader Management:

Bellow, P., 1997. Chapter 22. Occasional invaders. Pp. 1021-1058. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Cacek, T., ed. The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual. Identification, biology, management of silverfish, spiders, ticks. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/natpark.html.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 13. IPM for scorpions in schools, pp. 103- 105; Chapter 14. IPM for silverfish, firebrats and booklice in schools, pp. 107-110. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Line drawings, identification, communication, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. National Public Health Pest Control Manual. Chapter 5. Mites and Ticks. 12 pp. Line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management of 10 mite species, including chiggers, and nine tick species. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm.

Edwards, G.B. 2002. Venomous Spiders in Florida. A website containing information about venomous spiders in Florida. Available at http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/enpp/ento/ venomousspiders.htm.

Mosquitoes

Hedges, S.A., and M.S. Lacey, 1995. Field Guide for the Management of Urban Spiders. 220 pp. Franzak & Foster Co., Cleveland, OH. Phone (216) 961-4130. Color, B&W photos, identification keys, biology, management.

Lacey, M.S., 1997. Chapter 19. Spiders. Pp. 883-913. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

St. Aubin, F. E., 1997. Chapter 20. Mites and ticks. Pp. 915-953. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Descriptions, management checklist. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Vetter, R. 2002. Spiders and Other Arachnids at UC-Riverside. A website containing information about arachnids including spider myths, misdiagnoses, and information about Brown Recluse and Hobo spiders. Available at http://spiders.ucr.edu.

Vetter, R. 2002. Brown Recluse and Other Recluse Spiders. The University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program provides an in-depth website about the Brown Recluse and other Recluse spiders. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7468.html.

Notes:

Mosquitoes

Section 13. Rodents: Mice, Rats Points Points Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Persons handling rodent traps or bait stations, or inspecting in suspected harborages (e.g., crawl spaces, attics): Schools a) are trained in public health risks and proper hygiene; and 10

b) wear appropriate protective gear. 10

2. Traps, bait stations or other surfaces contaminated with rodent urine or feces are properly disinfected or disposed of. 10

3. Priority: Action thresholds for key rodent pests are defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented. 20

4. Priority: Rodenticides are used only by personnel fully trained in bait selection (coagulant vs. anticoagulants, blocks vs. pellets vs. grain- 20 based, tracking powders, etc.) and use of tamper-resistant bait stations. If rodents are managed effectively without rodenticides, score as N/A.

5. When rodent problems occur, the problem rodent is identified correctly

before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem rodent. 20

6. When rodent problems occur, contributing factors corrected (e.g.,

exclusion, sanitation, modify habitats, etc.). 20

7. Bonus: Traps used for rodent monitoring or management are checked daily and any trapped rodents still alive are disposed of in a humane 10 manner. If rodents are managed effectively without traps, score as N/A.

8. Pest management roles communicated to maintenance and food 10 preparation/serving staff at least annually include prompt reporting of rodent problems.

9. Priority: Snap traps, if used for rodents, are placed only in areas not 20 accessible to children (e.g., locked storage rooms) or in locked, tamper-

resistant containers securely attached to the floor, ground or wall so that

the container cannot be picked up or moved. If rodents are managed

effectively without snap traps, score as N/A.

10. Inspections for rodents include examining school grounds for food 10 sources (e.g., edible plants, fallen fruit and nuts, animal feces) and

stretches of dense vegetation or tall ground cover that allow rodents to travel long distance under cover. If signs of rodent feeding or activity are

found, these conditions are corrected.

11. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for rodent management.

12. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify rodents common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., Deer, House, White-Footed Mice; Norway, Black, Roof Rats).

13. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for rodents into curricula and/or class 10 projects.

14. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for rodent management. 5

Occasional Invaders

Notes:

Occasional Invaders

Resources for Rodent Management: Rodent Facts and Figures

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. - A mouse produces between 40 to 100 Webcast entitled Managing Rodents and Mosquitoes droppings per day. Through Integrated Pest Management. Includes sections entitled Introduction, Managing Rodent Infections, - A rat produces between 20 to 50 droppings and Managing Mosquito Infestations, CDC's Promotion of IPM, ½ ounce of urine per day. Implementation of IPM in Marion County Indiana, and a question and answer session. Available at - Rats and mice spend about ½ hour each day http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/phtn/webcast/ipm/default.asp. gnawing on objects.

Corrigan, R.M., 2002. Opening Lecture from 2002 Rodent - Diseases spread by rodents have killed more Management Summit. Audio file of Dr. Robert Corrigan's than 10 million people over the last 100 years, lecture on the natural history of the house mouse and how but this number is declining dramatically due to it affects that rodent's capabilities as a structural pest is advances in sanitation, antibiotics and rodent below. Needs "real player software" to access. Available pest management. at http://www.pctonline.com/news/news.asp?ID=1185. - Pest management professionals are a high-risk Corrigan, R. M., 1997. Chapter 1. Rats and mice. Pp. 11- group for hantavirus, a respiratory illness with a 105. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W high mortality rate. Several species of rodents photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. act as reservoirs for the disease and special Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from precautions are advised when handling rodents Amazon.com. or working in areas previously or currently infested with rodents. Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 5. IPM for rats and mice in schools. Pp. 87-102. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. - Rodents benefit humankind by feeding on other Line drawings, identification, biology, communication, pests, including cockroaches; serving as monitoring, management. Available at laboratory research animals; and providing a http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html. source of food for wild animals, birds and even humans in many cultures throughout the world. Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. National Public Health Pest Control Manual. Chapter 8. Vertebrate Pests. Source: Corrigan, 1997. 23 pp. Line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management of rodents, birds, bats, squirrels, chipmunks, others. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, technical information on non-pesticidal products for rodent management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Rats and Mice. Pp. 41-42. In Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and ways in which to inspect, monitor and manage rats and mice in schools. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Pinto, L., 1998. Rats. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. Identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/rats.html.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Rodents. Pp. 4-10 to 4-16. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Identification, biology, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Rodents

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Descriptions, monitoring, management. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Notes:

Rodents

Section 14. Stinging Insects: Ants, Bees, Wasps Points Points Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Stinging insect nests that can be disturbed by children are 20 in destroyed. Schools

2. Any nest destruction, treatment or removal is conducted when children 20 are not present and by a licensed professional wearing appropriate protective equipment. Gasoline, oil or other materials not labeled for this use are not used.

3. Priority: Action thresholds for key stinging insect pests are defined in the 20 IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

4. When stinging insect problems occur, the problem pest is identified 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem pest.

5. When stinging insect problems occur, contributing factors are identified 20

and corrected (e.g., seal cracks or crevices, repair screens, resolve sanitation problems, remove nests).

6. Monitoring and inspection for stinging insects (e.g., yellowjackets) begins 10 early in the season and actions are taken as soon as predetermined action thresholds are exceeded to prevent buildup of stinging insect populations.

7. Pest management roles assigned and communicated at least annually to 10 school staff include prompt reporting all stinging insect nests sited on school grounds.

8. If traps are used for stinging insect management, traps are placed out of 10 reach of children and are in place only during times of the year when stinging insects are present. Reusable traps are cleaned before end-of- season storage. If stinging insects are managed effectively without traps, score as N/A.

9. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for stinging insect management. 10. At the start of each yellowjacket season, school staff are informed about 10 stinging insect management including safety, how to obtain first aid, reporting and sanitation.

11. Plants attractive to yellowjackets (e.g., fruiting trees and shrubs) are not 5 planted near school entrances or are removed and replaced with non- attractive plants.

12. Outdoor consumption of food or drinks attractive to yellowjackets is not 5 permitted during yellowjacket season.

13. Trash and recycling cans on school grounds have spring-loaded door 5 access to restrict yellowjacket access.

14. Cans are emptied frequently to prevent accumulated trash from blocking 5

door closure.

Stinging Insects

15. Dumpsters and adjacent areas are maintained in clean condition. 5

16. Problem honeybee nests are physically removed from buildings or school 5 grounds without use of pesticides by a professional apiculturist. If problem nests have not occurred, score as N/A.

17. After removal of nests from buildings, structural modifications (e.g., 5 cracks are filled, damaged wood is replaced, wall voids are filled) are made to prevent reinfestation. If problem nests have not occurred, score as N/A.

18. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify common stinging and related non- 10 stinging insects and nests on sight (e.g., Velvet Ant, Fire Ant; Bumble

Bee, Carpenter Bee, Honey Bee; Bald-Faced Hornet, Mud-Dauber Wasp,

Paper Wasp, Yellowjacket).

19. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for stinging insects into curricula 10

and/or class projects.

20. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for stinging insect 5 management.

Resources for Stinging Insect Management:

Alen-Wardell, G., 1998. Yellowjackets. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. Line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/yellowja.html.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 19. IPM for yellowjackets and hornets in schools. Pp. 145-152. In IPM for Schools: A How- to Manual. Line drawings, identification, communication, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/ index.html.

Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. National Public Health Pest Control Manual. Chapter 7. Venomous arthropods. 18 pp. Line drawings, identification, biology, management of stinging bees and wasps, ants, spiders, centipedes, scorpions, urticating caterpillars plus medical issues and basic first aid. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm.

Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Bees, Wasps, and Hornets. Pp. 23-27. In Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and description of how to manage bees, wasps and hornets on school grounds. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Downloadable presentation (html, Acrobat, or Powerpoint) on fire ant IPM, technical information on non-pesticidal products for stinging insect management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/pres_pst.htm.

Stinging Insects

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 10. Wasps and Bees. Pp. 82-87. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

Pinto, L., 1998. Fire ants. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. Line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/fireants.html.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Bees and wasps. Pp. 4-17 to 4-20. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Biology, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 3: Outdoor insect and disease management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Descriptions, monitoring, management. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Wegner, G.S., 1997. Chapter 13. Bees and wasps. Pp. 591-632. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification keys, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456- 0707 or from Amazon.com.

Notes:

Stinging Insects

Section 15. Stored Product Pests: Moths, Beetles

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if these pests are not a problem Points Points requiring action in your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned

1. Priority: Comprehensive building inspections include examining carpets; 20 stored food, fabric and leather goods; insect, bird and animal specimens; closets, cabinets and other storage areas; and other potential food sources and harborages.

2. When stored product pest problems occur, the problem pest is identified 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem pest.

3. When problems occur, contributing factors are corrected (e.g., modify 20 storage, remove and disposed of unneeded stored products, etc.).

4. Incoming shipments of dried fruit, flour, nuts, grains, bird or animal 10 specimens or other products at high risk are inspected for signs of infestation on delivery. Infested products are returned to the shipper.

5. Carpets, fabrics and leather goods are thoroughly inspected and cleaned 10 before storage and stored in moth and beetle-proof packaging if possible. If pest-proof storage is not possible, stored items are re-inspected and shaken, brushed or aired out at least twice annually. Stored bird and animal specimens are carefully inspected before storage.

6. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for stored product pest management. 7. Stored dried fruit, vegetables, flour, grains, cereals, nuts, bird seed, pet 10 food and other susceptible foods are refrigerated or stored in tightly sealed metal or glass containers with rubber seals on lids.

8. Communications to teachers include proper storage of these materials 5 (listed in #7 above) if used and stored in classrooms.

9. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify major stored product pests common 10 to the region on sight (e.g., Angoumois Grain Moth, Casemaking Clothes Moth, Indian Meal Moth, Mediterranean Flour Moth, Webbing Clothes Moth; Black Carpet Beetle, Black Larder Beetle, Common Carpet Beetle, Drugstore Beetle, Flour Beetles, Hide Beetle, Larder Beetle, Varied Carpet Beetle, Warehouse Beetle).

10. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for stored product pests into curricula 10 and/or class projects.

11. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for management of stored 5 product pests.

Stinging Insects

Resources for Stored Product Pest Management:

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 7. IPM for clothes moths and carpet beetles in schools. Pp. 49-55. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Line drawings, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Granovsky, T. A., 1997. Chapter 14. Stored product pests. Pp. 635-728. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification key, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Hedges, S.A. and M.L. Lacey, 1996. Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Beetles. Volume I. Hide and Carpet Beetles/Wood-Boring Beetles. 196 pp. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification keys, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Hedges, S. A., and M.L. Lacey. 1996. Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Beetles. Volume II. Stored Product Beetles/Occasional & Overwintering Beetles. 212 pp. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification keys, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Hinderer, C. L., 1997. Chapter 11. Hide & carpet beetles. Pp. 465-500. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Hollingsworth et al., 2002. Pantry or Stored-Product Pests. Pp. 38-40. In Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. Photos, descriptions and ways in which to manage pantry or stored-product pests in schools. Available from NRAES, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. For more information, contact NRAES by phone at 607-255-7654 or fax at 607-254-8770 or e-mail at [email protected].

Katz, H. L., 1997. Chapter 10. Clothes moths. Pp. 427-462. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from Amazon.com.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Downloadable presentation (html, Acrobat, or Powerpoint) on fire ant IPM, technical information on non-pesticidal products for stored product pest management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 5: Indoor pest management. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Food pest color photos, monitoring, management. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Notes:

Stored Product Pests

Section 16. Wood-Damaging Pests: Carpenter Ants and Bees, Fungi, Termites, Wood-Boring Beetles

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if wood-damaging pests are not a Points Points problem requiring action in your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned

1. Wood structural components of buildings are inspected on a regular basis 20 for wood-damaging pests and damage by qualified professionals such as contracted or in-house maintenance or pest management professionals. Inspection intervals (e.g., annual, semi-annual) are appropriate to the region, building age and condition, history of problems, etc.

2. Priority: Action thresholds for key wood-damaging pests are defined in 20 the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

3. When wood-damaging pest problems occur, the problem pest is identified 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem pest.

4. When problems occur, contributing factors are corrected (e.g., modify 20 storage, remove and disposed of unneeded stored products, etc.).

5. A communications/training program is in place to personnel responsible 10 for building structural maintenance to recognize wood-damaging pests and damaged wood.

6. Tree stumps, firewood piles or leftover scraps of wood from construction 10 are removed to a distance of at least 10 feet from any foundation. Wood debris is not buried on school grounds. Stored wood and wood products are not permitted to contact soil.

7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for wood-damaging pest management.

8. Building “skins” or outer surfaces are maintained in good repair and 10 sealed using paint, putty and caulk. Cracks in foundations are patched promptly.

9. Wood, wooden furniture and other wooden objects are carefully 5 inspected for beetle infestation and rots before use in buildings. Infested items are treated or discarded.

10. Kiln-dried wood is used in all construction projects. 5

11. Alternatives to wood (aluminum, concrete, steel, vinyl) are used for 5 moisture-prone areas of new or renovated buildings where practical.

12. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify wood-damaging pests common to the 10 region on sight (e.g., Carpenter Ants vs. termites).

13. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for wood-damaging pests into 10 curricula and/or class projects.

14. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for wood-damaging pest 5 management.

Wood-Damaging Pests

Resources for Wood-Damaging Pest Management:

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 5. IPM for ants in schools. Pp. 27-34. There was an old woman who swallowed a fly… In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. Line drawings, identification, communication, monitoring, management. Available During an inspection of a school facility, occupants at http://www.epa.gov/ region09/toxic/pest/school/ index.html. mentioned problems with flies. The inspector found Green Bottle Flies caught on glue boards behind a Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. University water fountain. of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and management. Available at Next to the flies on the glue boards were several http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ selectnewpest.home.html. expired mice. Green Bottle Flies lay their eggs in the carcasses of dead animals, and had been Hedges, S. A., 1997. Chapter 12. Ants. Pp. 503-589. In attracted by the unfortunate rodents. Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Further inspection revealed that the mice were Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com. entering the building through a hole in the bottom of a wooden doorway. The hole was the result of Hedges, S.A. and M.L. Lacey, 1996. Field Guide for the wood-damaging fungi invading the wooden sill. Management of Structure-Infesting Beetles. Volume I. Hide and Carpet Beetles/Wood-Boring Beetles. 196 pp. Color photos, B&W It was raining at the time of the inspection, and water photos, line drawings, identification keys, biology, management. was pouring out a hole in a downspout, and Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com. splashing onto the steps and up onto the door sill.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. The failure to inspect and maintain the drain pipe Information on selecting and using baits for termite management. was thus responsible for the wet wood, which invited Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm. wood-rotting fungi, which softened the wood, which let the mice gnaw Kramer, R. D., 1997. Chapter 8. Wood-boring beetles. Pp. 357- the hole in the door sill, that let in the mice that died 391. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, line on the glue board and attracted the flies, that caught drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from the attention of the school’s occupants… GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com. - Courtesy of Don Rivard, Potter, M. F., 1997. Chapter 6. Termites. Pp. 233-332. In Rivard’s Resources: IPM, Waltham MA Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Color photos, B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Rambo, G. W., 1997. Chapter 17. Fungi: molds, mildews and rots. Pp. 335-355. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, management. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456- 0707 or from Amazon.com.

Notes:

Wood-Damaging Pests

Part II. IPM Standards for School Grounds

Wood-Damaging Pests

MODULE ONE: IPM FOUNDATION for School Grounds Points Points Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication Available Earned

1. Appropriate personnel (e.g., superintendent, facilities manager, principal, 20 IPM Coordinator) understand and ensure that school meets all Federal, State and local legal requirements related to pest management on school grounds (e.g., posting, notification, pesticide management, etc.). Legal requirements that exceed or conflict with practices in these Standards supercede those listed here.

2. Resources are identified and acquired to assist in developing and 20 implementing IPM (e.g., state/county Extension personnel, publications and on-line resources; non-governmental organizations, pest management professionals with expertise in school IPM).

3. A written IPM policy is adopted which:

a. states a commitment to IPM implementation; 5

b. identifies overall objectives relating to pest and pesticide risk 5 management;

c. is used to guide decision-making; and 5

d. is reviewed at least once every three years and revised as needed. 5

4. An IPM Committee is formed to create and maintain the IPM policy, 20 provide guidance in interpreting the policy and provide oversight of the program.

5. An IPM Coordinator is designated to provide day-to-day oversight of IPM 20 implementation.

6. A plan is developed and implemented to provide necessary IPM training 20 for the IPM Coordinator.

7. Pest Manager is aware of and has access to resources to identify key 20 pests.

8. A pesticide notification policy is implemented such that:

a. At least 24 hours prior to pesticide application, postings are placed in 10

a designated public area detailing locations to be treated and contact

information for further information (exceptions may be made for

applications made for emergencies, where an imminent threat to

health exists (e.g., stinging insects), or for applications of anti-

microbials and for pesticides defined as Least-Risk (Appendix A); for

emergency applications, postings must be placed as soon as

practical);

b. this notice remains posted for at least 48 hours after the application; 10

c. copies of the pesticide label and MSDS sheet for the material(s) to be 10

MODULE ONE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

used are available on request and maintained on file in a central location (e.g., main office); and

d. additional postings are placed on school grounds at the entry points 10 of sites of pesticide applications in accordance with all laws.

9. Complete, legible records of each pesticide application, including product, 20 quantity used, date and time of application, location, application method and target pests are maintained for at least three years.

10. Public access is provided on request to all information about the IPM 20 policy, IPM plan and implementation.

Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion

1. At least a preliminary review of school grounds is conducted to determine 20 nature and extent of pest problems and contributing factors. This

information is used to set IPM priorities.

Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

1. All pesticide applications are made by a person certified and/or licensed 20

by the state to apply pesticides in commercial settings and treatment areas (e.g., turf).

2. All pesticide applications are made only after detection of a verifiable pest 20 problem and accurate identification of the pest. Applications are not made on a routine or regularly scheduled basis (e.g., weekly, monthly applications are not made).

3. At least a preliminary review of pesticide use practices on school grounds 20 is conducted to evaluate pesticide risks. This information is used to set priorities for reducing or replacing high-risk pesticides and use practices.

Total MODULE ONE IPM Points Available 300

Total MODULE ONE Points Earned

About MODULE ONE and MODULE TWO IPM Practices

MODULE ONE and TWO practices are recommended for all school IPM programs, and represent an excellent starting point for new programs. These practices should be substantially completed before moving on. For certification, each MODULE ONE and TWO practice must be substantially completed (earn 80% or more of the points available for each practice). As you work through the Standards, be sure to note which practices need improvement.

For information on how to implement IPM practices, including model IPM policies, see the list on the pages following MODULE ONE.

For an explanation of unfamiliar terms, see the Glossary in Appendix B.

Completed MODULE ONE or MODULE TWO? See the IPM Institute Web site for an “IPM in Progress” Certificate, recognizing your accomplishment!

MODULE ONE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

Note items requiring additional action:

Evaluating Your Performance

Perfection is an ideal rarely accomplished in the real world. When evaluating your performance on IPM practices listed in these standards, use a critical eye to identify areas for improvement. Make a note of the action needed and score the practice accordingly. Remember, continuous improvement in reducing pests and pesticide risks is the goal, not a perfect score.

For certification purposes, Certified IPM Verifiers will also apply this perspective, working with you in a supportive manner to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of your IPM program.

MODULE ONE IPM Administrative and Policy Practices

All resource lists also Resources for IPM Administration and Policy available at www.ipminstitute.org, IPM Planning and Communication including active links! Becker, B., 2000. Qualities to Look for in a Professional Pest Control Operator (PCO). Guidelines for evaluating pest management professionals, including qualifications, services offered, IPM approach, use of pesticides, record keeping. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_con.htm.

Browner, C., 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 43 pp. Model IPM policy statement.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. Action Thresholds in School IPM Programs. Pesticide Regulation Section, Annapolis, MD. 10 pp. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 1994. Model IPM policy statement. Available at http://www.pesticide.org/default.htm.

Pennsylvania State University, 1999. IPM in Schools. Model IPM policy statement. Available at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schools/schoolIPM.html.

Safer Pest Control Project. 4-page model school pest management policy statement for schools. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/schpolicy.pdf.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

University of Florida. 2001. Intent to Apply Pesticides document. One page model of intent to apply form. Available in PDF version at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/Apply.pdf.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. 2002. Frequently Asked Questions About School IPM Pesticide Use on Public School Grounds. Includes sections entitled definitions, pesticides use requirements, applicability of pesticide use law, responsibilities of the school board and pesticide applicator, product labels, exemptions from the law, certification categories, licensing of certified applicators, hiring a commercial applicator, warning signs, and record keeping. Available at http://datcp.state.wi.us/arm/agriculture/pest- fert/pesticides/pdf/ipm_faqs.pdf.

Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Model cafeteria inspection checklist, importance of sanitation. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ index.html.

Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

of pesticide use in New York State in the public schools. This report describes this state-wide survey, provides information about some of the potential dangers of these chemicals, and recommends steps that schools and communities can take to minimize pesticide use. 33p. Available on http://www.oag.state.ny.us/environment/schools96.html.

City of Seattle, 1999. Pesticide Use Reduction Strategy. Model pesticide use and risk reduction strategy. Available at http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/environment/pesticides.htm.

Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. Safe Use of Pesticides. 38 pp. Public health issues, pesticide toxicology, classifications, labels, spill handling, fire prevention and fighting. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm. Green, S. G., 1997. Chapter 28. Itches, illusions and phobias. Pp. 1271-1323. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Potential causes of itching and rashes, including insects, mites and causes unrelated to pests; chemical sensitivity. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning. 2000. Web site provides manufacturer name, EPA Toxicity Category and Signal Words for pesticides used in school buildings and grounds; search using EPA registration number, or trade or active ingredient name. Available at http://cfls.state.mn.us/pesticide. Mueller, D. K., 1997. Chapter 24. Fumigation. Pp. 1103-1152. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. B&W photos, line drawings, mode of action, safety, heat treatment. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. 2003. National Pesticide Competency Guidelines for Medical & Nursing Education and the National Pesticide Practice Skills Guidelines for Medical & Nursing Practice. The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF), in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Labor, has published guidelines that will serve as tools for focusing schools and practicum programs on pesticide health education, provide guidance directly to nurses and physicians to advance their awareness and skill in recognizing and managing pesticide-related illness, and act as a model for faculty and administrators in integrating specific pesticide issues into education and training. These documents can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.neetf.org/Health/publications.shtm. Paper copies will be available later this year. For more information, contact: The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticides Initiative; 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington , DC, 20006-3915; 202-833-2933 x 535.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

Texas, State of, 1999. Integrated pest management in schools. Structural Pest Control Board. Red/Yellow/Green pesticide risk ranking system. Available at http://www.spcb.state.tx.us/ipm/ipmindex.htm.

University of Florida. 2001. IPM Cafeteria Inspection Checklist. A model IPM cafeteria inspection checklist for schools. Available in PDF version at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/doc/cafe2.pdf.

Resources for IPM Administration and Policy

MODULE TWO: IPM FRAMEWORK for School Grounds Points Points Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication Available Earned

1. Pest management roles are developed for and communicated at least annually to:

a) administrators (e.g., principals regarding posting, notification, 5 reporting, etc.);

b) teachers (e.g., do not bring in/apply pesticides, sanitation, etc.); 5

c) custodians (e.g., pest sightings log, inspection, sanitation, exclusion, 5 etc.);

d) food handlers (e.g., sanitation, exclusion, etc.); and 5

e) outside contractors (e.g., IPM policy, posting, pest control options to 5 outside pest, landscape and turf management professionals).

2. Pest management roles are developed for and communicated at least on an as needed basis (e.g., head lice incident):

a) students (e.g., reporting, sanitation, head lice prevention, etc.); and 5

b) parents (e.g., no nit policy). 5

3. A written IPM Plan is prepared that includes a schedule for inspection 20 and monitoring of school grounds and schedule for areas requiring more frequent inspection/monitoring (e.g., athletic fields).

4. If outside contractors provide pest control services, a written contract is 20 signed identifying specific IPM practices to be used including regular inspections, monitoring where appropriate, record-keeping and agreement to abide by the IPM Policy and IPM Plan, including use of only Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options for schools pursuing certification. If outside contractors are not used, score as N/A.

5. A Pest Sightings/Damage Log is kept in a designated area (e.g., main 20 office). Turf and landscape maintenance staff, athletic department staff and others who supervise those using school grounds are instructed to report all pest-related incidents to the log including date, time, exact location, a description of the pest or pest damage and the name of the person reporting. Pest Manager reviews reports promptly, and records and dates responses taken to each report. This log may be part of a general maintenance issue reporting system.

6. School notifies all students, staff and others requesting special consideration in the event of a pesticide application:

a) school provides direct notification to those individuals at least 48 10 hours in advance of any pesticide application; and

MODULE TWO IPM Practices

b) school communicates that this notification option is available to 10 parents and staff at least annually.

Exceptions may be made where an imminent threat to health exists (e.g., stinging insects), or for applications of pesticides defined as Least-Risk (Appendix A), or for situations where the school grounds will be unoccupied for 72 hours. For emergency applications, postings must be placed as soon as practical.

7. Key staff (e.g., IPM Coordinator, Pest Manager, turf and landscape 20 maintenance staff) participate in IPM training at least annually. Training is adequate and appropriate to the IPM roles fulfilled by these staff members.

Section 2. Inspection, Sanitation and Exclusion

1. A comprehensive inspection of all school grounds is conducted by an in- 20 house or contracted pest management professional for defects including cracks in walkways and driveways; food, moisture and shelter resources available to pests; moisture, pest or other damage to fences, retaining walls, irrigation and drainage systems, etc.; pest runways, pest fecal matter or other signs of pest activity; etc. A report of all defects is prepared and corrective actions are identified.

2. Legible records are maintained of inspection results, including date, pests 20

and/or pest damage found and location, estimate of pest density or

damage level, recommendation, actions taken and evaluations of results.

20 3. A timeline is established for completion of corrective actions and evaluation of results.

Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

1. Pesticide inventories are maintained only if personnel properly licensed to 20

apply those pesticides are on staff. Storage is tightly controlled to prevent unauthorized access. If pesticide inventories are not maintained by the school, score as N/A.

2. Baits (e.g., for rodents), if used, are:

a) placed in areas inaccessible or off-limits to children; 5

b) placed in a locked, distinctively marked, tamper-resistant container 5 designed specifically for holding baits and constructed of metal, plastic or wood;

c) used in bait containers securely attached to immovable objects such 5 that the container cannot be picked up and moved;

d) placed in the baffle-protected feeding chamber of the bait container 5 and not in the runway;

e) If used in wet areas, are parafinized or weatherproof ; and 5

MODULE TWO IPM Practices

Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org

V 3.2 Page 80 Part II. IPM Standards for School Grounds

f) not used outdoors unless bait containers are inaccessible to children 5 (e.g., placed underground in pest nests or on building roofs).

If pests are managed effectively without baits, score as N/A.

3. Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used. 20

Total MODULE TWO IPM Points Available 265

Total Points Not Applicable

Total MODULE TWO Points Earned

Note items requiring additional action:

MODULE TWO IPM Practices

MODULE THREE: Administrative & Policy Practices for School Grounds

Points Points Section 1. IPM Planning and Communication Available Earned

1. Priority: The IPM Plan includes a list of key pests and action thresholds 20 for each key pest (even if threshold is one, i.e., no tolerance).

2. Priority: The IPM Plan includes a list of management options to be used 20 when key pest problems occur and specifies lesser risk options (e.g., sanitation, exclusion) to be used before resorting to actions with greater risk factors. (See Appendix A for discussion on risk ranking.)

3. The IPM Plan includes a list of actions to prevent and avoid key pest 20 problems (e.g., replacement of problem plants, moving problem plants to more favorable locations, slope modification, pavement replacement and repair) and a timeline for implementation.

4. If outside professional pest management or grounds maintenance contractors are used, bids are evaluated not only on the basis of cost but also on the contractor’s:

a) experience and performance history with an IPM approach; 5

b) ability to conduct preventative inspections; 5

e) ability to apply treatments after school hours; and 5

f) demonstrated practice of using lowest risk control options first. 5

If outside contractors are not used, score as N/A.

5. The IPM Plan specifies preventative and avoidance strategies for 10 grounds maintenance and new or renovated landscape design such as avoiding pest-prone plants, proper placement, etc.

6. The IPM Plan divides turf and landscape areas by basic use level (i.e., 5 athletic fields vs. lawns, highly visible vs. less visible landscape areas). Monitoring frequency and thresholds are appropriate to each level.

7. The IPM Plan subdivides turf areas by advanced level of use (i.e., athletic 5 fields with limited use for publicly attended events vs. athletic fields for daily practice and general use). Monitoring schedules and action thresholds are appropriate to each level.

8. A complete inventory of all existing lawn maintenance equipment is 10 maintained, as well as a list of desired equipment for reduced risk pest control options (e.g., aerator, de-thatcher, spring-tooth harrow, flotation tires, etc.). Desired equipment is worked into the budget over time.

9. Grounds staff or Pest Manager reads an Extension newsletter/report of 10 current pest information in season. If not available, score as N/A.

MODULE THREE IPM Practices

10. Information bulletins are distributed at least annually to inform staff, 10 students, parents and others as appropriate about key IPM issues such as roles, reporting, sanitation, etc.

11. School notifies staff and parents at least 48 hours in advance of the 10 application of any pesticide not on the Least-Risk Pest Control Option List. Such notification may be incorporated in any notice being sent to staff or parents meeting the 48-hour advance timing. Exceptions may be made for applications made for emergencies, where an imminent threat to health exists (e.g., stinging insects). For emergency applications, notification must be made as soon as practical.

12. Bonus: Teachers incorporate school grounds IPM or general IPM 10 concepts into curricula and/or class projects.

Section 2. Inspection, Exclusion and Sanitation

1. A written IPM inspection checklist or form is used for periodic inspections, 10

listing each landscape feature (e.g., lawns, playing fields, walkways,

driveways, etc.) to be inspected, including specific locations within

features (e.g., retaining walls) to be covered in the inspection and specific

conditions to be noted (e.g., repair, cleaning needs).

5 2. Monitoring traps, plant phenology and/or growing degree days are used to predict pest activity and schedule monitoring activities.

3. Pest management roles communicated to staff and students include 10

proper disposal of food or food wrappers.

4. Litter is collected and properly disposed of from school grounds at least 10 weekly.

5. Bonus: Food and beverages are allowed only in limited designated 10 areas.

6. Outdoor garbage containers and storage are placed away from building 10 entrances.

7. Outdoor garbage containers are emptied frequently to prevent 10 accumulated trash from blocking door closure.

8. Outdoor garbage containers, dumpsters, compactors and storage are 10 placed on hard, cleanable surfaces.

10 9. Outdoor garbage containers have spring-loaded lids to exclude pests.

10. Outdoor garbage containers are washed on at least a monthly basis, 10

including spill-contaminated areas around containers.

11. Cracks and crevices in paved areas are corrected. 10

12. Stored waste is collected and moved off site at least once weekly. 10

13. Bonus: Stored waste is collected and moved off site at least twice 10

MODULE THREE IPM Practices

weekly.

14. Recyclables are collected and moved off site at least weekly. 10

15. Bonus: Recyclables are collected and moved off site at least twice 10 weekly.

Section 3. Pest and Pesticide Risk Management

1. Priority: When pest problems requiring action occur, appropriate lesser 20 risk options are used first.

2. Priority: All pesticide application equipment is calibrated at the start of 10

each season. Records (date, calibrator, etc.) are maintained for 3 years.

3. Priority: Pesticide and fertilizers are loaded into application equipment 10

over a hard surface where spills can be promptly and thoroughly contained and cleaned without danger of spill leaching into soil or runoff into soil, drains or sewers.

4. All pesticide application equipment is re-calibrated at mid-season. 10

5. Pesticide applications are limited to affected areas, plants or plant parts 10 rather than treating an entire management unit, group of plants or entire plant, respectively, as per monitoring results (e.g., one corner of a lawn is treated for grubs, or one shrub or portion of a shrub is treated).

6. When effective control can be achieved at reduced rates, pesticide 10 applications are made at less than the maximum labeled rate.

7. Where appropriate (e.g., herbicide applications), a colorant is used to 10 mark the treated area.

8. If baits or traps of any kind are used:

a) a map or floor plan of each area where baits or traps are located is 5 prepared;

b) each bait station or trap is numbered and entered on the map; 5

c) they are marked with appropriate warning language; and 5

d) checked at least once per month. 5

If pests are managed effectively without baits or traps, score as N/A.

9. Inventory is managed to track current stock, use and ensure proper 10 disposal of unused materials and empties. If pesticide inventories are not maintained by the school, score as N/A.

10. Bonus: Least-Risk Options are the only pest controls used. 10

11. Bonus: No pesticides are stored on school grounds. 10

MODULE THREE IPM Practices

12. Bonus: Action thresholds for pesticide applications correspond with pest 10 pressure sufficient to cause physiological injury, not aesthetic injury.

13. Bonus: Teachers incorporate pest and pesticide risk management into 10 curricula and/or class projects.

Total MODULE THREE Administration and Policy IPM Points Available 375

Total Points Not Applicable

Total MODULE THREE Administration and Policy IPM Points Earned

Note items requiring additional action:

About MODULE THREE IPM Practices

Not all MODULE THREE IPM practices are appropriate for all schools. Choose the ones that will be most effective for your IPM program. For certification, you must implement enough practices to earn an overall 70% score for all three modules, including applicable pest-specific sections. Most schools will need to complete just a few of the pest-specific sections.

MODULE THREE IPM Practices

Note items requiring additional action (continued):

MODULE THREE IPM Practices

MODULE THREE: Plant and Pest-Specific IPM Practices for School Grounds

Section 4. Landscape Plant Cultural Management Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if landscape plants requiring management are Available Earned not present on your school grounds and proceed to Section 35, Turf Management)

1. At least a rough landscape plant map is prepared:

a) noting locations of trees, shrubs and ornamentals; 5

b) dividing the landscape into management units; and 5

c) copies of the map are updated annually, noting soil fertility tests, pest 10 problems and key plants.

2. Landscape plants are scouted at least monthly during the growing 20 season for conditions requiring action (e.g., damaged, diseased, dead

limbs; soil erosion/compaction; insect, disease, weed pests and damage).

3. Scouting follows a regular pattern to ensure all plantings are checked. 10

4. Corrective actions are identified and a timeline is established for 10 implementation.

5. Scouting results, corrective actions and evaluations of results are noted 10 legibly in writing and these records are maintained for at least three years.

6. Soil in landscape plantings is tested at least every five years for nitrogen, 10 phosphorus, potassium and pH.

7. Fertilizers and other soil amendments are applied according to soil and/or 10 plant foliage test results, not on a routine or regularly scheduled basis.

8. Identifying soil compaction is part of regular monitoring and problem 10 areas are corrected.

9. Irrigation of established plants is scheduled according to need and 10 anticipated weather, not on a routine or regularly scheduled basis. If soil

moisture is managed effectively without irrigation, score as N/A.

10. Key plants in the landscape are scouted more frequently during critical 10 times of year (i.e., around key pest emergence, egglaying, etc.).

11. Signs of erosion are minimal. 5

12. When renovating, adding new plants or establishing new landscape 5 areas, plant species are selected to address site-specific growing conditions (e.g., tolerance to key pests, pH levels, soil type, light levels, hardiness zone, annual rainfall, etc.).

Landscape Plant Cultural Management

13. Plant spacing is adequate to ensure sufficient light, nutrients and water. 5

14. When renovating, changes in grade or drainage around established trees 5 are avoided unless necessary to correct an existing problem.

15. In temperate areas, fertilizers are not applied after mid-summer or before 5 complete dormancy to avoid delaying dormancy.

16. Perennial beds are mulched to conserve soil moisture, improve organic 10 matter, reduce compaction and moderate soil temperature.

17. The root zones of trees and shrubs are mulched. 10

18. Mulch is prevented from contact with buildings (>12 inches away). 5

19. Plant debris and leaves are not permitted to accumulate on paved areas 10 (e.g., on sidewalks, parking areas, road and driveways) to avoid

movement into sewer systems and surface water bodies.

20. Fertilizer applications are split (e.g., one in spring and one in fall) rather 5 than one single heavy application.

21. When fertilizers are applied, they are watered into the soil to reduce wind 5 or rain-induced movement from the site.

22. When fertilizers are needed, slow-release forms of nitrogen are used. 5

23. Irrigation is scheduled to minimize the amount of time leaves remain wet 5 to reduce opportunities for disease development (i.e., plant foliage is dry before nightfall). If soil moisture is managed effectively without irrigation, score as N/A.

24. Irrigation is allowed to drain before heavy foot or vehicle traffic is 5 permitted in planted areas to minimize compaction. If soil moisture is managed effectively without irrigation, score as N/A.

25. Drip irrigation is used for annual beds and/or high priority/demand beds. If 5 soil moisture is managed effectively without irrigation, score as N/A.

26. Key plants in the landscape are removed and replaced with plants less 5 susceptible to pest problems.

27. There are no visible signs of erosion on school grounds. 5

28. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify the landscape plants present on 10

school grounds.

Total Points Available for Landscape Plant Cultural Management 220

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Landscape Plant Cultural Management

Landscape Plant Cultural Management

Resources for Landscape Plant Cultural Management Know Your Plants Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 16. IPM for trees and shrubs on school grounds. Pp. 117-119. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. US “Before you can properly care for the trees EPA. Landscape plant health care management. Available at and shrubs on your school grounds, you must http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/ pest/school/index.html. know what they are. Make a map of the grounds and identify every tree and shrub. Fare, D., 1999. Chapter 3. Planting, establishment and pruning of You should be able to answer the following woody ornamentals, pp. 3.1 to 3.29; and M. Albrecht, Chapter 4. questions: IPM for flower gardens, pp. 4.1 to 4.6. In Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes, Vail and Croker, eds. University of ! What kind of soil does the plant prefer? Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639. Line drawings, plant selection and placement, pruning ! How much water does it need? notes for more than 75 species; soil preparation for flowering plants, fertilization and mulching. Available from Mail and Supply ! When should it be fertilized? Office, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. Phone (865) 974- 7300, Fax (865) 974-2713. ! How should it be pruned?

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 4 Landscape ! Does it prefer shade or sun? Management. Pp. 28-36. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at ! How much heat or cold can it tolerate? http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm. ! What are its most common pest Maynard, B.K., R.A. Casagrande, M. Gold, S. Livingston and S.H. problems? Gordon. 1999. Sustainable Trees and Shrubs. 3rd Edition. Selecting the right plants for the site; form, texture, growth habit, ! What environmental problems is it hardiness, handling, planting and maintenance; evaluative susceptible to (soil compaction, air indexes. Available from University of Rhode Island Cooperative pollution, salt damage, etc.)?” Extension, 3 E. Alumni Ave., Kingston RI 02881. (401) 874-2900. Older edition available at - Excerpt from Daar et al. 1997 http://www.uri.edu/research/sustland/spl1.html.

Merchant, Heather and Michael. 2003. Module 6- Landscape IPM video and workbook. Video with accompanying workbook included in the ABCs of IPM video set. Available from Texas Cooperative Extension Bookstore, http://schoolipm.tamu.edu/resources/resources/products/video/video.html.

Ohio State University. 2000. Plant Facts: Factsheet Database and University Search Engine. Quick search engine for answering plant-related questions, accessing on-line fact sheets and guides from 46 different universities and government institutions across the United States and Canada. Contains over 20,000 pages of Extension fact sheets and bulletins covering cultural and pest issues. Available at http://plantfacts.ohio-state.edu.

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. 259 pp. Proper management for prevention of insect and disease pest problems. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers University, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. Phone: 732/932-9762, Web site http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 2: Outdoor turf management. 40 Pp. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Plant selection, key plants and pests, horticultural practices. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Massachusetts. 2001. Plant Culture and Maintenance. Over 20 fact sheets providing detailed information to help establish and maintain a healthy growing environment for ornamental plants. http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/plantculture.html.

Landscape Plant Cultural Management

About Key Plants

“Key plants are those plants that provide aesthetic or functional attributes to the landscape’s value or are more likely to suffer from serious, annual problems that will dominate your control practices. These are plants that will require more time and money to maintain. There are 10 groups of woody landscape plants that can be considered key plants: birch, crabapples, dogwoods, euonymus, junipers, maples, oaks, pines, flowering plums, and any plant in the rose family.”

- Excerpt from Stier et al. 1999 (Note: Key plants and groups will vary by region.)

Notes:

Landscape Plant Cultural Management

Landscape Plant Disease and Nematode Pests

Section 5. Canker Diseases Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if canker diseases are not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem canker diseases are defined in 20 the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When canker problems occur, the disease is identified correctly before 20 taking action. Actions are appropriate for the disease.

3. When canker problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., avoid injury to bark, moderate fertilizer rates and use slow-release forms, irrigate to maintain vigor, prune out affected plant parts as soon as they appear, prune out any dead and dying branches on a regular basis, replace susceptible plants, sterilize pruning tools after use on affected plants).

4. When canker disease problems occur on landscape trees, the affected 20 tree is evaluated as a potential hazard and corrective action is taken as

needed (e.g., bracing, pruning, removal).

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 10

for canker disease management.

6. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report canker problems.

7. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem canker 10 diseases common to the region and to plants present on the school grounds (e.g., Black Knot, Botryosphaeria Canker, Cytospora Canker, Cypress Canker, Dogwood Canker, Foamy Canker, Phomopsis Canker, Pink Rot, Volutella Canker, Wetwood).

8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for canker diseases. 5

Total Points Available for Canker Disease Management 105

Total Points Earned for Canker Disease Management

Notes:

Landscape Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 6. Leafspots & Blights Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if leafspots and blights are not a Available Earned problem requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem leafspots and blights are defined 20 on School in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented. Grounds

2. When leafspot or blight problems occur, the disease is identified correctly 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the disease.

3. When leafspot and blight problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., avoid overhead irrigation; prune out and destroy infected twigs during dormant months; reduce humidity around susceptible plants by proper weed management, spacing and pruning; remove infected leaves and destroy as soon as they are noticed; replace susceptible plants; schedule irrigation so that foliage dries quickly). For Fire Blight, remove infected twigs and branches during dry weather as soon as they appear and sterilize pruners between cuts.

4. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for leafspot and blight management.

5. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report leafspot and blight problems.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem 10 leafspots and blights common to the region and to the plants present on the school grounds (e.g., Anthracnose, Apple Scab, Entomosporium Leaf Spot, Fire Blight, Gray Leaf Spot, Oak Twig Blight, Powdery Mildew, Schaeropsis Blight, Septoria Leaf Spot, Shothole).

7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for leafspots and blights. 5

Total Points Available for Leafspot and Blight Management 80

Total Points Earned for Leafspot and Blight Management

Notes:

Landscape Plant Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 7. Nematodes Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if nematodes are not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem nematodes are defined in the IPM 20 Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When nematode problems are suspected, soil samples (or branch 20 samples for Pinewood Nematode) are sent to a lab for identification. Actions are appropriate for the nematode.

3. When nematode problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., avoid replanting susceptible plants into infested soil, buy and plant only nematode-free stock, clean tools and equipment after working in infested soil, do not allow irrigation water from infested soil to runoff onto clean soil, moderate fertilizer rates and use slow-release forms, increase soil organic matter, irrigate to maintain vigor, replace susceptible plants, use only fully composted or sterilized soil amendments when planting). For Pinewood Nematode, remove infected trees and destroy wood before nematodes and the Pine Sawyer vector disperses to healthy trees.

4. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for nematode management.

5. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report nematode problems.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem 10 nematodes common to the region and to the plants present on the school grounds (e.g., Citrus, Dagger, Pin, Pinewood, Ring, Root Knot, Root Lesion, Stunt Nematodes).

7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for nematodes. 5

Total Points Available for Nematode Management 80

Total Points Earned for Nematode Management

Notes:

Landscape Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 8. Root & Crown Diseases Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if root and crown diseases are not a Available Earned problem requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem root and crown diseases are 20 defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When root or crown disease problems occur, the disease is identified 20 correctly before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the disease.

3. When root and crown disease problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., improve drainage, incorporate pine bark or other materials into poorly drained soils prior to planting, moderate irrigation rates, plant into raised beds in poorly drained areas, prevent mower/weed trimmer injury by replacing sod at base of plant with mulch, reduce compaction, replace susceptible plants).

4. When root and crown disease problems occur on landscape trees, the 10

affected tree is evaluated as a potential hazard and corrective action is taken as needed (e.g., bracing, removal).

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for root and crown disease management.

6. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report root and crown disease problems.

7. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem root 10 and crown disease common to the region (e.g., Armillaria Root Rot; damping-off diseases; Phytophthora collar, foot, root and crown rots; Shoestring Root Rot).

8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for root and crown 5 disease. Total Points Available for Root and Crown Disease Management 90

Total Points Earned for Root and Crown Disease Management

Notes:

Landscape Plant Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 9. Rusts

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if rusts are not a problem requiring Points Points action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned

1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem rusts are defined in the IPM Plan 20

and effectively implemented.

2. When rust problems occur, the disease is identified correctly before 20

taking action. Actions are appropriate for the disease.

3. When rust problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., avoid overhead watering, eliminate alternate hosts, prune out infected plant parts immediately, replace susceptible plants).

4. When gall rust disease problems occur on landscape tree trunks or major 10

limbs, the affected tree is evaluated as a potential hazard and corrective action is taken as needed (e.g., bracing, pruning, removal).

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for rust management.

6. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10

annually to recognize and report rust problems.

7. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem rusts 10

common to the region and to plants on school grounds (e.g., Cedar-Apple

Rust, Cedar-Hawthorne Rust, Gall Rusts, Red Pine Needle Rust,

Western Gall Rust, White Pine Blister Rust).

5 8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for rusts.

Total Points Available for Rust Management 90

Total Points Earned for Rust Management

Section 10. Virus Diseases

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if virus diseases are not a problem Points Points requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned

1. Action thresholds for problem virus diseases are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and effectively implemented.

2. When virus disease problems occur, contributing factors are identified and corrected (e.g., replace infected plants with certified virus-free stock, 20 replace susceptible plants).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for virus disease management.

4. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report virus disease problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem virus 10

diseases common to the region and to the plants on school grounds (e.g., mosaic viruses, mottle viruses, ringspot viruses). 5 6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for virus diseases.

Total Points Available for Virus Disease Management 60

Total Points Earned for Virus Disease Management

Landscape Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 11. Wilts Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if wilts are not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem wilts are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and effectively implemented.

2. When wilt problems occur, the disease is identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the disease.

3. When wilt problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., avoid replanting susceptible plants into infected soil, moderate fertilizer rates and use slow-release forms, irrigate to maintain vigor, prune out affected plant parts as soon as they appear, replace susceptible plants, sterilize pruning tools after use on affected plants, use only fully composted or sterilized soil amendments when planting).

4. When wilt problems occur on landscape trees, the affected tree is 10

evaluated as a potential hazard and corrective action is taken as needed (e.g., bracing, pruning, removal).

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for wilt management.

6. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report wilt problems.

7. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of problem wilts 10 common to the region and to the plants present on the school grounds (Fusarium Wilt, Verticillium Wilt). 5 8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for wilt. Total Points Available for Wilt Management 90

Total Points Earned for Wilt Management

Notes:

Landscape Plant Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 12. Other Landscape Plant Disease Pests Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if there are no other landscape plant Available Earned disease or nematode pests and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for these additional landscape diseases are 20 defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When disease problems occur, the disease is identified correctly before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the disease. 20

3. Contributing factors are identified and corrected. List here: 20

4. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant.

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for landscape plant disease and nematode pest management.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify symptoms of these additional 10 landscape diseases on sight. List here:

7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for landscape plant 5 disease and nematode pest management.

Total Points Available for Other Landscape Disease & Nematode Pests 80

Total Points Earned for Other Landscape Disease & Nematode Pests

Resources for Landscape Plant Disease and Nematode Pest Management

Dreistadt et al. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs. 328 pp. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3359. ISBN 1-879906-18-X. Color photos, line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management. Available from ANR Publications, 6701 San Pablo Ave., Oakland CA 94608-1239. Phone (510) 642-2431, FAX (510) 643-5470.

Landscape Disease & Nematode Pests

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Color images, general introduction to landscape pest management. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp7.htm.

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. 259 pp. IPM decision-making guidelines, pest appearance and management table, partial list of pest-resistant plants, fungicides and biologicals. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers University, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. Phone: 732/932-9762, Web site http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

University of Massachusetts. 2001. Diseases. Over ten fact sheets intended to help the green industry professional identify the cause of a plant disease or disorder, and decide whether alternative plant choices, sanitation, modification of the growing environment, chemical controls or a combination would best address their particular situation. http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/diseases.html.

Windham, A., 1999. Chapter 6. Management of diseases of woody ornamentals in landscapes, pp. 6.1 to 6.11. In Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes, Vail and Croker, eds. University of Tennesee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639. Description and management for common diseases of 33 common woody ornamental plants. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. Phone (865) 974- 7300, Fax (865) 974-2713.

Notes:

Landscape Plant Disease & Nematode Pests

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Section 13. Bark, Trunk & Twig Borers Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if borers are not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for key borer pests are defined in the IPM 20 Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When borer problems occur, the pest is identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the pest.

3. Inspection routines are appropriate to the problem pest (e.g., monitor the 10 base of the trunk of Prunus varieties for cracked bark, frass and gumosis for Peachtree Borer in summer, monitor the crowns of elm trees for dieback and Elm Bark Beetles in May).

4. When borer problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., mulch around the base of dogwoods to prevent mower

injury; correct drainage; irrigate near the outer portion of the canopy rather than near the trunk to avoid softening bark; prune out and destroy infested branches; remove freshly cut or fallen wood to avoid harboring borers; replace susceptible, stressed or dying plants).

5. Actions are taken at the appropriate time for the specific pest and action 10 (e.g., use degree days and/or pheromone traps to determine best time to monitor and manage clearwing borers, Nantucket Pine Tip Moth).

6. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant. (e.g., treat root crown for Peachtree Borer; treat tree trunks and not foliage for Southern Pine Beetle; treat terminals for Nantucket Pine Tip Moth, White Pine Weevil). If borers are managed effectively without insecticides, score as N/A.

7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for borer management.

8. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report borer problems.

9. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem borers common to the region 10 on sight (e.g., Bronze Birch Borer, Cottonwood Borer, Dogwood Borer, Elm Bark Beetle, Flatheaded Apple Tree Borer, Lilac Borer, Locust Borer, Nantucket Pine Tip Moth, Peachtree Borer, Rhododendron Borer, Southern Pine Beetle, Twolined Chestnut Borer, White Pine Weevil, etc.).

10. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for borer management. 5

Total Points Available for Bark, Trunk and Twig Borer Management 110

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Bark, Trunk and Twig Borer Management

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Section 14. Caterpillars Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if caterpillars are not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key caterpillar pests are defined in the IPM 20 on School Plan and effectively implemented. Grounds

2. When caterpillar problems occur, the pest is identified correctly before 20 taking action. Actions are appropriate for the pest.

3. When caterpillar problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., avoid pesticides toxic to beneficials, replace susceptible plants).

4. Inspection routines are appropriate to the problem pest (e.g., monitor the 10 bark of oak and other susceptible plants for Gypsy Moth egg masses in

fall and winter; monitor foliage of ash, birch, fruit and nut trees and other susceptible plants for tent caterpillars and webbing tents in spring).

5. Action thresholds are appropriate to the problem species, plant age and 10 growth stage (i.e., accept a higher level of defoliation in the summer vs. spring, or on established plants vs. young plants).

6. Actions are taken at the appropriate time (e.g., prune out and destroy tent 10 caterpillar webbing and infested branches before substantial defoliation occurs; apply Bacillus thuriengensis to susceptible young caterpillars).

7. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant. If caterpillars are managed effectively without pesticides, score as N/A.

8. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for caterpillar management.

9. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report caterpillar problems.

10. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem caterpillars common to the 10 region on sight (e.g., Azalea Caterpillars, Bagworms, Cankerworms, Eastern and Forest Tent Caterpillars, European Pine Shoot Moth, Fall Webworm, Fruittree Leafroller, Gypsy Moth, Omnivorous Looper, Orangestriped Oakworm, Poplar Tentmaker, Redhumped Caterpillar, Tussock Moth, Walnut Caterpillar, etc.).

11. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for caterpillar 5 management. Total Points Available for Caterpillar Management 120

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Caterpillar Management

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Management

Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: www.ipminstitute.org V 3.2 Page 100 Part II. IPM Standards for School Grounds

Section 15. Leaf Beetles & Weevils Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Leaf Beetles and Weevils are not a Available Earned problem requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key leaf beetle and weevil pests are 20 on School defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented. Grounds

2. When leaf beetle or weevil problems occur, the pest is identified correctly 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the pest.

3. When leaf beetle and weevil problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., replace susceptible plants).

4. Inspection routines are appropriate to the problem pest (e.g., monitor Black Vine Weevils with pitfall traps or burlap trunk bands, monitor leaves 10 for notching, and/or monitor plants at night for feeding weevils; monitor

growing terminals for eggs of Elm Leaf Beetles).

5. Action thresholds are appropriate to the problem species, plant age and 10 growth stage (i.e., accept a higher level of defoliation in the summer vs. spring or on established plants vs. young plants).

6. Actions are taken at the appropriate time for the specific pest and action 10 (e.g., apply parasitic nematodes for Black Vine Weevil only when weevil larvae or pupae are present).

7. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant (e.g., apply insecticide in a band around the tree trunk above the reach of children for Elm Leaf Beetle). If leaf beetles and weevils are managed effectively without pesticides, score as N/A.

8. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for leaf beetle and weevil management.

9. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report leaf beetle and weevil problems.

10. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem leaf beetles and weevils 10 common to the region on sight (e.g., Black Vine Weevil, Cottonwood Leaf Beetle, Elm Leaf Beetle, Japanese Beetle, Rose Chafer, Strawberry Root Weevil, Twobanded Japanese Weevil, etc.).

11. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for leaf beetles and 5 weevils.

Total Points Available for Leaf Beetle and Weevil Management 120

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Leaf Beetle and Weevil Management

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Section 16. Sap-feeding Pests: Aphids, Adelgids, Lacebugs, Leafminers, Mealybugs, Mites, Psyllids, Scales, Spittlebugs, Thrips, Whiteflies

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if sap-feeding pests are not a problem Points Points

requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key sap-feeding pests are defined in the 20 on School IPM Plan and effectively implemented. Grounds

2. When sap-feeding pest problems occur, the pest is identified correctly 20 before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the pest.

3. When sap-feeding pest problems occur, contributing factors are identified 20 and corrected (e.g., discontinue use of pesticides toxic to beneficials, exclude ants from plants, manage adjacent weed hosts, reduce fertilizer rates to moderate shoot growth, use slow-release forms of nitrogen fertilizer, replace susceptible plants with resistant plants, and/or reduce plant stress by mulching, relocating out of full sun or irrigating).

4. Inspection routines are appropriate to the problem pest (e.g., monitor 10 hemlock twigs for Hemlock Wooly Adelgid eggsacs in spring and fall,

monitor undersides of leaves for Twospotted Spider Mites and mite predators, monitor growing terminals for aphids and aphid predators).

5. Beneficials are also sampled, and insecticides, if used, are not applied if 10 beneficials are present in sufficient numbers to provide control.

6. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant. If sap-feeding pests are managed effectively without pesticides, score as N/A.

7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for sap-feeding pest management.

8. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report sap-feeding pest problems.

9. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem aphid, adelgid, mealybug and 10 mites species and major predators and parasites common to the region on sight (e.g., Boxwood Psyllid, Eriophyid Mites, Euonymus Scale, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Longtailed Mealybug, Oystershell Scale, Pine Bark Adelgid, Privet Rust Mite, San Jose Scale, Southern Red Mite, Striped Mealybug, Twospotted Spider Mite, Wax Scale, White Pine Aphid, White Peach Scale, Wooly Apple Aphid, etc.)

10. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for sap-feeding pest 5 management. Total Points Available for Sap-Feeding Pest Management 110

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Sap-Feeding Pest Management

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Section 17. Sawflies Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if sawflies are not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for key sawfly pests are defined in the IPM 20 Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When sawfly problems occur, the pest is identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the pest.

3. When sawfly problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., correct drainage, irrigate to relieve drought stress, replace susceptible plants).

4. Susceptible plants are visually inspected for problem sawflies (i.e., eggs, 10 larvae or feeding damage) in the proper location at the appropriate time

of year (e.g., monitor Eastern White Pine branches for defoliation and clusters of White Pine Sawfly larvae in spring and early fall, monitor roses in late spring for skeletonized leaves and the upper sides of those leaves for Rose Slug larvae, monitor oak tree crowns in summer for defoliation from oak sawflies).

5. Action thresholds are appropriate to the problem species, plant age and 10 growth stage (i.e., accept a higher level of defoliation in the fall vs. spring, or on established plants vs. young plants).

6. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant. If sawflies are managed effectively without pesticides, score as N/A.

7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for sawfly management.

8. Landscape maintenance personnel are provided with training at least 10 annually to recognize and report sawfly problems.

9. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem sawflies common to the 10 region on sight (e.g., Cyprus Sawfly, Dusky Birch Sawfly, Mountain-Ash Sawfly, Pin Oak Sawfly, Pearslug, Redheaded Pine Sawfly, Rose Slug, Slug Oak Sawfly, White Pine Sawfly, etc.).

10. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for sawfly management. 5

Total Points Available for Sawfly Management 110

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Sawfly Management

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Section 18. Other Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if there are no other landscape plant Available Earned insect or mite pests requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Action thresholds for additional key landscape plant insect and mite pests 20 are defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When problems occur, the pest is identified correctly before taking action. 20 Actions are appropriate for the pest.

3. Contributing factors are identified and corrected. List here: 20

4. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 plants or plant parts instead of treating a group of plants or entire plant. If these pests are managed effectively without pesticides, score as N/A.

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for landscape plant insect and mite pest management.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify these additional landscape insect and 10 mite pests and beneficial organisms on sight. List here:

7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for landscape plant insect 5 and mite management.

Total Points Available for Other Landscape Insect or Mite Pest Mgt. 80

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Other Landscape Insect and Mite Pest Mgt.

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Resources for Landscape Plant Insect and Mite Pest Management Brown-Rytlewski, Diane. 2002. Pocket IPM Scouting Guide for Woody Landscape Plants. Plastic-coated scouting guide with its 3.5" X 6.0" pages designed to fit in your pocket for easy field use. Color pictures and descriptions to identify common pests and their damage, beneficials, common diseases, injury caused by deer, voles and rabbits, and abiotic plant injury. Guidelines for scouting and management are also given. For more information, or to order, visit http://www.msue.msu. edu/ipm/LandscapePocket.htm.

Colorado State University, 2000. Insects: Trees and Shrubs. Color images, Identification, Action Thresholds for monitoring, management. Available at Leaf-Feeding Insects http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/PUBS/ INSECT/pubins.html#tree. Suggested action thresholds for caterpillar or leaf beetle damage to healthy, mature deciduous Dreistadt et al. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees landscape plants are approximately 20% defoliation and Shrubs. 328 pp. University of California in the spring, and 30% to 40% in the summer. In the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3359. ISBN 1-879906-18-X. Color fall, it is generally inappropriate to control these pests photos, line drawings, identification, biology, on deciduous plants, since the leaves will soon be monitoring, management. Available from ANR shed. Publications, 6701 San Pablo Ave., Oakland CA 94608-1239. Phone (510) 642-2431, FAX (510) Exceptions can include young plants, plants suffering 643-5470. from drought or other stresses, or specific pests. For example, even slight feeding damage from Black Dunn, R.A., T.R. Fasulo, W.G. Hudson, R. F. Vine Weevil adults can indicate a potential problem Mizzell, D.E. Short, G. W. Simone, and J. L. Williams-Woodward. 1999. Woody Pest Web Site. for young plants, due to root feeding from larvae concealed in the soil. Universities of Florida and Georgia. Color images, Identification, monitoring, management. Available - Source: Dreistadt et al., 1994 at http://woodypest.ifas.ufl.edu.

Fasulo, T.R., ed. 1995. USDA Whitefly Knowledgebase. Color and B&W images, identification, biology, monitoring and management of several species of whitefly pests. Available at http://whiteflies.ifas.ufl.edu.

Hale, F., K. Vail, M. Raupp and J. Davidson. 1999. Chapter 5. Insect and mite pests of ornamentals, pp. 5.1 to 5.65. In Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes, Vail and Croker, eds. University of Tennesee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639. Seasonal key pest list for common woody ornamentals; line drawings, description, host plants, damage, monitoring and management for 139 common ornamentals pests. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. Phone (865) 974-7300, Fax (865) 974-2713.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Limited color images of landscape insect pests. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp7.htm.

Raupp, M.J., 1998. Aphids; K. Thorpe, Gypsy Moth; C.A. Casey, Mites. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. National Park Service, Fort Collins CO. Description, biology, monitoring and management. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/natpark.html.

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. 259 pp. Line drawings, identification key to pests and beneficials, IPM decision-making guidelines, pest appearance and management table, partial list of pest-resistant plants, common beneficlal insects, insecticides and biologicals. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers University, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. Phone: 732/932-9762, Web site http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

University of Massachusetts. 2001. Insects and Mites. Most fact sheets contained in this site are originally from the CD-ROM "Tree Bytes" (1998), which contains nearly 120 insect and mite fact sheets along with more than 40 disease entries, and approximately 700 color photographs. http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/insectsandmites.html

University of Minnesota. 2003. IPM of Midwest Landscapes. Cooperative project with the NCR-193 North Central Committee on Landscape IPM. Includes information on tree, shrub and turf pests. Many topics included in this publication are applicable beyond the Midwest region. For more information on this publication, please visit the website located at http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues To order, download the order form on the web site. With questions, contact Susan Ratcliffe via email or by phone at (217) 333-9656 and [email protected].

Notes:

Landscape Plant Insect & Mite Pests

Turf Management

Section 19. Turf Cultural Management Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if turf is not present at your school and Available Earned proceed to Section 53. Vertebrate Pests )

1. At least a rough map is prepared:

a) noting locations of turf areas; 5

b) dividing these into management units/grids; and 5

c) copies of map are updated annually noting soil tests, fertilizer 10 applications and pest and other problems (e.g., erosion, compaction).

2. High profile/high traffic turf areas are scouted at least monthly during the 20 growing season for divots, bare areas, insect, disease and weed pests

and damage, etc.

3. Bonus: Turf is scouted at least every other week during the growing 10 season.

4. A serpentine or other regular pattern is used to ensure that all areas of 10 the turf are covered.

5. Problem turf areas identified in the IPM Plan are scouted more frequently 5 during critical periods (i.e., around key pest emergence, egglaying, etc.).

6. Corrective actions are identified and a timeline is established for 10 implementation.

7. Scouting results, corrective actions and evaluation of results are noted 10 legibly in writing and these records are maintained for at least three years.

8. Identifying soil compaction is part of regular monitoring and problem 10 areas are corrected.

9. Mowing height is set as high as practical to maximize shading and 10 prevent weed growth and adjusted according to weather conditions,

growth rate of the grass and the variety of turf.

10. Any one mowing removes 1/3 or less of leaf tissue. 10

11. Mower blades are kept sharp to ensure a clean cut. 10

12. Grass clippings are generally not removed. If wet and clumpy, grass 10 clippings are re-mowed or removed and composted.

13. After mowing, grass clippings are removed from paved areas (e.g., 5 sidewalks, parking areas, road and driveways) and composted or otherwise properly disposed of to avoid movement into sewer systems.

Turf Cultural Management

14. Thatch accumulation is monitored and corrected if excessive (> 1.25”). 10

15. Soil is tested at least every five years for phosphorus, potassium and pH. 10

16. Fertilizers and other soil amendments are applied according to soil and/or 10 plant foliage test results, not on a routine or regularly scheduled basis (except for nitrogen, which may be applied on a scheduled basis).

17. Fertilizers are applied several times (e.g., spring, summer, fall) rather 5 than one single heavy application.

18. When fertilizers are applied, they are watered into the soil to reduce wind 5 or rain-induced movement from the site.

19. When fertilizers are needed, at least 35% of the total annual nitrogen is in 5

slow-release form to reduce pest flareups due to flushes of nitrogen.

20. Bonus: Fertilizers are selected to include those that may promote thatch 5 decomposition (e.g., composted organic materials).

If turf moisture requirements are managed effectively without irrigation, score items 19-21 as N/A.

21. Irrigation is scheduled according to need and anticipated weather, not on 10 a routine or regularly scheduled basis. Athletic fields may be irrigated on a scheduled basis that is adjusted for rainfall to ensure adequate moisture for recovery and growth.

22. When irrigation is applied, it is sufficient to wet the entire turf root zone to 5 reduce shallow rooting, but may be split to allow infiltration and avoid runoff. Exceptions are made for specific disease pressure (e.g., summer patch) dictating more frequent and less deep irrigations.

23. If moisture-dependent turf diseases are a problem (e.g., pythium, 5 rhizoctonia blight, rusts), irrigation is scheduled to minimize the amount of time grass blades remain wet to reduce opportunities for disease development (i.e., turf is dry before nightfall).

24. Bare soil patches in turf areas are addressed promptly by correcting the 5 underlying cause (e.g., excessive traffic, inappropriate seed mix, poor drainage) before reseeding.

25. When renovating, planting new turf or overseeding, seed mixes are 5 selected to address site-specific growing conditions (e.g., cool vs. warm-

season, endophyte enhancements, tolerance to key pests, tolerance to levels of shading and annual rainfall, etc.). Non-essential traffic on athletic fields (e.g., band, phys ed) is adjusted as needed to allow repair.

26. Soil compaction is minimized by:

a) rotating mowing patterns; 5

b) using flotation tires on equipment; 5

Turf Cultural Management Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org V 3.2 Page 108 Part II. IPM Standards for School Grounds

c) periodic topdressing and/or aeration; and/or 5

d) restricting foot and equipment traffic when soil is overly wet due to 5 irrigation or heavy rain.

27. Core cultivation uses hollow tines at least 3” long and is scheduled when 5 soil moisture is adequate to pull cores but dry enough to avoid ruts and compaction from equipment. Core cultivators are of the type that do not add to compaction. If turf aeration, infiltration and compaction are managed adequately without core aeration, score as N/A.

28. Turf aeration is timed to avoid periods when heavy seeding weeds (e.g., 5 crabgrass, dandelions) are germinating or setting seeds.

29. Topdressing material is free from glass, rocks or other debris and 5

matches the soil type of the root zone as closely as possible. If topdressing is not used, score as N/A.

30. Bonus: If sand topdressing is used, particle size distribution is close to 5 that specified for U.S. Golf Association putting greens.

Total Points Available for Turf Cultural Management 240

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Turf Cultural Management

Resources for Turf Cultural Management

Benefits of Healthy Turfgrass Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 10. IPM for school lawns. Pp. 71-80. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. US EPA. ! Each 25 square feet of turfgrass produces Monitoring, tolerance levels, evaluation, cultural enough oxygen for one person for one day. management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html. ! Turf cover reduces rain water runoff and soil erosion. nd Fermanian et al. 1997. Controlling Turfgrass Pests. 2 ! A thick, healthy lawn allows 15 times less ed. Diseases, insects and weeds; color and B&W photos, runoff than poor quality turf. fertilization, irrigation, mowing, site preparation, thatch and compaction management. Prentice Hall, Upper ! Turf builds soil through decomposition of Saddle River NJ. ISBN 0-13-462433-5. organic matter.

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 5 Turfgrass ! Turf absorbs greenhouse gasses such as Management. Pp. 37-47. In Integrated Pest carbon dioxide.

Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF ! Turf traps pollen and dust for breakdown by format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/ soil microbes. agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm. ! Turf reduces noise, glare and heat. Mugaas, R.J., M.L. Agnew and N.E. Christians, 1997. Turfgrass Management for Protecting Surface Water - Source: Mugaas et al., 1997. Quality. University of Minnesota and Iowa State University Extension. Soil preparation, fertilization, irrigation, minimizing runoff and leaching of fertilizers and pesticides. Available at http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/DG5726.html.

New Jersey Environmental Federation. 2003. Lawn Care Without Toxic Chemicals. A 2-page brochure containing information on lawn care without toxic chemicals and laws and regulations on using chemicals on your lawn. http://www.cleanwateraction.org/ pdf/nj_lawns.pdf.

Turf Cultural Management

Samples, T. and H. Savoy Jr., 1999. Chapter 7. Turfgrass, pp. 7.1 to 7.22. In Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes, Vail and Croker, eds. University of Tennesee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639. Line drawings, variety selection, soil preparation, fertilization, irrigation and aeration. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. Phone (865) 974-7300, Fax (865) 974-2713.

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. 259 pp. Line drawings, soil and site preparation, fertilization, irrigation, mowing. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers University, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. Phone: 732/932-9762, Web site http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

Stauffer et al., 1998. Chapter 5. IPM for school athletic fields and grounds. Pp. 5-1 to 5-39. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Seed selection, mowing, fertilization, thatch management, overseeding. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/ schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 2: Outdoor turf management. 40 Pp. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Limited color photos, classifying athletic fields and detailed information on mowing, irrigation, aerification, topdressing, overseeding of athletic fields and ornamental turf. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Massachusetts. 2002. Turf IPM Facts. Turf IPM Facts is a packet of over sixty up-to-date fact sheets and is a source of research-based professional lawn care information, with a focus on integrated pest management principles. The individual fact sheets in Turf IPM Facts include information about: key cultural practices for maintaining a healthy and functional lawn, common turf pests and problems, how to manage lawn problems intelligently, using IPM principles and techniques and scouting for problems, identifying problems and creating solutions. Turf IPM Facts is $40 per copy, and can be purchased by contacting the UMass Extension Bookstore, Draper Hall, 40 Campus Center Way, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9244, phone: (413) 545- 2717, fax: (413) 545-5174, [email protected], www.umass.edu/umext/bookstore.

University of Minnesota. 2003. IPM of Midwest Landscapes. Cooperative project with the NCR-193 North Central Committee on Landscape IPM. Includes information on tree, shrub and turf pests. Many topics included in this publication are applicable beyond the Midwest region. For more information on this publication, please visit the website located at http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/. To order, download the order form on the web site. With questions, contact Susan Ratcliffe via email or by phone at (217) 333-9656 and [email protected].

Note items requiring additional action:

About Management Units

A management unit is an area that is typically treated the same within the area. Dividing landscapes into management units permits more accurate response to site-specific conditions. For example, front lawn and back lawns may have different soil types, shading, slopes, etc. By sampling and testing soil from those areas separately, test results and fertilization will be more precise and give better results.

Turf Disease & Nematode Pest Management

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if turf disease and nematode pests are not a problem requiring action at your school and proceed to the Section 47. Turf Insect and Mite Management.)

Section 20. Dollar Spot Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Dollar Spot is not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Dollar Spot are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and effectively implemented.

2. When Dollar Spot problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., correct nitrogen deficiency, plant resistant varieties).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for Dollar Spot management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Dollar Spot problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Dollar Spot symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Dollar Spot. 5

Total Points Available for Dollar Spot Management 60

Total Points Earned for Dollar Spot Management

Section 21. Fairy Ring Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Fairy Ring is not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Fairy Ring are defined in the IPM Plan and 20 effectively implemented.

2. Pesticides are ineffective and not used for Fairy Ring. 20

3. When Fairy Ring problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20

corrected (e.g., remove buried stumps or wood debris, remove excess

thatch).

4. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for Fairy Ring management.

5. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Fairy Ring problems.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Fairy Ring symptoms on sight. 10

5 7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Fairy Ring.

Total Points Available for Fairy Ring Management 80

Total Points Earned for Fairy Ring Management

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 22. Gray Leafspot Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Gray Leafspot is not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Gray Leafspot are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and effectively implemented.

2. When Gray Leafspot problems occur, contributing factors are identified 20 and corrected (e.g., improve air circulation, reduce nitrogen fertilizer rates during hot and humid weather, reduce shading, schedule irrigation so that grass blades dry quickly after irrigating).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for Gray Leafspot management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Gray Leafspot problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Gray Leafspot symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Gray Leafspot. 5

Total Points Available for Gray Leafspot Management 60

Total Points Earned for Gray Leafspot Management

Section 23. Leafspot & Melting Out Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Leafspot and Melting Out are not a Available Earned problem requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Leafspot and Melting Out are defined in 20 the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When Leafspot and Melting Out problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., moderate nitrogen fertilizer rates, raise mowing height, diversify monocultures of perennial ryegrass).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for Leafspot and Melting Out management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Leafspot and Melting Out problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Leafspot and Melting Out symptoms 10 on sight.

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Leafspot and Melting 5 Out.

Total Points Available for Leafspot and Melting Out Management 60

Total Points Earned for Leafspot and Melting Out Management

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 24. Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch Available Earned are not problems requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch are 20 defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch problems occur, contributing 20 factors are identified and corrected (e.g., avoid moisture stress, moderate fertilizer use to reduce lush soft growth, resistant varieties are planted).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch 10 symptoms on sight.

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Necrotic Ring 5 Spot/Summer Patch. Total Points Available for Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch Mgt. 60

Total Points Earned for Necrotic Ring Spot/Summer Patch Management

Section 25. Powdery Mildew Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Powdery Mildew is not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Powdery Mildew are defined in the IPM 20 Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When Powdery Mildew problems occur, contributing factors are identified 20 and corrected (e.g., increase air circulation, plant resistant varieties or species in powdery mildew prone areas, reduce shading).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for Powdery Mildew pest management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Powdery Mildew problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Powdery Mildew symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Powdery Mildew. 5

Total Points Available for Powdery Mildew Management 60

Total Points Earned for Powdery Mildew Management

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 26. Pythium Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Pythium is not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Pythium are defined in the IPM Plan and 20 effectively implemented.

2. When Pythium problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., improve aeration and drainage, mow only when turf is dry, reduce irrigation).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for Pythium pest management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Pythium problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Pythium symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Pythium. 5

Total Points Available for Pythium Management 60

Total Points Earned for Pythium Management

Section 27. Red Thread Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Red Thread is not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Red Thread are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and used to guide management decisions.

2. When Red Thread problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., avoid overwatering especially during cool weather, correct nitrogen deficiencies with a quick release nitrogen fertilizer).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5

for Red Thread management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Red Thread problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Red Thread symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Red Thread. 5

Total Points Available for Red Thread Management 60

Total Points Earned for Red Thread Management

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 28. Rhizoctonia Blight (Brown Patch) Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Rhizoctonia Blight is not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for Rhizoctonia Blight are defined in the IPM 20 Plan. Actions are taken only when the disease has been correctly diagnosed and action thresholds are reached.

2. When Rhizoctonia Blight problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., increase aeration, improve drainage, moderate nitrogen fertilizer rates, plant resistant varieties).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for Rhizoctonia Blight management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report Rhizoctonia Blight problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify Rhizoctonia Blight symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for Rhizoctonia Blight. 5

Total Points Available for Rhizoctonia Blight Management 60

Total Points Earned for Rhizoctonia Management

Section 29. Rusts Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if rusts are not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for rusts are defined in the IPM Plan and 20 effectively implemented.

2. When rust problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., restore turf vigor, schedule irrigation so that grass blades dry quickly after irrigating).

3. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods 5

used for rust management.

4. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually 10 to recognize and report rust problems.

5. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify rust symptoms on sight. 10

6. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for rust. 5

Total Points Available for Rust Management 60

Total Points Earned for Rust Management

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 30. Other Turf Diseases & Nematode Pests Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if there are no other turf disease or Available Earned nematode pests requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for these additional turf diseases or 20 nematodes are defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When problems occur, the disease or nematode is identified correctly before taking action. Actions are appropriate for the problem. 20

3. Contributing factors are identified and corrected. List here: 20

4. Action thresholds for key turf diseases are adjusted according to the level 10 of need, i.e. lawns can sustain higher pest levels than athletic fields during the playing season before action is justified.

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for turf disease and nematode pest management.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify on sight symptoms of these additional 10 disease or nematode pests of turf common to the region. List here:

7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for turf disease and 5 nematode pest management.

Total Points Available for Other Turf Disease and Nematode Mgt. 80

Total Points Earned for Other Turf Disease and Nematode Mgt.

Notes:

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Resources for Turf Disease and Nematode Pest Management

Choate, P.M., T.R.Fasulo and P.H. Hope. 2000. IPM for School Lawns Lawn Pest Tests. Series of interactive quizzes on lawn pests based on the CD-ROM Pests in and “Because the bodies of children and youths are often in Around the Home. Available at direct contact with the grass, use of pesticides on lawns http://extlab7.entnem.ufl.edu/Pest_test/. increasingly raises concerns among parents and health professionals. On the other hand, coaches and school Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 10. IPM for school administrators are under pressure to insure quality turf for lawns. Pp. 71-80. In IPM for Schools: A How-to use by students and by community athletic leagues. In Manual. US EPA. Monitoring, tolerance levels, addition, the competence of landscape maintenance staff is evaluation, Fusarium management. Available at often judged by the aesthetic appearance of the lawns that http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/ surround most schools. These various viewpoints often school/index.html. come into conflict when pests threaten lawns.

Fermanian, T.W., M.C. Shurtleff, R. Randell, H.T. The key to lawn IPM is the use of cultural practices that Wilkinson and P.L. Nixon. 1997. Controlling optimize growth of grasses and minimize conditions nd Turfgrass Pests. 2 ed. 655 pp. Prentice Hall, favorable to pest insects, weeds or pathogens. Upper Saddle River NJ. ISBN 0-13-462433-5. Color and B&W photos; identification, biology, An IPM approach to lawn management begins with a monitoring and management of insect, disease monitoring program. Monitoring enables Pest Managers to and weed pests; cultural management; do the following: application equipment calibration; pesticide safety. Available from Amazon.com. ! identify the pest(s)

Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Turfgrass. ! identify any natural enemies of the pest(s) University of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and ! apply preventive methods to reduce the occurrence of management. Available at pest poblems http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.t urfgrass.html. ! determine if any treatment is needed

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 7 ! determine where, when and what kinds of treatments Turfgrass Diseases. Pp. 55-65. In Integrated are needed Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at ! evaluate and fine-tune treatments as the pest http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/ management program continues over the seasons” schoolipm/. - Excerpt from Daar et al. 1997 North Carolina State University. 1995. TurfFiles Web Site. Color images, descriptions, biology and management. http://www.turffiles.ncsu.edu

Schumann, Gail. 2002. Disease Management in Lawns and Grounds 1-page fact sheet contains common diseases and tips on how to identify them. Available at http://www.umassturf.org/publications/fact_sheets/diseases/ diseases_lawns_grounds.pdf.

Schumann, Gail. 2002. Why is it so Difficult to Control Anthracnose?, a 2-page fact sheet with tips to identify and control anthracnose available at http://www.umassturf.org/publications/fact_sheets/diseases/ control_anthracnose.pdf.

Stauffer et al., 1998. IPM for school turfgrass. Pp. 5-6 to 5-37. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Turfgrass disease calendar, preparing samples for shipment to a diagnostic library. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Smiley, R. W., P. H. Dernoeden and B. B. Clarke. 1992. Compendium of Turfgrass Diseases. 2nd Edition. 98 pp. Color and B&W photos, line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring and management. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul MN. ISBN 0-89054-124-8.

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. 259 pp. Line drawings, identification key to common turfgrass diseases, biology, monitoring and management. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers University, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. Phone: 732/932-9762, Web site http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 3: Outdoor insect and disease management. 7 pp. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Identification, biology, management. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Minnesota. 2003. IPM of Midwest Landscapes. Cooperative project with the NCR-193 North Central Committee on Landscape IPM. Includes information on tree, shrub and turf pests. Many topics included in this publication are applicable beyond the Midwest region. For more information on this publication, please visit the website located at http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/. To order, download the order form on the web site. With questions, contact Susan Ratcliffe via email or by phone at (217) 333-9656 and [email protected].

Windham, A., 1999. Chapter 9. Turfgrass diseases and their control, pp. 9.1 to 9.8. In Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes, Vail and Croker, eds. University of Tennesee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639. Description, host varieties and management of 16 common diseases of turf plants. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. Phone (865) 974-7300, Fax (865) 974-2713.

Notes:

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Turf Insect & Mite Pest Management [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if turf insect and mite pests are not a problem requiring action at your school and proceed to Section 53. Vertebrate Pests)

Section 31. Billbugs Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if billbugs are not a problem requiring Available Earned action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for billbugs are defined in the IPM Plan and 20 effectively implemented.

2. When billbug problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., plant resistant varieties, reduce thatch buildup).

3. Billbug larvae are sampled by pulling turf and examining the crown areas 10 for larvae and frass and/or adults are sampled using pitfall traps (i.e., place cups or cans in the ground so that the lip is at ground level.)

4. Insecticides are applied only when billbug adults are present and before 10 substantial egg laying has occurred. If billbugs are managed effectively without insecticides, score as N/A.

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for billbug pest management.

6. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report billbugs and damage.

7. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify billbugs common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., Bluegrass, Denver, Hunting, Lesser, Phoenix Billbugs).

8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for billbug management. 5

Total Points Available for Billbug Management 80

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Billbug Management

Turf Disease & Nematode Pests

Section 32. Chinch Bugs Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if chinch bugs are not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for chinch bugs are defined in the IPM Plan 20 on School and effectively implemented. Grounds

2. When chinch bug problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., correct compaction to improve water infiltration, increase irrigation during hot dry weather, moderate fertilizer rates and use slow release forms of nitrogen, plant resistant varieties, reduce thatch buildup).

3. Pest Manager can distinguish chinch bugs from beneficial big-eyed bugs. 10

4. Turf is monitored just before and during the hottest months of the season 10 for chinch bugs (i.e., starting in April in Florida, late June in Wisconsin),

and weekly at the start of the second generation, which is often the most

damaging.

5. Chinch bug are sampled by the flotation method (i.e., using a board, 10

gloves or other hand protection, press a coffee can with both ends cut out two to three inches into the soil, fill with water and count the chinch bugs that float to the surface within five to ten minutes).

6. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for chinch bug management.

7. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report chinch bugs and damage.

8. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify chinch bugs common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., Hairy, Southern Chinch Bugs).

9. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for chinch bug 5 management.

Total Points Available for Chinch Bug Management 90

Total Points Earned for Chinch Bug Management

Pests

Section 33. Mole Crickets Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if Mole Crickets are not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for mole crickets are defined in the IPM Plan 20 and effectively implemented.

2. When mole cricket problems occur, contributing factors are identified and 20 corrected (e.g., irrigate deeply and less frequently to encourage deep rooting, plant resistant varieties, raise mower height).

3. Mole crickets are sampled by a soapy water drench (i.e., drench a 10 measured area of turf with soapy water poured from a sprinkling can, and count the number of mole crickets that emerge) and/or turf is monitored in early season for adults forming calling chambers.

4. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 areas instead of treating an entire lawn or field. Treated areas are re- sampled to evaluate results and retreated if needed. If mole crickets are managed effectively without insecticides, score as N/A.

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for mole cricket pest management.

6. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report mole crickets and damage.

7. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify mole crickets common to the region 10 on sight (e.g., Northern, Short-Winged, Southern, Tawny Mole Crickets).

8. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for mole cricket 5 management.

Total Points Available for Mole Cricket Management 80

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Mole Cricket Management

Notes:

Pests

Section 34. Turf-Feeding Caterpillars: Armyworms, Cutworms, Sod Webworms Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if turf-feeding caterpillars are not a Available Earned problem requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem turf-feeding caterpillars are 20 defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When problems occur, the caterpillar is identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the problem caterpillar.

3. When turf-feeding caterpillar problems occur, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., correct problem drainage areas, moderate fertilizer rates and use slow release forms of nitrogen, reduce thatch buildup).

4. Action thresholds are based on numbers of feeding caterpillars. 10

5. Pesticides, if used, are applied only when feeding caterpillars are 10

present. If caterpillars are effectively managed without pesticides, score as N/A.

6. Turf-feeding caterpillars are sampled by a soapy water drench (i.e., 10 drenching a measured area of turf with soapy water poured from a sprinkling can, and counting the number of turf-feeding caterpillars that emerge) and/or pheromone or blacklight traps for adults.

7. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 areas instead of treating an entire lawn or field. If caterpillars are effectively managed without pesticides, score as N/A.

8. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for turf-feeding caterpillar pest management.

9. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report turf-feeding caterpillars and damage.

10. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify turf-feeding caterpillars common to 10 the region on sight (e.g., armyworms, cutworms, Sod Webworms).

11. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for turf-feeding caterpillar 5 management.

Total Points Available for Turf-Feeding Caterpillar Management 120

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Turf-Feeding Caterpillar Management

Pests

Section 35. White Grubs Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if white grubs are not a problem Available Earned requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Action thresholds for problem white grubs are defined in the IPM 20 on School Plan and effectively implemented. Grounds

2. When problems occur, the white grub is identified correctly before taking 20 action. Actions are appropriate for the problem grub.

3. When white grub problems occur, factors contributing to the problem are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., correct compaction to improve water infiltration, correct problem drainage areas).

4. White grubs are sampled by extracting a turf core with a bulb planter or 10 golf course cup cutter, by cutting and peeling back a square of turf and

counting the number of white grubs present, and/or by pheromone or

blacklight trapping of adult beetles.

5. Action thresholds for grubs are appropriate to the problem species (i.e., 10

turf can withstand much higher number of Black Turfgrass Ataenius beetles (30 to 50 per sq. ft.) than European Chafers (0.5 to 7 per sq. ft.) before action is required).

6. Insecticides, if used for grubs, are applied when grubs are small (e.g., fall 10 for Japanese Beetle, Green June Bug). Insecticide treatments are not made after grubs have stopped feeding. If grubs are managed effectively without insecticides, score as N/A.

7. Action thresholds for grubs are appropriate to the pest management unit 10 (i.e. actions are taken on high-profile lawns at a lower threshold than less visible or infrequently used lawn areas).

8. When a pesticide is necessary, a spot application is limited to infested 10 areas instead of treating an entire lawn or field. If grubs are managed effectively without insecticides, score as N/A.

9. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for white grub management.

10. Turf maintenance personnel are provided with training at least annually to 10 recognize and report white grubs and white grub damage.

11. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify white grubs common to the region on 10 sight (e.g., Asiatic Garden Beetle, Black Turfgrass Ataenius, Green June Beetle, Japanese Beetle, Masked Chafer, May/June beetles, Oriental Beetle).

12. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for white grubs. 5

Total Points Available for White Grub Management 130

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for White Grub Management

Pests

Section 36. Other Turf Insect & Mite Pests Points Points [ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if there are no other turf insect or mite Available Earned pest problems requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.)

1. Priority: Action thresholds for these additional turf insect or mite pests 20 are defined in the IPM Plan and effectively implemented.

2. When problems occur, the pest is identified correctly before taking action. 20 Actions are appropriate for the problem pest.

3. Contributing factors are identified and corrected. List here: 20

4. Action thresholds for key turf insect and mite pests are adjusted 10 according to the level of need (i.e. lawns can sustain higher pest levels than athletic fields during the playing season).

5. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for turf insect and mite management.

6. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify these additional turf insect and mite 10 pests on sight. List here:

7. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for turf insect and mite 5 management.

Total Points Available for Other Turf Insect or Mite Pest Management 80

Total Points Earned for Other Turf Insect or Mite Pest Management

Resources for Turf Insect and Mite Pest Management:

Choate, P.M., T.R.Fasulo and P.H. Hope. 2000. Lawn Pest Tests. Series of interactive quizzes on lawn pests based on the CD-ROM Pests in and Around the Home. Available at http://extlab7.entnem.ufl.edu/Pest_test/.

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 10. IPM for school lawns. Pp. 71-80. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. US EPA. Biology, identification, monitoring, chinch bug management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/index.html.

Fermanian, T.W., M.C. Shurtleff, R. Randell, H.T. Wilkinson and P.L. Nixon. 1997. Controlling Turfgrass Pests. 2nd ed. 655 pp. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ. ISBN 0-13-462433-5. Color and B&W photos; identification, biology, monitoring and management of insect, disease and weed pests; cultural management; application equipment calibration; pesticide safety. Available from Amazon.com.

Flint, M.L., ed., 2000. Pests of Turfgrass. University of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and management. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.turfgrass.html.

Frank, J.H., T.R. Fasulo and D.E. Short. 1995. Mcricket; Alternative Methods of Mole Cricket Control. Color and B&W images, identification, biology, monitoring and management of mole crickets. University of Florida. Available at http://molecrickets.ifas.ufl.edu.

Pests

Hellman, J.L., 1998. Turfgrass insects. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. National Park Service, Fort Collins CO. Description, biology, monitoring and management of exotic and common weed species.

Koehler et al., 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Limited color images of turf insect pests and beneficials. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp8.htm.

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 6 Insect Pests of Turfgrass. Pp. 48-54. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

Potter, D.A. 1998. Destructive Turfgrass Insects : Biology, Diagnosis, and Control. 344 pp. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea MI.

Short, D.E. and R.J. Black. 1997. Southern Chinch Bug Management on St. Augustinegrass. University of Florida Cooperative Extension. Line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_LH036.

Short, D.E. and R.J. Black. 1997. Management of Sod Webworm and other Lawn Caterpillars. University of Florida Cooperative Extension. Line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_LH038.

Stauffer et al., 1998. IPM for School Turfgrass. Pp. 5-6 to 5-16. In IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. Biology, identification, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/ publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 3: Turf insects. 3 pp. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Limited color photos, biology, management for white grubs, cutworms and chinch bugs. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Minnesota. 2003. IPM of Midwest Landscapes. Cooperative project with the NCR-193 North Central Committee on Landscape IPM. Includes information on tree, shrub and turf pests. Many topics included in this publication are applicable beyond the Midwest region. For more information on this publication, please visit the website located at http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/. To order, download the order form on the web site. With questions, contact Susan Ratcliffe via email or by phone at (217) 333-9656 and [email protected].

Vail, K. and F. Hale. 1999. Chapter 8. Insects and other pests associated with turf. Pp. 8.1 to 8.21. In K. M. Vail and J. L. Croker, eds. Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes. University of Tennesee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639, Knoxville TN. Biology, identification keys with line drawings, monitoring, management. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, (865) 974-7300, Fax (865) 974-2713.

Vittum, P. 2002. White Grub Management Update. Dr. Pat Vittum, Turf Entomologist with the UMass Extension Turf Program, has written a detailed management update about white grub management for the fall of 2002.

Vittum, P. 2002. White Grub Identification. A 3-page fact sheet designed to help identify specific white grub species. Available at http://www.umassturf.org/publications/ fact_sheets/insects/white_grub_ID.pdf. Notes:

Pests

Vertebrate Pests

Section 37. Vertebrate Pests: Coyotes, Deer, Feral Cats and Dogs, Gophers, Moles, Rabbits, Raccoons, Rodents, Skunks, Snakes, Woodchucks, etc.

[ ] NOT APPLICABLE (Check here if vertebrates are not a problem Points Points requiring action at your school and proceed to the next section.) Available Earned Common Key Pests 1. Priority: Persons handling vertebrate traps or bait stations or inspecting 20 on School suspected harborages (e.g., crawl spaces, attics) are trained in public Grounds health risks and proper hygiene and wear appropriate protective gear.

Traps, bait stations or other surfaces contaminated with urine or feces are properly disposed of or disinfected.

2. Priority: Pest Manager is aware of and understands Federal, state and 20 local laws pertaining to vertebrate pest management and protected/endangered vertebrate species.

3. Priority: Action thresholds for key vertebrate pests are defined in the IPM 20 Plan and effectively implemented.

4. When problems occur with vertebrate pests, contributing factors are 20 identified and corrected (e.g., denying access to food, water or shelter by

exclusion, sanitation, replacing vertebrate pest-prone plants, etc.).

5. Legible records are maintained indicating when key vertebrate pests 10

appear, relative abundance and impacts from one year to the next. This information is used to evaluate and adjust pest management strategies.

6. Pesticides (e.g., toxic baits) are used only when action thresholds are 10 exceeded and only by personnel fully trained in bait selection (coagulant vs. anticoagulants, blocks vs. pellets vs. grain-based, tracking powders, etc.). If vertebrate pests are managed effectively without pesticides, score as N/A.

7. A communications program is in place to school staff and students about 10 their role in preventing and reporting vertebrate pest problems.

8. Priority: Snap traps, if used for vertebrate pests, are placed only in areas 20 not accessible to children (e.g., in locked outbuildings, inaccessible animal dens or tamper-proof containers securely attached to the ground so that the container cannot be picked up or moved). If vertebrate pests are managed effectively without snap traps, score as N/A.

9. Inspections for vertebrate pests include examining school grounds for 10 food sources (e.g., edible plants, fallen fruit and nuts), animal feces, nests, etc. If signs of vertebrate feeding or activity are found, conditions favoring pests are corrected (e.g., modify stretches of dense vegetation or tall ground cover that allow vertebrate pests to travel long distance under cover).

Pests

10. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used 5 for vertebrate pest management.

11. Bonus: Teachers incorporate IPM for vertebrate pests into curricula 10 and/or class projects.

12. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify vertebrate pests common to the 10 region on sight.

13. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for vertebrate pest 5 management.

Total Points Available for Vertebrate Pest Management 150

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Vertebrate Pest Management

Resources for Vertebrate Pest Management:

Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 10. IPM for School Lawns, pp. 71-80; Chapter 18. IPM for weeds on school grounds, pp. 139-143. In IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. US EPA. Transect method for monitoring weeds in lawns; line drawings, identification, tolerance levels, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/ index.html.

Dixon, C. and C. Harper. 1999. Chapter 10. Managing problem vertebrates in the suburban landscape. Pp. 10.1 to 10.20. In K. M. Vail and J. L. Croker, eds. Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes. University of Tennesee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639, Knoxville TN. Description, biology and management of 25 common vertebrate pests, list of suppliers of repellents, traps, etc. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, (865) 974-7300, Fax (865) 974-2713.

Flint, M.L., ed. 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. University of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images, description, biology and management of squirrels, gophers, rabbits and voles. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.home.html.

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 13 Vertebrate Pests. Pp. 98-106. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/ schoolipm.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 4: Outdoor Vertebrate Pest Management. 18 pp. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Identification, biology, damage, management checklist. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm. Notes:

Pests

Weeds

Section 38. Weeds Points Points Available Earned

Common 1. Priority: Action thresholds for key weed pests are defined in the IPM 20 Key Pests Plan and effectively implemented. on School Grounds 2. Rough weed maps or diaries are prepared at least annually for areas 20

where weeds are growing, noting which weeds are present and where.*

20 3. When weed problems occur, contributing factors are identified and corrected (e.g., compaction, low nutrient levels, improper plant placement). 10

4. Legible records are maintained indicating when key weed pests appear, relative abundance and impacts (e.g., control costs, complaints, etc.) from one year to the next. This information is used to evaluate and adjust weed management strategies.

5. Where appropriate, spot treatments are made rather than area-wide 10 treatments (e.g., a wick-type herbicide applicator is used to apply a small amount of herbicide on individual weeds or patches of weeds). If weeds are managed without herbicides, score as N/A.

6. Herbicides are applied when students are not present (e.g., after the 10 school day, weekends, school breaks). If weeds are managed without herbicides, score as N/A.

5 7. Priority: Reduced-Risk or Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for weed management.

8. Bonus: Herbicides are not applied for weeds that are aesthetic problems 10 only.

9. Bonus: Pest Manager can identify problem weeds common to the region on sight, including those designated as noxious weeds or protected 10 plants by federal, state or local laws.

5 10. Bonus: Pest Manager knows the requirements for growth and methods of reproduction for key weed pests. 5 11. Least-Risk Options are the only methods used for weed management.

Pests

Total Points Available for Weed Management 100

Total Points Not Applicable

Total Points Earned for Weed Management

*Indicates great class project idea!

Resources for Weed Management:

Cornell University. A good web site for poisonous plants which includes “School landscape clear photographs and "Ask the Expert" questions and answers that can be integrated into K-12 curriculum offerings. Includes a poisonous plant maintenance budgets rarely database, alphabetical listings for both common and botanical names, a list stretch far enough to of toxic agents in plants and a list of species commonly affected. Available suppress all weeds, even if at http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/index.html. that were desirable. Identify areas where weeds pose Daar et al., 1997. Chapter 10. IPM for School Lawns, pp. 71-80; Chapter potential health or safety 18. IPM for weeds on school grounds, pp. 139-143. In IPM for Schools: A hazards or threaten damage How-to Manual. US EPA. Transect method for monitoring weeds in lawns; to facilities, and distinguish line drawings, identification, tolerance levels, monitoring, management. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/ index.html. these locations from those where weeds are considered Fermanian, T.W., M.C. Shurtleff, R. Randell, H.T. Wilkinson and P.L. aesthetic problems alone.” nd Nixon. 1997. Controlling Turfgrass Pests. 2 ed. 655 pp. Prentice Hall, - Excerpt from Daar et al. Upper Saddle River NJ. ISBN 0-13-462433-5. Color and B&W photos; 1997 identification, biology, monitoring and management of insect, disease and weed pests; cultural management; application equipment calibration; pesticide safety. Available from Amazon.com.

Flint, M. L., J. Kwan and C. Reynolds. 2000. Weed Photo Gallery Web Site. University of California Statewide IPM Project. Color images of over 100 common weeds. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/ weeds_common.html.

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Chpt. 8 Weeds. Pp. 66-79. In Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

New Jersey Weed Gallery. Rutgers University. Color weed photos of more than 100 weed species, indexed by common and Latin names, plus thumbnail photo index. Available at http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/weeds/.

Raupp, M.J., 1998. Exotic weeds I and II; W.O. Lamp, Thistles, Leafy Spurge; and C.A. Casey, Weeds of developed and historic sites. In The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual, T. Cacek, ed. National Park Service, Fort Collins CO. Description, biology, monitoring and management of exotic and common weed species.

Stier et al., 1999. Section 2: Outdoor turf management; Appendix. In Wisconsin’s School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Limited color photos, weed management by level of use for athletic fields and landscape areas; herbicide comparisons, corn gluten meal as a preemergent herbicide. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

University of Illinois Extension. 2003. Weeds to Watch. Bulletin identifies 16 problem weeds emerging in Midwest agriculture. Each species is characterized by its current distribution and occurrence. The back of the bulletin contains information about identification, an explanation about why a species is a problem, and management tactics to aid in controlling the weed. Available at http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/ cespubs/pest/articles/200324g.html.

Pests

Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. University of Florida. With the popularity of butterfly gardens and botanical gardens in schoolyards, some schools are risking children with poisonous plants and themselves with invasive and non-native species. The University of Florida's Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants' web site lists many of these plants along with their photographs. Available at http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/ K-12 teachers can also order free murals on native and invasive plants from the Center. Posters, card sets, coloring books and other teaching tools are also available for purchase. The site isn't just for Florida but contains links to listings of Non-Native Invasive Aquatic and Wetland Plants in the United States at http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/seagrant/invlists.html. A book on Identification and Biology of Non-native Plants in Florida's Natural Areas at http://ifasbooks.ufl.edu/merchant2/merchant.mv ?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=IFASBOOKS&Product_Code=SP+257.

Notes:

Pests

Appendix A. Reduced-Risk and Least-Risk Pest Control Option Definitions

Introduction

How do you decide which is the best legally permitted option to use when pests exceed acceptable levels? Safety (degree of risk) should be primary considerations, along with effectiveness, convenience and cost.

Risk depends upon hazard (toxicity) and exposure. A measure of hazard to humans and other mammals is provided by signal words on pesticide labels. The most toxic are labeled DANGER, followed by WARNING. The least toxic are labeled CAUTION. Other potential hazards include possible carcinogens (cancer-causing substance) or endocrine-disrupting ingredients (substances that may adversely affect the action of hormones in wildlife and humans). These criteria are not identified on the pesticide labels. Risk occurs where humans, wildlife or other non-target organisms are exposed, or come into contact with, hazardous substances.

We have devised the following system to identify and direct those working in schools and other sensitive environments towards pest control options with lesser risks. A Pest Control Options Review Committee, appointed by the IPM Institute and made up of professionals from Universities, Extension, government agencies, industry and public and environmental organizations, maintains these definitions and may rule on exceptions.

Certified schools may not use pesticides labeled WARNING or DANGER. Certified schools may use some pesticides labeled CAUTION, if they meet the criteria defined on the following page, which consider primarily toxicity to mammals, birds, fish and beneficial organisms and low potential for groundwater contamination. All pesticides are to be used only when needed according to monitoring, inspection and predetermined action thresholds, and based on proper pest identification and diagnosis.

The Pest Control Option Review Committee may choose to exempt specific materials from these restrictions where the formulation or use greatly reduces potential for exposure or where lesser risk options are not available to address significant pest threats. These exempted materials will be added to the Pest Control Options List with an explanation of why the exemption was enacted.

Any system to rank risks and direct use towards lesser risk alternatives will be less than perfect. Using the system presented here leaves important concerns unanswered. For example, is using a large quantity of a material defined as “least-risk” better than using a smaller amount of a “reduced-risk” material? This system does not fully evaluate the inert ingredients in pesticides, due to the difficulty in obtaining that information. Finally, reducing risk is ultimately the responsibility of everyone involved in the selection, purchase, transportation, storage and use all pest control options in a legal and responsible manner, following all label directions.

Pests

Definitions

For a list of options meeting the Reduced or Least-Risk definitions, contact the IPM Institute or visit the Website at http://www.ipminstitute.org. NOTE: Not all materials meeting these definitions may be permitted in your state or region. The user bears all responsibility for conforming to Federal, state and local regulations for use of all pesticides.

Least-Risk Options:

1. Pesticides with very low mammalian toxicity via oral, inhalation or dermal routes, no eye effects, mild or slight skin effects (= EPA Toxicity Category IV); or

2. EPA Toxicity Category III insecticidal baits in ready-to-use, non-volatile formulations and placed in areas inaccessible to children and the general public; or

3. EPA Toxicity Category III rodenticides in bait-block, non-volatile formulations placed in tamper-proof bait stations in areas inaccessible to children and the general public; or

4. Non-chemical pest control options (cultural, mechanical, physical controls) with no potential physical hazards; or

5. Pesticides classified by the US EPA as exempt materials under 40 CFR 152.25.

Reduced-Risk Options:

1. Pesticides with low mammalian toxicity via oral, inhalation and dermal routes, moderate eye and skin effects (= EPA Toxicity Category III) and not meeting criteria for Least-Risk.

Prohibited Pest Control Options:

Prohibited for indoor or outdoor use:

1. Any pesticides containing active ingredients classified as known, likely or probable carcinogens or reproductive toxins according to any of the following lists: State of California EPA List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity, State of Illinois EPA List of Known Endocrine Disrupters, US EPA List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential.

2. Any pesticides containing inert ingredients included on US EPA’s List 1: Inerts of Toxicological Concern.

3. Any formulations and uses presenting a potential physical hazard or dust/powder inhalation hazard to building occupants.

In addition, any pesticides meeting the following criteria are prohibited for use outdoors:

4. Any pesticides with label precautionary statements including “toxic” or “extremely toxic” to bees, birds, fish or wildlife.**

5. Any pesticides with label precautionary statements including specific warnings regarding ground or surface water contamination.

6. Any pesticide implicated as harmful to natural enemies of pests in school environments.

**Does not apply to pesticides used as per label directions to control bird, fish, wildlife or stinging insect pests.

Pest Control Option List

Appendix B. Glossary

Synonyms are listed in parentheses:

Action Thresholds (Action Level) – The number of pests or level of pest damage requiring action to prevent damage from exceeding tolerable levels. For some pests, the action threshold will be one, for example a single yellowjacket in a classroom.

For other pests, action may be needed before pests or pest damage appears. In those cases, an action threshold may be defined as a set of conditions, e.g., plant is at a susceptible stage and all or nearly all environmental conditions are in place for a pest problem to occur. For example, fire blight disease of rosaceous landscape plants requires (1) warm temperatures (above an average temperature of 60 F for three consecutive days); (2) a route of entry through the plants’ defenses (open blossoms, hail damage or other wounds); (3) free water (heavy dew, rainfall); plus (4) availability of bacterial spores. An action level for fire-blight-susceptible plants can be defined based on the first three requirements, especially if the site or adjacent sites have a history of fire blight infected plants.

Including written action thresholds in the IPM Plan presents a clear statement of intentions before a pest event occurs. This guidance can be invaluable to those called to respond to a pest situation and can prevent under or over-reactions to pest problems.

For a great explanation of action thresholds, see Maryland Department of Agriculture, “Action Thresholds in School IPM Programs.” Pesticide Regulation Section, Annapolis, MD. 10 pp. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/tp.htm.

Anti-Microbial Pesticide – A pesticide used for control of microbial pests including viruses, bacteria, algae and protozoa or the purpose of disinfecting or sanitizing. Anti-microbials do not include fungicides used on plants.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) – An approach to maintaining insect, mite, disease, nematode, weed, or vertebrate pests at tolerable levels by using biological knowledge of pests and pest behavior to implement long-term, least-risk solutions. Pests and pest damage are monitored and action is taken only when necessary to prevent damage from exceeding tolerable levels. Actions are selected with the least risk to humans, other non-pest organisms and the environment and are carefully timed for maximum effectiveness. Strategies are implemented to resolve factors that contribute to pest problems, avoiding the need to take action in the future.

IPM Committee – This group addresses pest management issues on an ongoing basis. The committee should include representation from all segments of the school community, including administration, staff and parents. The role of the committee is to formulate IPM policy and plans and provide oversight and ongoing decision-making, incorporating input from all interested parties.

IPM Continuum – The progression of pest management strategies towards least-risk, long-term prevention and avoidance of pest problems. The Continuum begins with a focus on monitoring and chemical suppression when pests approach unacceptable levels, and ends with balanced systems where pests remain at tolerable levels with minimal cultural and biological interventions. (For more information, see back cover.)

IPM Coordinator – The school employee responsible for day-to-day interpretation of the IPM policy for a school or school system. The IPM Coordinator may or may not be a pest management professional, but is the decision-maker who receives specialized training in IPM, accesses the advice of professionals and chooses a course of action. For example, the IPM Coordinator may be the facilities manager or environmental manager. For schools with an in-house professional pest management program, the IPM Coordinator may also be the Pest Manager.

IPM Plan – A written document including specific information regarding the operation of the school’s IPM program, such as IPM roles for all school staff, parents, students and other community members; pesticide application notification policies; list of key pests; action thresholds, a risk-based hierarchy of

Glossary

control options and prevention/avoidance strategies to be used for key pests; inspection schedules for school facilities; policies for working with outside contractors; lists of resources for resolving technical questions; and other pertinent information. The IPM Plan provides an excellent tool for training new personnel including during management transitions. The Plan is a “living document” updated frequently with new information as it becomes available. IPM Plans are often developed in binder format so that information can be easily added and updated.

IPM Policy – A written document stating a school’s commitment to IPM and defining overall IPM goals. This document is updated periodically and used to guide decision-making as the IPM program is implemented.

Key Pest – An insect, mite, disease, nematode or weed that frequently results in unacceptable damage and thus typically requires a control action. Key pests vary from one region to the next. Key pest status is dependent on action thresholds set for the pest. For example, cutworms may be a key pest on high- visibility athletic fields, but not on adjacent lawn areas where the typical level of cutworm damage is very tolerable. Routine or regularly scheduled pesticide applications can mask key pests, which may not become apparent for some time after routine pesticide applications have been stopped.

Key Plant – A plant that frequently experiences unacceptable pest damage and thus typically requires treatment. Key plants very from one region to the next. Poor care or improper placement within the landscape can result in a plant becoming a key plant by increasing its susceptibility to pest problems.

Least-Risk Pest Control Options – Pest controls meeting specific criteria listed in Appendix A.

Management Unit – A subdivision that that is typically treated the same. Dividing landscapes into management units permits more accurate response to site-specific conditions. For example, it is often a good idea to divide school lawns into front and back lawn management units. Front lawn and back lawns may have different soil types, shading, slopes, etc. By sampling and testing soil from those areas separately, test results and fertilization will be more precise and give better results. Pest monitoring can also be conducted separately and action thresholds set higher for front lawns, because appearance is more critical than for less visible back lawns. In school buildings, pool and locker room areas, food preparation and service areas, and boiler rooms are examples of specific management units.

Pathogen – A living microorganism, usually a bacterium, fungus, mycoplasm or virus that can cause disease when a host is present under the right environmental conditions.

Pest – A term applied to an organism (e.g., insect, mite, disease, nematode, weed, vertebrate, microbe, etc.) when it causes a problem to humans. A pest in one environment can be very beneficial in another (e.g., many plants considered weeds when found in lawns can be essential to the restoration of wild landscapes after a disturbance such as flood or fire).

Pest Management Roles – The responsibilities assumed by individuals in the school system to maintain an environment free of interference from pest and pesticide risks.

Pest Manager – The individual who conducts actions and/or directs others to maintain effective pest management at a site. The Pest Manager receives specialized pest management and IPM training and is licensed and certified to apply pesticides in schools. The Pest Manager may be a school employee or a professional Pest Manager contracting with the school. For schools with an in-house professional pest management program, the IPM Coordinator may also be the Pest Manager.

Priority Practices – Practices in the Standards labeled “Priority” must be implemented for certification. You must earn at least 80% of the points for each Priority Practice to become IPM Certified.

Reduced-Risk Pest Control Options - Pest controls meeting specific criteria listed in Appendix A.

Scouting (Monitoring, Inspection) – Planned, regular monitoring or a crop, ornamental planting, landscape or structure for the purpose of detecting pests, pest damage or conditions conducive to pests or pest damage.

Glossary

Appendix C. Additional Resources for Implementing IPM in Schools

General Resources Arguello, M., Campbell, K., Kegley, S., Ille, T., Porter, C., Undem, M. 2001. Healthy Schools Campaign Pesticide Action Kit. This English/Spanish informational kit contains resource materials that school administrators and parents can use to help them eliminate hazardous pesticide use around their schools. The kit looks at how to organize community interest in least-toxic Integrated Pest Management policy, and it presents resources on the toxicity and health impacts of pesticides applied in schools. The kit's informational sheets are entitled as follows: "What is the Healthy Schools Act?;" "Ten Steps to a Healthy School;" "Notification: Your Right to Know;" "Kids at Risk: Pesticides & Children's Health;" "What Are the Alternatives;" "Hazards of Common Pesticides;" and "Pesticide Information Online." A sample school policy and a resource list are included. 20p. To order, write Californians for Pesticide Reform, 49 Powell Street, Suite 530, San Francisco, CA 94102. Tel: 1-415-981-3939.

Becker, B., E. Bergman, N. Zuelsdorff, K. Fenster, B. Swingle and J. Larson. 1998. Final Report on Pesticide Use in Wisconsin Schools. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Madison WI.

Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth, J. M. Halloran, M. K. Hansen and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. 272 pp. Consumers Union, Yonkers NY. ISBN 0-89043-900-1.

Boise, P., and K. Feeney. 1999. Reducing Pesticides in Schools: How Two Elementary Schools Control Common Pests Using Integrated Pest Management Strategies. S. Wright, ed. Community Environmental Council, Santa Barbara CA. To request a copy, contact 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, Phone: (805) 963-0583, Fax: (805) 962-9080, Email: [email protected].

Browner, C. 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment. 43 pp. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

Cacek, T., ed. 1998. The National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Manual. National Park Service, Fort Collins CO. Available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/ IPM/natparks/natpark.html.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2002. School IPM Program Website. Available at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov.

Childproofing our Communities Campaign. 2001. Poisoned Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions. 79 pp. Details risk of toxic contamination of school sites and of improper pesticide use in schools; presents specific recommendations for locating schools to avoid contaminated sites and for implementing IPM in schools. Includes a comprehensive "Gold Standard" for IPM in schools. Available in part at http://www.childproofing.org/poisoned schoolsmain.html, and in print from Center for Health, Environment and Justice, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church VA 22040, (703) 237-2249, [email protected].

City of Santa Monica CA. 1998. Custodial Products Bid Specifications. 6 pp. Available at http://pen1.santa- monica.org/environment/policy/purchasing.

City of Seattle. 1999. Pesticide Use Reduction Strategy. Available at http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/environment/ pesticides.htm.

Daar, S., T. Drlik, H. Olkowski and W. Olkowski. 1997. IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco CA. 213 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/pest/school/ index.html.

Daar, S., and T. Drlik. 1997. IPM for school lawns. Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly, 13(4):5-13. Available from the Bio-Integral Resource Center, Berkeley CA. (510) 524-2567. http://www.birc.org

Dame, D.A. and T.R. Fasulo, eds., 2000. National Public Health Pest Control Manual. Chapters currently available on pest and public health issues, safe use of pesticides, application equipment and flies. Available at http://vector.ifas.ufl.edu/manual.htm.

Dickey, P. 1998. Purchasing Environmentally Preferable Cleaning Products: A Critical Review of Programs. 88 pp. Available from Washington Toxics Coalition, Seattle WA. (206) 632-1545. http://www.watoxics.org

Glossary

Dreistadt, S.H., J.K. Clark and M.L. Flint. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs. 328 pp. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No. 3359. ISBN 1-879906-18-X. Color photos, line drawings, identification, biology, monitoring, management. Available from ANR Publications, 6701 San Pablo Ave., Oakland CA 94608-1239. (510) 642-2431, FAX (510) 643-5470.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Healthy School Environments Web Portal. The Healthy School Environments web page is intended to serve as a portal to on-line resources to help facility managers, school administrators, architects, design engineers, school nurses, parents, teachers and staff address environmental health issues in schools. While the information is primarily intended to help improve the environment of school facilities, educational resources for students and teachers can also be found through the Healthy School Environments portal. Visitors can browse resources by geographic area, or search all resources by entering specific keywords into the search box at the top of each page. Available at http://epa.gov/schools.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. "Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Schools." Web page available from US EPA that provides information about IPM and pesticide use in schools. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. "Protecting Children in Schools from Pests and Pesticides." A new brochure on school IPM. Copies of the brochure may be obtained by calling 1-800-490-9198 (EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications) and requesting document number EPA-735-F-02-014.

Fermanian, T.W., M.C. Shurtleff, R. Randell, H.T. Wilkinson and P.L. Nixon. 1997. Controlling Turfgrass Pests. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ. ISBN 0-13-462433-5.

Flint, M.L., ed. 2000. Pests of Home and Landscape. University of California Statewide IPM Project. Available at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.home.html.

Hawkins, B. L. 2001. Facilities Design & Management. "The Minds Behind the Schools." Highlights three individuals whose ideas have contributed to some groundbreaking educational facilities. Two individuals have developed schools that are centers of their communities while the third is expert at designing integrated pest management systems.

Hedges, S. A. 1992. Field Guide for the Management of Structure-Infesting Ants. 155 pp. Franzak & Foster Co., Cleveland OH. (216) 961-4130.

Hollingsworth, C.S. (Ed.). 2000. Integrated Pest Management Guidelines for Structural Pests: Model Guidelines for Training and Implementation. 58 pp. Describes practices that should be used by professional pest control practitioners who wish to be identified as IPM practitioners, but can also be used by homeowners for implementing their own IPM program to control pests such as ants, cockroaches, fleas, flies, rodents and subterranean termites. Available from Extension Bookstore, Draper Hall, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts, 01003. Phone 413-545-0111, E-mail [email protected], Web site http://www.umass.edu/umext/bookstore/ index.html.

Illinois State Department of Public Health. 1999. A Practical Guide to management of Common Pests in Schools. 3- part guide designed to assist Illinois school officials. Part One gives a definition of IPM. Part Two includes five steps in how to build an IPM program. Part Three provides pest-specific IPM practices for schools. Available at http://www.pestweb.com/ipca/contents.html.

Jochim, J. 2003. Pesticides and You. "Inspect, Detect, Correct: Structural Integrated" Pest Management Strategies at School." Describes a model integrated pest management (IPM) program for schools used in Monroe County, Indiana. Addresses how to implement an IPM program, specific school problem areas, specific pest problems and solutions, and common questions.

Koehler, P., T. Fasulo, C. Scherer and M. Downey, Eds. 1999. School IPM Website. University of Florida. Available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu.

Glossary

Loudon, E. 1999. Weed Wars: Pesticide Use in Washington Schools. Washington Toxics Coalition, Seattle WA. 40 pp. Available from Washington Toxics Coalition, Seattle WA. (206) 632-1545. http://www.watoxics.org

Mage, D., Gondy, G., & Yimesghen, G., 2002. Pesticides in Schools: Planning for a Feasibility Study to Determine the Need for A Full-Scale National Study. Temple University Institute for Survey Research. A contracted report regarding the need for a full-scale pesticides in schools study by the US EPA. 36-page report includes Introduction & Background, Elements, Definitions, Summary, Response Rates, the Pre-Pilot Study, Design Effect, Need for a Pilot Study, Conceptualization of the National Study, Statistical Analyses, Budgetary Analysis, Summary & Conclusion, References as well as appendices. To request, contact US EPA or Institute for Survey Research, 1601 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6099.

Maine Cooperative Extension. 2002. Integrated Pest Management for Maine Schools. 146-page document with 13 informative chapters: 1. Organizing a School IPM Program, 2. IPM on School Grounds, 3. Landscape Management, 4. Turfgrass Management, 5. Insect Pests of Turfgrass, 6. Turfgrass Diseases, 7. Weeds, 8. Spiders, 9. Wasps & Bees, 10. Flies & Mosquitoes, 11. Ants, 12. Vertebrate Pests, 13. Outdoor IPM for Maine Schools. Available in PDF format or for order at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

Maine School IPM Program. PowerPoint presentations for school IPM. Maine School IPM Program provides two valuable PowerPoint presentations for school IPM entitled "Maine School IPM" and "Pesticide Application Rules for Schools in Maine." Available at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. Regulations Pertaining to Integrated Pest Management and Notification of Pesticide Use in a Public School. Pesticide Regulation Section, Annapolis MD. 9 pp.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 1995. Contracting Guidelines for Integrated Pest Management Services in Maryland Public Schools. 75 pp.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 1995. Guidelines for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Schools. 9 pp.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 1997. Summary of Structural Pest Control Programs and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Maryland Public School Systems. 37 pp.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 1999. Integrated Pest Management and Notification Requirements for Maryland Public Schools. Pesticide Regulation Section, Annapolis MD. 2 pp.

Merchant, H. F., and M. E. Merchant, 1997. The ABC's of IPM Video Series: Module 1, An Introduction; Module 2, Structural Pest Control; Module 3, Food Handling Areas; Module 4, Bids and Contracts; Module 5, The Administrative Challenge. Available from Distribution and Supply Office, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, P.O. Box 1209, Bryan TX 77806-1209. (979) 845-6571, FAX (979) 862-1566.

Merchant, M. E. 1995. Pest Control in Texas Schools. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, College Station TX. 58 pp.

Miller, N. L. 1995. The Healthy School Handbook. Conquering the Sick Building Syndrome and Other Environmental Hazards In and Around Your School. This book compiles 22 articles concerning sick building syndrome in educational facilities in the following three areas: determining whether a school is sick; assessing causes and initiating treatment; and developing interventions. Articles address such topics as managing the psycho-social aspects of sick building syndrome; how indoor air quality affects pre-existing health problems; adverse effects of artificial lighting on learning and behavior in children; the least toxic approaches to managing pests in schools; the multi-disciplinary approach to treating environmentally triggered illnesses in school-age children; the practical and cost-effective approaches to building, remodeling, and maintaining schools; and the legal aspects of pollution in schools. 446p. To order, contact the National Education Association with ERIC NO: ED426579; ISBN-0-8106-1863-X.

Montana Department of Agriculture. 1994. The Montana Model School Integrated Pest and Pesticide Management Program.

Mulhern, B., K. Shrider-Baer and T. A. Green. 1999. GEMPLER'S IPM Almanac. Gempler's. Available at http://www.ipmalmanac.com.

Glossary

National Foundation for IPM Education. 2002. Proceedings: IPM in Schools Workshop, Crystal City VA. http://www.ipminstitute.org/pdf/IPMISProceedings 103102.pdf.

National School IPM Web site. The CD-ROM contains everything on the Web site including IPM information from IPM experts across the nation that is orientated to administrators, teachers, parents and pest management professionals. It also includes advice on how to develop an IPM program; alternative methods of pest control; information on pests and pesticides safety; news releases on IPM and pests for school newsletters; Powerpoint presentations on; sample contacts and letters; educational materials; links to school related Web site in numerous areas (organized by subject and location); and much more. The web site is now available complete on a CD-ROM for use in stand-alone or networking environments for both PCs and Macs. Additional copies may be purchased through the UF/IFAS Extension Bookstore by calling 800-226-1764 or on the Web at http://ifasbooks.ufl.edu.

New Jersey Environmental Federation. 2003. Safe Pest Control for New Jersey Schools. 2-page brochure on IPM in schools including explanation on how IPM works in a school and a list on New Jersey schools currently using IPM. http://www.cleanwateraction.org/df/nj_ipm.pdf

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. 1999. School Pesticide Use Reduction Program. http://www.pesticide.org/default.htm

Olkowski, W., S. Daar and H. Olkowski. 1991. Common-Sense Pest Control: Least-Toxic Solutions for your Home, Garden, Pets and Community. Taunton Press, Newtown CT. 715 pp.

Pennsylvania IPM Program. 2002. IPM for Pennsylvania Schools: A How-To Manual. A packet of helpful information to aid schools in implementing an IPM plan according to new PA legislation sent out to administrators across Pennsylvania from the PA IPM Program. Available in three PDF parts, including a letter of explanation, copy of the legislation (Acts 35 and 36), Sample Pest Control Information Sheet, Sample Notice of Pesticide Application, Sample Notification Letter for Parents, How to Develop an IPM Policy and Plan, Sample IPM Plan and Updated IPM Policy from PA IPM and PSBA. Available at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schools/school Mangm.htm#paipm.

Pennsylvania State University. 1999. IPM in Schools. http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schools/schoolIPM.html

Pinto, L. J., and S. K. Kraft. 1995. Integrated Pest Management in Schools: IPM Training Manual. Maryland Department of Agriculture, Annapolis MD. 56 pp.

Pinto, L. J., and S. K. Kraft. 1997. IPM in Schools: A Practical Step-by-Step Guide. Maryland Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Regulation Section, Annapolis MD. Video tape and companion guides.

Glossary

Raphael, D. 1999. Integrated Pest Management Program Report: Pesticide List 2000. Department of the Environment, City and County of San Francisco CA. 28 pp.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2003. School IPM Resource Guide for New York and New Jersey. 39-page resource guide is separated into three sections: General Resources for School IPM & IPM, NJ Resources for School IPM and NY Resources for School IPM. Available at http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/IPM/SchoolIPM/ resources.html.

Safer Pest Control Project. 2001. Video: Integrated Pest Management in Schools: A Better Method. Eleven minutes. Designed to help Illinois schools comply with the new state law requiring IPM. Includes overview of the law, IPM basics and referrals to additional IPM resources. Version suitable to other states also available. Available from the Safer Pest Control Project, Chicago IL, (312) 641-5575. http://www.spcpweb.org

Safer Pest Control Project. Integrated Pest Management in Chicago Public Housing: Homer and Beyond. Available from the Safer Pest Control Project, Chicago IL, (312) 641-5575. http://www.spcpweb.org

Smith, E.H. and R.C. Whitman, 1999. NPCA Field Guide to Structural Pests. 800 pp. Color and B & W photos, detailed pest control operator-oriented information on 203 pests, including common and scientific names, biology, color photos and detailed information on how to recognize each pest, suggestions on similar pests, and management information. Available from National Pest Management Association Inc., 8100 Oak Street, Dunn Loring VA 22027. (703) 573-8330, FAX (703) 573-4116, Website http://www.pestworld.org/homeowners/spotlight.

Smith-Fiola, D. ed., 2000. Landscape Integrated Pest Management: An Alternative Approach to Traditional Landscape Maintenance. Sixth Edition. Available from Publications Distribution Center, Cook College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 57 Dudley Road, New Brunswick NJ 08901-8520. (732) 932-9762, Website http://www.rce.rutgers.edu.

Stauffer, S., R. Ferrentino, C. Koplinka-Loehr, K. Sharpe and L. Braband. 1998. IPM Workbook for New York State Schools. IPM Publication No. 605 8/98 1M WP, Cornell Cooperative Extension Community IPM Program, Geneva NY. 155 pp. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/schoolwkbk.pdf.

Stier, J. C., K. Delahaut, P. Pelliterri and B. Becker. 1999. Wisconsin's School Integrated Pest Management Manual. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Madison WI. Available at http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/default.htm.

Texas, State of. 1999. Integrated pest management in schools. Structural Pest Control Board. Website, http://www.spcb.state.tx.us/ipm/ipmindex.htm.

University of Florida Department of Entomology and Nematology, 2000. Best of the Bugs Web Site. List of top web sites covering insects, mites and nematodes, including sites with teaching curricula. http://pests.ifas.ufl.edu/bestbugs/

University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service. 1998. Integrated Pest Management in Schools: IPM Training Manual for Grounds Maintenance. Bulletin #358. College Park MD. 157 pp.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Pest Management in Schools Nationwide Directory. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm

Vail, K. M. 1998. Suggested Guidelines for Managing Pests in Tennessee's Schools: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1603, Knoxville TN. Available at http://web.utk.edu/~extepp/ipm/pb1603.pdf.

Glossary

Vail, K. M. and J. L. Croker, eds. 1999. Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes. University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. PB1639. Available from Mail and Supply Office, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN. (865) 974-7300, FAX (865) 974-2713.

Video Development Services, Inc. 1994. Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting IPM. Houston, TX. Videotape.

West Virginia Department of Agriculture. 1999. Integrated Pest Management in Schools and Other Public Institutions: Best Management Practices. Available from the West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard E., Charleston WV 25305-0170.

Model Legislation

Arizona, State Legislature. State laws for notification of school pesticides and pesticide applications at schools. Details pest management practices and pesticide application procedures at schools in Arizona. Available at http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ ars/15/00152.htm and http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/32/02307.htm.

Beyond Pesticides. 2002. Website includes list of state and local school pesticide policies including sections on Restricted Spray Zones Around School Property, and Integrated Pest Management. Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/ SCHOOLS/schoolpolicies/index.htm.

California. Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 30, No.14. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has launched a new version of its School Integrated Pest Management Website, which includes a step-by-step checklist to help school officials determine when pesticide use must be reported and indicated by posted signs. It also contains links to databases and IPM resources. The address is http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/cfdocs/apps/schoolipm/main.cfm.

CA Drift Around Schools Legislation -AB 947. 2002. Assembly Bill 947 awaits Gov. Davis' signature. If signed into law, AB 947 would allow local agricultural authorities the ability to regulate ANY pesticides within 1/4 mile of schools. This means that increased regulations and conditions could be put into place in order to prevent pesticide drift, or other pesticide-related accidents, around schools if local officials deem it necessary. It would also increase the maximum fine for a serious violation from the current $1,000 to $5,000 and encourage schools to adopt pesticide emergency response plans. This drafting of this bill was a result of a pesticide drift incident in Ventura County in 2000 that caused students and staff to become ill after being exposed to Lorsban, a 'non-restricted' pesticide. The chemical drifted from an adjacent orchard and resulted in exposure to teachers and children alike. Cuyama Elementary School in Santa Barbara County experienced a similar drift incident in 1999 that also resulted in the school being closed down after students and staff were exposed to metam sodium, a highly toxic, "restricted-use" material.

California, State of. 2000. Assembly Bill 947. Proposed bill would require every school located within one quarter mile of agricultural land under production to create and maintain a safety plan that specifically addresses pesticide drift and accidental exposure to pesticides. County commissioners would be empowered to regulate use of pesticides near sensitive sites, including schools, and to levy penalties of up to $5000 for violations.

California, State of. 2000. An act to add Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 12420) to Division 6 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to pesticide regulation. Bill requires persons applying pesticides in schools to have annual training in pesticide safety and handling. Department of Pesticide Regulation is to prepare and distribute training materials to all school districts. http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/ acsframeset2text.htm

California, State of. 2000. An act to add Section 48980.3 to, and to add Article 4 (commencing with Section 17608) to Chapter 5 of Part 10.5 of, the Education Code, and to add Article 17 (commencing with Section 13180) to Chapter 2 of Division 7 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to school safety. The "Healthy Schools Act of 2000" would require schools to employ "effective least toxic pest management practices;" maintain records of all pesticide use for 4 years and make the records available to the public upon request; create a registry of those wishing to be notified of pesticide applications; provide written notification and posted warning signs of expected pesticide use. The bill

Glossary

would also require that pest control operators include information on any school pesticide application that they perform as part of their pesticide use reporting requirements. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2251- 2300/ab2260_ bill_20000831_enrolled.html

Connecticut, State Legislature. House Bill 99-165, An Act Concerning Notice of Pesticide Applications at Schools and Day Care Centers. Ensures certification for pesticide applicators, written statement of the board's policy on pesticide application on school property and a description of any pesticide applications made at the school during the previous school year, written guidelines on how the integrated pest management plan is to be implemented, and restrictions on when spraying can be done. Available at http://www.cga.state.ct.us/ ps99/ act/pa/pa165.htm.

Delahaut, Karen. 2001. "Wisconsin's program for school pest management protects children." Over 67 percent of Wisconsin's schools have participated in Integrated Pest Management, or IPM programming in an effort to reduce health risks to children. A total of 1,395 schools had voluntarily participated in the program by August and new state legislation on pesticide use in schools was enacted in September. Available at http://www1.uwex.edu/news/story.cfm/433.

Florida, State Board of Education. Section 5.5 "Existing Facilities." Requires pest management programs in accordance with the EPA's Integrated Pest Management in Schools guidelines. Reference Pest Control in the School Environment: Adapting Integrated Pest Management (EPA Document 735-F-93-012, August 1993). Available at http://www.firn.edu/doe/rules/55.htm.

Goldenberg, N., 1997. Chapter 27. Legislation, liability and litigation. Pp. 1249-1269. In Handbook of Pest Control, A. Mallis, ed. Federal legislation relating to pesticides and pesticide risks, reducing liability, handling claims. Available from GIE Media, (800) 456-0707 or from Amazon.com.

Illinois, State of. 2003. Senate Bill 1079. SB1079 passed both the Illinois House and Senate unanimously. The bill now goes to the Governor for his signature. With this legislation in place, daycare centers in Illinois will be required to practice Integrated Pest Management and to notify parents 2 days prior to and not more than 30 days in advance of pesticide applications.

Illinois, State of. 2000. An Act to amend the Lawn Care Products Application and Notice Act. Includes notification provisions for pesticide applications on school grounds. Available at http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/ pubact91/acts/91-0099.html.

Illinois, State of. 2000. An act to amend the Structural Pest Control Act. Includes notification provisions for pesticide applications in school buildings. Schools are required adopt an integrated pest management plan unless the school can demonstrate that IPM will be more expensive than current costs for pest control. Available at http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/ pubact91/acts/91-0525.html.

Illinois, Department of Public Health. 1994. Integrated Management of Structural Pests in Schools. 24 pp. Available in pdf format, http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_reg.htm.

Illinois General Assembly. 2003. Public Act 093-0381. An act concerning child care facilities. Act regards pesticide application at daycares and requires licensed day cares to give notification of spraying no more than 30 days before the application. Act also ensures that children must be gone and return no sooner than two hours after pesticide application. Available at http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0381.

Indiana, General Assembly of. 2001. House Bill 1250. Proposed bill would require the governing body of a public school or nonpublic school to adopt and implement policies and procedures designed to effectively control pests and minimize potential exposure of children to pesticides in school buildings; authorizes the state chemist to adopt rules for public and private schools and licensed day care centers concerning the use of pesticides. Available in PDF format. http://www.state.in.us/serv/lsa_billinfo?year=2001&request= getBill&docno=1250

Indiana. Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Dec. 24, 2001. An Indiana environmental group is increasing pressure on 59 Indiana school districts who have not adopted a model school pesticide-use policy developed by the state's school board association. The policy includes provisions to limit pesticide use when children are present, to require staff training, to provide parents and staff with "right-to-know" information and to ensure proper pesticide storage.

Glossary

Maine Board of Pesticides Control. Oct. 18, 2002. The Maine Board of Pesticides Control has adopted a regulation which will require advance notification to parents and staff of pesticide applications, adoption of a school IPM policy by each school board, and appointment of an IPM coordinator for each school. The new regulations apply to all public and private schools serving any grades between and including K through 12 and will go into effect before the start of the 2003-2004 school year. The text of the regulation is available at http://www.thinkfirstspraylast.org/schoolipm.

Maryland, Department of Agriculture. 1999. Regulations pertaining to Integrated Pest Management and Notification of Pesticide Use in a Public Schools. 11 pp. Available in pdf format at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_reg.htm.

Massachusetts, Commonwealth of. 2000. Children’s and Families’ Protection Act. Addresses notification, requires IPM, restricts the types of pesticides that can be used in schools and daycares, and provides for a statewide registry of pesticide use. Available at http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/seslaw00/ sl000085.htm.

Michigan, Department of Agriculture. Description of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 of 1994 and Regulation 637. This act requires that before a pesticide application is made in schools, public buildings and health care facilities, a verifiable IPM Program must be in place fore each building. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/mda/1,1607,7-125-1568_2391 _2450---CI,00.html.

Minnesota, State Legislature. Chapter 326, Article 6, Section 18B.063. States that the state shall use integrated pest management techniques in its management of public lands. Available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ ipm/MSChap326.htm.

Minnesota, State Legislature. 2000. Janet B. Johnson Parents' Right-to-Know Act of 2000. Schools are required to provide notification only if they apply toxicity category I, II, and III pesticides (classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency) or restricted use pesticides (defined by federal law). http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2000/ c489.html#a7

New Jersey, State Legislature. 2002. The New Jersey "School Integrated Pest Management Act," which was introduced in the Assembly as A2841and referred to the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee on 10/3/02 , was subsequently substituted for the original Senate version of the bill, S137 on 10/28/02. On 10/28/02 it unanimously passed both Houses and is currently on the Governor's desk for his review and signature. His signature is anticipated in the near future. Among other items, it mandates that New Jersey schools each develop and adopt an Integrated Pest Management policy. See the full text act at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/ A3000/2841_I1.HTM.

New Mexico, State Board of Education. 2000. Pesticide Control Act 9.13.4. Schools are required to develop procedures for the implementation of pest management with consideration for reducing pesticide impacts on human health and the environment. Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/ SCHOOLS/schoolpolicies/links_ statelaws/NM.pdf.

New York, State of. 2003. New York School Environmental Law, Section 37-0109. This law makes it illegal for schools and public playgrounds to construct playground equipment made from pressure treated lumber that contains Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA). The Healthy Schools Network, Inc. has an informative 2-page fact sheet on the new law and CCA in general available at http://www.healthyschools.org/documents/CCA_Guide.pdf. BIll text available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=37&a=152.

New York, State of. 2002. A10221 and S7167. Prohibits the use of chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated lumber in any new public or school playgrounds. The bill also requires existing CCA-treated structures be maintained to minimize leaching of CCA and instructs the commissioner of environmental conservation to publish information about the dangers of CCA-treated lumber along with methods and materials for minimizing leaching. Bill text available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10221.

New York, State of. 2001. Senate Bill S01974. Establishes special requirements for pesticide applications in schools; requires pest management plans including provision for integrated pest management techniques and notices to be given to building occupants; applies to grounds as well as buildings and prohibits pesticide applications which are preventative in nature and do not respond to existing, verifiable pest problems. Bill text available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S01974.

Glossary

New York, State of. 2001. Assembly Bill A6024 is reintroduced as the "children's environmental health and safety bill of rights act", directing the commissioners of health, education and environmental conservation to develop programs and regulations to promote the protection of children from environmental hazards, report to the governor and legislature and provide public access to information about environmental health issues and hazards. Would require creation of a multi-stakeholder advisory council on children's environmental health and safety. Search on bill number at http://assembly.state.ny.us /leg/?bn=A06024.

NJ Environmental Federation. 2003. Fact sheet on The School Integrated Pest Management Act of 2002. Breaks each part of the New Jersey School IPM Act of 2002, into pieces, explaining it in a 2-page, descriptive fact sheet. Available in Word format.

Owens, K. and J. Feldman. 2000. The schooling of state pesticide laws - 2000: A review of state pesticide laws regarding schools. Report updates an earlier report issues in 1998, and includes summaries of legislation in 31 states that specifically regulate pesticide use in and schools. Legislation is described in five categories: buffer zones around schools where pesticide use is restricted; posting signs; prior notification; IPM; and reentry intervals. Pesticides and You 20(2):16-23. Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org. (Go to Reports: Pesticides in Schools.)

Owens, K. and J. Feldman. 1998. The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws: Review of State Pesticide Laws Regarding Schools and Addendum. National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides. Available in PDF format at http://www.beyondpesticides.org. (Go to Reports: Pesticides in Schools.)

Pennsylvania. Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 30, No. 14. Alternative pest management has been added to the curriculum of Pennsylvania's public schools. The State Board of Education and the Regulatory Review Commission have adopted academic standards for environmental studies, of which IPM will be a part. On the regulatory side, a bill currently before the Pennsylvania Senate would require advance notification of pesticide applications within schools and on school grounds, athletic fields and playgrounds. It also would require notification for the implementation of IPM programs in schools.

Pennsylvania, Senate Bill 705. 18 Apr. 2002. Sponsored by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R-Bucks), the bill amends the Public School Code by adding a section addressing integrated pest management programs. The legislation requires schools to adopt integrated pest management plans in accordance with the integrated pest management policies or regulations of the Department of Agriculture. The schools are required to adopt an integrated pest management plan by Jan. 1, 2003. The bill also places responsibilities on the Department of Agriculture to assist schools in the development, planning and preparation of the integrated pest management plan. The bill passed unanimously and is effective immediately. Bill text available at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/ BT/2001/0/SB0705P1860.HTM.

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 705, proposed to amend the Public School Code of 1949, providing for advance notification of pesticide application within schools, school grounds, athletic fields and playgrounds. Bill text and status at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/ WU01/LI/BI/ALL/2001/0/SB0705.HTM.

Pennsylvania State IPM Program. 2002. Public schools across Pennsylvania will have until the end of the year, 2002, to comply with new legislation requiring them to give notification before applying pesticides and to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) plans. To help schools meet the deadline, the Pennsylvania IPM Program (PA IPM) has prepared information packets and sent them out to every school district in the state. To read a full text article on this partnership, go to http://www.ipminstitute.org/PA_IPM_Partnership_article.htm.

Rhode Island, State of. 2001. Rhode Island School Pest Management Act of 2001. Proposed bill would create a state school IPM advisory board and require school districts to implement IPM systems including posting and notification, restrict use of certain pesticides and apply monetary penalties collected as a result of violations to IPM education. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext/ billtext01/senatetext01/s0660.htm

Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 2003. School IPM Act. Includes a comprehensive summary and full text of the School IPM Act adopted by the state of New Jersey. Available at http://www.pestmanagement.rutgers.edu/ IPM/SchoolIPM/NJAct/nj.htm.

Safer Pest Control Project. 1999. 1-page summary of legislation reforming pest management practices in Illinois schools. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/schleg.pdf.

Glossary

SEPA. 2002. The School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) is part of the Senate passed farm bill. SEPA was revived after being defeated by the Education Conference Panel as an amendment to the education bill. In response to Congressional concern, language was added to SEPA to clarify that mosquito and fire ant abatement districts will not be impacted by the legislation. To see SEPA highlights and model schools, please see full text of http://www.pestlaw.com/x/law/SEPA-HR1.html.

Texas, Structural Pest Control Board. 1997. Integrated Pest Management in Schools. Red/Yellow/Green pesticide risk ranking system. Available at http://www.spcb.state.tx.us/ipm/ipmindex.htm.

U.S. House of Representatives. 2003. National legislation that would require schools to implement Integrated Pest Management programs has been introduced in congress, this time by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.). The School Environmental Protection Act of 2003 (HR121) would also require school districts to notify parents and employees in advance of pesticide applications in schools. The bill was introduced on Jan 7, 2003, and was referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research on January 28. To read the full version of the bill or a summary, or to check on its current status, visit the Thomas website at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter the bill number HR121 under “search."

U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. School Pesticide Provision to H.R. 1: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture. This document is comprised of statements and materials submitted to a July 18, 2001 hearing on the school pesticide provision included in a Senate amendment to House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Included are statements from expert witnesses: executive director of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, president of the National Association of Agriculture Educators, representatives of the National School Boards Association and the National Association of School Administrators, president of the American Crop Protection Association, and a senior entomologist representing the American Mosquito Control Association. 103p. To order from ERIC Document Reproduction Service, http://www.edrs.com, use ERIC NO: ED463635.

U.S. Senate Bill S.1716, 2000. School Environment Protection Act, Proposed legislation would require annual notification of schools pest management practices including pesticides used; specify that least-toxic methods be used with pesticides as a last resort; and create a 12-member School IPM Advisory Board to develop a list of acceptable pesticides and uniform standard for IPM implementation in schools. Bill text and bill summary available at http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/sepa.htm.

Vermont, Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS). "Early Childhood Program Licensing Regulations." Regulations state that pesticides shall be used only when other pest prevention and control measures fail and pesticides shall not be used to control pests for aesthetic reasons alone. The regulations also require that staff and parents of children shall be notified in writing prior to any planned application of pesticides. Notice shall include the site of the planned application, the pest(s) to be treated for, and proposed pesticide(s) to be used. The application of pesticides, when necessary, is restricted to times when children are not present. PDF version of regulations available at http://www.state.vt.us/srs/childcare /licensing/license.htm.

Vermont, State of. 2000. School Environmental Health Act 125. The act addresses the issues of air quality and other environmental factors that might affect health of children, staff and teachers in our schools. Explanation and details of act available at available at the Healthy Vermonters website, http://www.healthyvermonters.info/hp/act125/act125.shtml.

Washington, State of. 2001. SB 5533. Posting and notification of pesticide applications at schools. Requires day care centers and public elementary and secondary schools to provide certain notices of its pest control policies and methods and to provide notice of and post signs regarding applications of pesticides to its buildings and property, and provides exemptions from this requirement; and expands the types of applications of pesticides to other landscapes for which notification markers must be placed and regarding which records must be kept. http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBill Summary.cfm?billnumber=5533

West Virginia, Department of Agriculture. 1996. Integrated Pest Management Programs in Schools and Daycare Centers. 11 pp. Available in pdf format, http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/admn_reg.htm.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi- bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=227879&infobase=stats.nfo&j1=94.715&jump=94.715&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg is a link to the statutes governing pesticide use at public schools and School Board responsibilities.

Glossary

Wisconsin, State of. 2002. 94.715. Pest management for schools. Law requires school board to authorize pesticide applications only by certified persons and post notice of all pesticide applications on school grounds. Available in pdf format, http://www.legis.state.wi.us.

Wyoming, State of. 2001. House Bill 28. Pesticides in schools. Proposed bill requires notification of pesticide application in or on school facilities and property; specifies requirements for posting of signs; authorizes school boards to develop policies on pesticide use in or on school facilities. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2001/engross/hb0028.htm

School Pest Management Practice Surveys

Addiss, S. S., N. O. Alderman, D. R. Brown, C. N. Eash and J. Wargo. 1999. Pest Control Practices in CT Public Schools. Environment and Human Health, Inc. Available at http://www.ehhi.org/reports/pestschools.

Agricultural Resources Center & Pesticide Education Project. 2003. Clean Schools, Safe Kids. Includes success stories, cost comparisons, and resources for school staff, parents, and others interested in improving school environmental health by reducing pesticide dependence. Copies available from ARC/PESTed at (919) 833-1123, or download the electronic version at www.PESTed.org.

Alabama Cooperative Extension. 2000. Alabama School Pest Management Survey. Includes copy of the survey as well as raw data from the completed survey.

Becker, B., E. Bergman, N. Zuelsdorff, K. Fenster, B. Swingle and J. Larson. 1998. Final Report on Pesticide Use in Wisconsin Schools. 49 pp. Publication # AR-0263. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, PO Box 8911, Madison WI 53708-8911, 608 224-4500, Fax 608 224-4656.

Braband, Horn and Sahr. 2002. Pest Management Practices: A survey of public school districts in New York State. This 21-page bulletin presents results from 603 completed surveys representing 741 districts in New York. The survey was jointly developed and administered by the NYS Education Department, the NYS Department of Health, and the NYS Community IPM Program. It is not yet available online. For copies, contact NYS IPM Program, NYSAES, Geneva, NY 14456, and refer to publication NYS IPM Number 613. Available at http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/comm/school.html.

Brown, A. and Schmidt, J. 2000. Journal of Pesticide Safety Education. "Response to Pre-Notification of Pesticide Application in a Public School System." 14-page paper reports on the survey of parents and staff responses to the pesticide pre-notification program implemented in a Maryland county school system. Available at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JPSE/v2/ brown.pdf.

Californians for Pesticide Reform. 2002. Learning Curve: Charting Progress of Pesticide Use and the Healthy Schools Act. The report, written by California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Charitable Trust, compiles information about pesticide use and compliance with the Healthy Schools Act in California's 15 largest school districts. The report highlights inconsistent compliance with the Act across the state, information on pesticide use, IPM policies and implementation of the Act in the surveyed school districts, and recommendations for school districts, parents, teachers and state policy-makers. Available at http://www.calhealthyschools.org or http://www.pesticidereform.org or call 888-CPR-4880 (outside of California call 415-981-3939.)

Fournier, A. and Johnson, T. 2003. Implementation of Pilot Integrated Pest Management Programs in Indiana Schools and Child Care Facilities. 30-page survey examines IPM use at three Indiana school districts and four child care facilities. Includes sections entitled methods, project outcomes and lessons learned. Available in PDF format at http://www.in.gov/idem/envirohealth/ ipmstudy.html.

Glossary

Gibb, T. and Whitford F. 1998. Parents, Public Schools and Integrated Pest Management. 29-page report from Purdue emphasizes the need for parents to become involved with the implementation of pest management policies in schools. Available at http://www.btny.purdue.edu/PPP/B-770.pdf.

Hollingsworth, C.S. 1996. "Pest management in Massachusetts schools: a survey of practices and perceptions." A survey of 100 school conducted in 1995. Includes, methods, results, summary and conclusions and resources. Available from the Univ. Mass. Ext. Bull. 217. 14 pp. Available online at http://www.umass.edu/umext/ipm/ ipm_projects/education/pest_management _MA_schools.html.

Iowa State University Extension. 2000. Iowa School Pesticide Use Survey. Survey in HTML format provides raw data from 31-question survey. Available at http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/schoolipm/node/view/106.

Kaplan, J, S. Marquardt and W. Barber. 1998. Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools. 36 pp. CALPIRG Charitable Trust and Californians for Pesticide Reform. Available in pdf format at http://www.pirg.org/calpirg/reports/index.html.

Lilley, S. 1999. A Pest Management Survey of North Carolina Public Schools. 11-page survey is divided into nine sections: 1. Introduction, 2. IPM Usage, 3. Pest Control Decision Making, 4. Who Does Pest Control?, 5. Common Pests, 6. How are pests applied?, 7. Record keeping and scheduling, 8. Summary, and 9. References. Available at http://ipm.ncsu.edu/urban/cropsci/SchoolIPM/reports.html.

Lilley, S. and Nalyanya, G. 2002. Pest Control Practices in North Carolina Public Schools. Survey is divided into seven sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Objectives, 3. Methodology, 4. Results, 5. Conclusions, 6. Recommendations, and 7. References. Available at http://ipm.ncsu.edu/urban/cropsci/ SchoolIPM/reports.html.

Long, J. K. 1998. IPM in Schools Final Report. Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program. Information from 344 out of 501 districts, and 60% of all public school buildings in the state. Available at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schools/Schoolsum.html.

Loudon, E. 1999. Weed Wars: Pesticide Use in Washington Schools. Washington Toxics Coalition, 4649 Sunnyside Ave. N., Suite 540 - E, Seattle WA 98103, 206 632-1545, E-mail [email protected], Website www.watoxics.org.

Maryland. 1998. A Report on Pesticide Use in Maryland Schools. Available from Maryland Public Interest Research Group, (410) 467-0439, E-mail [email protected], Website www.pirg.org/marypirg.

Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, 1996. Primary Exposure: Pesticides in Massachusetts Schools. Studies pesticide use in 18 schools across the state, and offers recommendations for alternatives such as IPM. Available from Mass PIRG, 29 Temple Place, Boston MA 02111. (617) 292-4800, FAX (617) 292-8057, E- mail: [email protected], Website http://www.pirg.org/masspirg/index.htm.

Miller, Susanne. 2002. The Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Inc. has funded a new report entitled Reading, Writing and Raid(R) documenting pesticide use in Vermont schools. This 21-page report includes includes an extensive background as well as full report on what Vermont schools and parents can do. The survey is available at http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/ environmentalHealth/pesticide_report.pdf.

Minnesota, Department of Agriculture. 2002. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture, with funding provided by the US EPA, Region 5, recently completed a Pest Management Survey of Day Cares, Head Starts, and Preschools. The survey results and conclusions can be downloaded at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ipm/ipmpubs.html.

Minnesota, Department of Agriculture. 2000. Quantitative Research Regarding Pest Management Practices in Minnesota K-12 Schools. 147 pp. Available in pdf format at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/IPM/PestMgmtin Schools.html.

Mitchell, K., ed. 1999. Pesticide Report Card: Texas Schools Score from A to F in the Integrated Pest Management Program. 30 pp. Texas Pesticide Information Network/Consumers Union, 1300 Guadalupe, Suite 100, Austin TX 78701. (512) 477-4431. Available in pdf format at from http://www.texascenter.org/txpin/right.htm.

Murray, K., 2000. What's Bugging Our Schools?: Pest Concerns and Pesticide Use in Maine Public Schools. 17 pp. Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources, 28 State House Station, Augusta ME 04333. PDF available at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm/schoolipm _report.pdf.

Glossary

National Resource, Agriculture and Engineering Service (NRAES). 2003. Integrated Pest Management for Northeast Schools. 68 pp. Extensive document includes sections entitled "Components of an IPM Program," "Establishing an IPM Program for Your School," and "Managing Pests Found in Northeast Schools." Viewing document only available in pdf format at http://www.umass.edu/umext/ipm/publications/ for_ viewing _only_ipmns.pdf.

New York State Environmental Protection Bureau. 2000. Pesticide Use at New York Schools: Reducing the Risk. Report includes executive summary, administrative mandate to reduce pesticide exposure, 1999 survey of schools, a how-to guide, recommendation and conclusion. Available at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/reports/pesticide_school/table_of_contents.html.

New York State Environmental Protection Bureau. 2000. Pesticide Use by County Governments: Reducing the Risk. Report includes introduction, survey methods, results and discussion. Available at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/ press/ reports/pesticide_government/table_of_contents.html.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and Oregon Center for Environmental Health. 1998. Pesticide Use by the Portland School District. 9 pp. Available in pdf format at http://www.pesticide.org/PDXSchools.html.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and Washington Toxics Coalition. 1998. Pesticide Use by the Seattle School District. 8 pp. Available in pdf format at http://www.pesticide.org/SeattleSchools.html.

Ohio Schools Pest Management Survey. 2001. HTML document provides raw data from 2001 survey given to Ohio school personal regarding IPM. Available at http://ipm.osu.edu/school/survey.htm.

Olle, T.M. 2000. "P" is for Poison: Update on Pesticide Use in California Schools. 32 pp. CALPIRG Charitable Trust and Californians for Pesticide Reform. Available in pdf format at http://www.pirg.org/calpirg/reports/ healthyschools.pdf.

Pesticide Use in Illinois Public Schools: Survey Findings. 1998. Available from Safer Pest Control Project, 25 E. Washington St, Suite 1515, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 641-5575, Fax (312) 641-5454, E-mail: [email protected], Website http://www.spcpweb.org.

Piper, C., and Owens, K. 2002. Are Schools Making the Grade? School Districts Nationwide Adopt Safer Pest Management Policies. 10-page report documents many school districts that have adopted safer pest management policies while discussing many state pest management laws. Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/ SCHOOLS/publications/index.htm.

Rumph, M., T. Cofer, S. Adams, W. Foshee, W. Johnson, B. Alverson, B. Cauthen, R. Pont and L. Graham. 2000. Report of the Alabama IPM in Schools Working Group "2000 Alabama School IPM Survey."

Safer Pest Control Project, 1998. Pesticide Use in Illinois Public Schools: Survey Findings, 1998. Available from SPCT, 25 E. Washington St, Suite 1515, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 641-5575, Fax (312) 641-5454, E-mail: [email protected], Result summary available at http://www.spcpweb.org/resultsummary.pdf.

School Pesticide Reform Coalition and Beyond Pesticides. 2003. Safer Schools: Achieving a Healthy Learning Environment Through Integrated Pest Management. With descriptions of 27 school districts of all sizes from 19 states, this report describes a growing commitment to adopt practices that respond to mounting evidence that pesticides pose a public health hazard while non-toxic, economically feasible pest management options are available. Available in pdf format. Hard copies of the report are available for $5.00 each by contacting Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected].

Simmons, S.E., T.E. Tidwell and T.A. Barry. 1996. Overview of Pest Management Policies, Program and Practices in Selected California Public School Districts. PM96-01. State of CA. EPA-DPR. 68 pp.

Spitzer, E. 2000. Pesticide Use at NY Schools: Reducing the Risk. Office of the Attorney General of NY State. Available at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/ press/reports/pesticide_school/table_of_contents.html.

Sterling, P. and N. Paquette. 1999. Toxic Chemical Exposure in Schools: Our Children are at Risk. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. 26 pp. Report including case studies in Vermont schools. Available in pdf format from http://www.vpirg.org/pubs/ background_reports.html.

Glossary

Sterling, P. and B. Browning. 1999. Chemicals in Classrooms: Pesticides and Maintenance Chemicals in Vermont Schools. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. 26 pp. Report including survey results from 32 Vermont schools. Available in pdf format from http://www.vpirg.org/PUBS/reports.html.

Washington Toxics Report Coalition. 2004. A Lesson in Prevention: Measuring Pesticide Use in Washington Schools. 56-page report looks at 50 school district's pesticide use in the state of Washington. Found that 96 percent use pesticides linked to cancer, nervous system damage, reproductive or developmental harm, or endocrine disruption. Available in PDF at http://www.watoxics.org/content/pdf/LessonInPrevention.pdf.

Waters, Ann et al. 2002. Email dialogue between Ann Waters, Karen Vail, Clay Scherer, Craig Hollingsworth, Eric Althouse and Kathy Murray including information on resources to help survey schools about IPM. Available in word or pdf format.

Wisconsin Environmental Decade and Citizens for a Better Environment. 1998. Pesticide Use Reduction & Information Campaign. Results of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Trade Survey on Pesticide Use in Schools. Results available by school at www.wsn.org/pesticides/schools.shtml. School IPM Success Stories

Arizona pilot expands to 27 schools in 2001. An initial pilot program in three middle schools in Maricopa County documented a 90% reduction in pesticide use and an estimated 85% reduction in pest pressure. Contact for the project is Dawn Gouge. View summary in PDF format.

Bennett, M. E. Journal of Pesticide Reform. "A Pesticide-free School for a Chemically Sensitive Family in Boise, Idaho." Discusses the efforts of one family to change the pesticide policy of their school district are described. Stressed is the need to educate teachers, physicians, and students.

Beyond Pesticides. 2002. Schools Save Money With Integrated Pest Management: A Beyond Pesticides Fact Sheet. This 2-page fact sheet documents and discusses many instances of IPM helping to reduce pest management costs for schools. Available at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/ SCHOOLS/publications/IPM_cost%20_FS.pdf.

Lavendal, Brian. Audubon. "Taking Back the Halls." Sept./Oct. 2001. Students at Lewis Cass Technical High School in downtown Detroit are taking back the halls. Cass Tech School students are top of their class, but their eight-story school is old, allowing many unwanted critters into the halls. The students at this magnet high school run their own school-wide pest-control science project using IPM. Science teacher Michael Jones traces the students' IPM program back to a science-fair project in which students in his chemistry class tried to help a homeowner whose house had been infected with termites. Students learned of numerous nontoxic alternatives for controlling pests while also applying for grant money opportunities for student-run IPM programs from the Michigan Department of Agriculture. The student-led IPM team has been successful, noting a "significant decline in the roach population in the first year." The facilities manager for the school even claims that the students have done a better job in controlling pests than his custodians and contractors ever did. Kathy Seiken. senior policy analyst for the EPA, say the Cass Tech IPM program is "fantastic," urging other schools to take a look at it as an alternative to conventional pest control. It is truly a scenario that "most teachers only dream of, these students put their lessons to work every day... not shy about sharing their expertise at home and in the community."

The Lebanon School Corporation (LSC) in Indiana is currently working with their pest management provider to shift to a full IPM program during the 2003-2004 school year. In March, Al Fournier from Purdue’s IPM Technical Resource Center met with building administrators (principals and assistant principals) to develop a plan for getting building staff on board with IPM.

The Lime Kiln Middle School PTA is continuing to explore alternatives under the ongoing IPM (Integrated Pest Management) initiatives for grounds maintenance at the school. The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) has agreed to suspend the routine spraying of pesticides to maintain the grounds, if PTA volunteers maintain the landscaped beds. In response, PTA has established a workgroup to organize this effort and coordinate a team of weeding volunteers' that perform general gardening such as cutting back flowers, pruning, weeding, edging, etc. The Lime Kiln Middle School PTA's Call for volunteers is available in Word or PDF forms and includes the information for volunteer coordinator Veronika Carella. Phone 410-489-5495 or email at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Glossary

The New York City Board of Education, representing approximately 1200 school buildings, has eliminated indoor dust formulations of every kind to reduce airborne particulates, eliminated all "pelleted" rodenticides to reduce possibility of translocation, eliminated outside rodenticide baitsets opting to bait and close existing burrows only, increased reliance on glue board monitoring as both indicator and precursory control agents, and reduced the use of one class of pesticides from 918 to 22 lbs. per year. Since 1988, the school system has used over 8000 tubes of sealing silicone glue to close potential pest entries. As of the September 2001 school opening, the New York City Board of Education has totally eliminated the use of carbamates, organo-phosphates, pyrethroids, and even pyrethrin treatments anywhere in their buildings. Also, they still use no aerosols of any kind in classrooms and use no dust products whatsoever anywhere in their schools.

A demonstration project at two public schools in Santa Barbara County CA reduced the costs by 30%, and improved effectiveness of the pest control program. More information available from 930 Miramonte Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, Phone: (805) 963-0583, Fax: (805) 962-9080, Email: [email protected].

The Monroe County School Corporation, Monroe County IN, implemented a pilot IPM program that eliminated 90% of pesticide applications in three elementary schools. More at http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/strategies/ 2004/mccsc04.htm.

"Pest fighters cut chemical dependency" 2001. Concern over state and federal efforts to impose potentially costly rules governing insecticide use in schools has prompted nearly 92 percent of Hoosier schools to adopt a voluntary pest-control program designed to cut applications of chemicals and poisons by 90 percent. http://www.starnews.com/article.php?pests20.htm.

An IPM curriculum was implemented at Emerson Elementary School in Michigan, and a school IPM program was started in a Saginaw High School in the spring, based on the successful Cass Tech High School model. The IPM training team (from Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and the Michigan Pest Control Association) does monthly trainings of the students and also works with an elementary school in the neighborhood. They held a spring parade in the neighborhood to heighten IPM awareness in the community, and the next day, 200 volunteers began cleaning up pest harborage sites in the neighborhood. The program runs through GAP: the Growth & Afrocentric Program, a broad, community-based effort to improve student health, academics, and future outlook and more information is available at http://www.spsd.net/GAP/Classroom.htm.

Safer Pest Control Project. 2002. Cost of IPM in Schools. 2-page fact sheet includes information on the cost effectiveness of IPM in schools. Comments on Monroe County Schools in Indiana and Susqueanna School in New York, providing information on how much money IPM has saved these schools. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/schcost.pdf.

In January the Tippecanoe School Corporation in Indiana approved a plan to enhance their existing IPM program with more intensive monitoring and record keeping in all their schools as well as incorporating IPM trainings for staff in the 2003-2004 school year. They have designated an IPM Coordinator and negotiated a new contract with their pest control provider to facilitate the new program.

Three Kyrene schools reduce pesticide applications by 90% and keep pest populations below 85% of their normal level by implementing a pilot IPM program.

IPM Curricula and Workshop Ideas American Museum of Natural History. 1999. Seven entertaining modules on microbes including "Meet the microbes, Bacteria in the cafeteria, How Lou got the flu, Prevention convention." Available at http://www.amnh.org/explore/infection/index.html.

Bailey, S. 1999. Get This Bug Off of Me! University of Kentucky Dept. of Entomology. Color photo guide to more than 30 dangerous and harmless arthropods. Available at http://www.uky.edu/agriculture/entomology /ythfacts/stories/hurtrnot.htm.

British Society for Plant Pathology. 2004. "aMaizing Plant Disease Game." Simultaneously exercise your plant pathology and gaming skills and intuition in a contest to thwart a nasty virtual pathogen attempting to invade an innocent maize crop. The aim of the online game is to "grow" a maize crop, and do it profitably, with in a range of various input alternatives and a threat of disease capable of destroying the crop. The game, open to all, is on the BSPP website at http://www.bspp.org.uk.

Glossary

Canadian Geographic. 2002. Grasshopper Facts website. "A grand look a grasshoppers" includes interactive games, fun facts and scientific knowledge about grasshoppers. Available at http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ Mj02/etcetera/index.htm.

Cullen, E. 1995. IPM Curriculum for Grades 9-12. 200 pp. IPM basics including monitoring and cultural, physical, biological and least-toxic chemical controls; insect profiles, study programs, case studies, lab experiments, resource list, glossary; designed to be part of a science, chemistry or biology course; emphasis on agricultural, horticultural and garden pests. Available from Bio-Integral Resource Center, P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley CA 94707, (510) 524- 2567, FAX (510) 524-1758, E-mail [email protected], Website http://www.birc.org.

Cycling Back to Nature: Food Production and Pesticides. Nationally juried curriculum including food production and environmental and health effects of pesticide use in agriculture; food webs and biological diversity; analysis of agriculture and pesticide use in the U.S.; global demand for food and population trends. Available in print from National 4-H Council, 7100 Connecticut Ave, Chevy Chase MD 20815. (301) 961-2908, FAX (301) 961-2894, E- mail: envstew%[email protected], more information including comments from reviewers available at http://www.reeusda.gov/4h/ curricul/da2.htm.

Dunn, G.A. and J. VanDyk. Iowa State Entomology Index: K-12 Educators' Recommended Sites. Links to over 30 Web sites with insect-related curricula, projects and information. Available at http://www.ent.iastate.edu/list/ k- 12_educator_resources.html.

Entomological Society of America. Educational resources including Beeswax, an entomological newsletter for kids, seasonal lesson plans including handouts and activities, project ideas, books. Available at http://www.entsoc.org/ education/educ_intro.htm.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. “Learn to Use Pesticides Safely" (available as a poster or bumper sticker) and “Pesticides Are Meant to Poison These... [BUGS] Not These” [KIDS] (available in poster format only) now available. Free copies of posters and stickers (bumper sticker size) urging consumers to use pesticides safely are available in both English and Spanish. Recognized for their colorful, eye-catching graphics and message, enlarged versions of these posters and stickers have appeared on trucks and metropolitan buses and trains traveling through the urban sectors of many cities. To order, write U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), Communication Services Branch, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460-0001 or call 703-305-5017. For orders larger than 10 copies, please contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 1-800-490-9198.

Environmental Protection Agency. Interactive Cockroach Activity Book. The popular pest prevention activity book for children, Help! It's a Roach!, is now on-line. The activities have been converted to be interactive, to provide a fun way to learn about managing indoor insect pests. The messages of removing food, water, and shelter apply to many pests, not just cockroaches. A Spanish version of the web publication will be available soon. The web version is found at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/kids/roaches/english/. Paper versions of this book are available from EPA's publication center, http://www.epa.gov/ ncepihom/ordering.htm (EPA 735-F-98-016?English and EPA 735-F-01- 004?Spanish).

Environmental Protection Agency. Help Yourself to a Healthy Home: Protect you Children’s Health. Popular 56-page booklet contains helpful information for parents, grandparents and other care givers. Contains information on environmental contaminants found in many American homes and how to protect your family from risks posed by carbon monoxide, unhealthy drinking waters, poor indoor air quality, lead poisoning, hazardous household products, pesticides, and much more. Available in Spanish as "Contribuya a Tener un Hogar Sano." To order, call Kathy Seikel at 703-308-8272, or email [email protected].

Environmental Protection Agency. Consumer Labeling Initiative. Offers a wealth of information and free promotional items to raise awareness about the importance of reading pesticide products labels. Promotional items available free of charge to the public include rulers, bag clips, and jar openers. Also have developed a number of popular brochures including “Read the Label First! Protect your Household,” “Read the Label First! Protect your Garden,” “Read the Label First! Protect your Children,” and “Read the Label First! Protect your Pets.” To order, call 703-305- 5017 or send an email request to [email protected]

Glossary

EPA Region 2. 2003. EPA's Region 2 (New York) office has developed a free CD containing several documents relating to IPM in schools: 1) "Pest Control in the School Environment," the popular 1993 EPA publication designed to acquaint readers with IPM as a potential alternative to scheduled spraying of pesticides; 2) "Who Wants to be an IPM Super Sleuth? Integrated Pest Management Activities and Resources for Kids of All Ages" developed by the IPM Institute of North America; 3) "Neato Mosquito," the CD developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which contains a 4th grade curriculum designed to teach kids about mosquito biology through the use of animation, video images, interactive games, and student projects; and 4) a CDC-developed video about mosquito biology. For copies of this CD, which includes all four items above, e-mail Henry Rupp at [email protected] or call 732-906-6178.

EPA Region 8 (Denver) and the Girl Scouts Mile Hi Council. A "Bugged by Bugs" pesticide awareness patch has been developed through a partnership between the EPA and Girl Scouts, which reaches more than 36,000 girls between the ages 5-17. This exciting on-line resource can be accessed at http://www.girlscoutsmilehi.org/ content/home.cfm The Web site http://www.girlscoutsmilehi.org/content/home.cfm features on-line games, complete word searches and crossword puzzles which kids can tackle while learning more about safe pesticide use, risks and potential health concerns related to pesticides, as well as the IPM approach to pest control.

Exploring Urban Integrated Management: Activities and Resources for Teaching K-6. 2002. A 76-page curriculum guide for teaching school and community IPM in the elementary classroom. This resource includes teacher fact sheets, lesson plans, and student worksheets on topics including IPM steps and decision making, insect and rodent pests, inspections, and control method choices. From the Michigan State University Pesticide Education Program with a grant from U.S. EPA Region 5 and the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Available at http://www.pested.msu.edu/CommunitySchoolIpm/curriculum.htm.

National School IPM Web site. The CD-ROM contains everything on the Web site including IPM information from IPM experts across the nation that is orientated to administrators, teachers, parents and pest management professionals. It also includes advice on how to develop an IPM program; alternative methods of pest control; information on pests and pesticides safety; news releases on IPM and pests for school newsletters; Powerpoint presentations on; sample contacts and letters; educational materials; links to school related Web site in numerous areas (organized by subject and location); and much more. The web site is now available complete on a CD-ROM for use in stand-alone or networking environments for both PCs and Macs. It requires a CD-ROM drive and graphical browser. The cost of this CD-ROM is $8. Additional copies may be purchased through the UF/IFAS Extension Bookstore by calling 800- 226-1764 or on the Web at http://ifasbooks.ufl.edu. Discounts are not available at this price. Funds generated by the sale of this CD-ROM are used to maintain and add to the National School IPM Website.

Kneen, Cathleen. The Community Garden Game is a non-competitive card game designed to increase interest in community gardening. There are 12 vegetables so the game can be played with up to 12 players. With a roll of the dice you may find that the pony club has decided to compost their manure and donate it to the garden -- the whole garden takes a point -- or that a bunch of kids raid the garden -- peas and beans lose one each. You may find that you planted potatoes in the same place as last year and they get scab -- potatoes lose one; or that the community kitchen develops a great bean recipe -- beans take one. There are 40 negative and 40 positive cards, so lots can happen in your garden! The goal of the game is to harvest as much of each vegetable as possible. Order the Community Garden Game for $10 plus $2 for postage from: Cathleen Kneen, S-6, C-27, RR #1, Sorrento, B.C., V0E 2W0, Canada.

Koehler, P., T. Fasulo, C. Scherer and M. Downey, Eds. 1999. School IPM Web Site. University of Florida. Links to IPM curricula from land grant institutions; Introduction to need for IPM in schools; descriptions and links to lesson plan and materials for students and for teachers and 8-week Internet course for teachers; example of school IPM lesson plan; references. Produced by Montana State University. Available at http://schoolipmifas.ufl.edu/teach.htm.

Leon County Mosquito Control. 2002. Mosquito Control Education Program. Education plays a primary role in the integrated pest management program used by Leon County Mosquito Control. Leon Country Mosquito Control has designed a curriculum outline, videos, a school activity book, worksheets, and examples of prizes and more to use when educating children about IPM mosquito control. Available at http://www.co.leon.fl.us/mosquito/index.asp. Lucas, P.L. Bug-Go. University of Kentucky IPM Program. Bingo-like game, players match pictures of beneficial insects and pests, includes player game cards, templates for overhead transparencies or display sheets, information about each insect and instructions. Available at http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/ IPM/teachers/bug-go/bug-go.htm.

Glossary

LSU AgCenter. 2002. Learning Activity: Fight the Bite! Be a Skeeter Buster! The LSU AgCenter has published a 6- page activity guide written by two 4-H agents. Includes 4 pages of a Q & A session as well as a step-by-step guide explaining how to play The Mosquito Game. Available at http://www.lsuagcenter.com/subjects/mosquito/pdf/SkeeterBusterlesson 9-02.pdf.

Michigan. Pesticide Notes, Michigan State University, Jan.-Feb. 2002. Michigan State University has developed an activity guide for teaching urban integrated pest management for grades K-6. The manual is written for teachers to incorporate IPM in their classroom teaching. The activity guide is available at http://www.pested.msu.edu/CommunitySchoolIpm/curriculum.htm.

Michigan State University Extension. 2001. Exploring Urban Integrated Pest Management. Michigan State University Extension provides a comprehensive activities and resource book for teaching K-6. The workbook includes twelve classroom activities and is available in PDF format at http://www.pested.msu.edu/Community SchoolIpm/curriculum.htm.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2002. Fact sheets. A series of 2-page face sheets dealing with many pests found in schools including an overview, and multiple facts sheets on various insects weeds, plant diseases, rodents and pesticides. Available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/IPM/IPMinSchools.html.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2000. Join Our Pest Patrol - A Backyard Activity Book for Kids - An Adventure in IPM. 29-page book and companion third through fifth grade Teachers' Guide, includes many fun activities that can easily be incorporated into reading, science, or even math and art classes. It provides kids and teachers with important information about pest identity and biology, and ecology. Has recently been adapted for nationwide use. Available from Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul MN 55107-2094, more information at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/IPM/ IPMinSchools.html. To order, call Kathy Seikel at 703-308-8272 or email [email protected] Bulk orders accepted.

Minnesota Ideals.1998. The Watershed Game. Interactive question/answer game for elementary students addressing agricultural and urban impacts on watershed health. Available at http://www1.umn.edu/bellmuse/mnideals/watershed/watershed2.html.

National Pediculosis Association. Information for children about head lice, including interactive quiz and games; animations of lice, life cycle; frequently asked questions; poetry, books. Available at http://www.headlice.org/kids/index.htm.

PBS On-Line. 1999. Alien Empire. Interactive puzzles; making insect masks; presentations on insect termites, beneficial wasps, insects as food; teacher's guide. Available at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/ alienempire/.

Pennsylvania Departments of Agriculture and Education, and Pennsylvania State University, 1998. Memorandum of Understanding. Outlines five areas of cooperation to increase public education of IPM concepts and tools. Available at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/MOU.html.

Pennsylvania IPM Program, 2002. "Join Our Pest Patrol" publication. Educational resource for Pennsylvania teachers of students in grades 3 and 4. Addresses newly adopted state academic standards in environment and ecology focusing on integrated pest management. Includes crossword puzzles, fill-in-the-blanks, mazes and picture drawing. Also available is the accompanying teacher guide that includes facts, investigations, activities and resources to support children's curiosity and extended learning. Concepts include distinguishing insect pests from beneficial insects; understanding why humans want to manage pests; recognizing common pests in our homes, gardens and neighborhoods; choosing the least toxic ways to manage pests; and safeguarding against pesticide risks. Can be obtained by contacting the Pennsylvania IPM Program at (814) 865-2839 or downloaded as printable PDF files from the Web at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu Join Our Pest Patrol 4-H Leader Guide now available online. 6- page backyard activity book is formatted for 4-H leaders. Includes a brief description of IPM, a list of common pests, many ideas for projects, information on safe pesticide use as well as an extensive bibliography. Available at http://www.mda.state.mn.us/IPM/ ipmpubs.html.

Pennsylvania IPM Program, 2003. IPM for Teachers Curriculum. Text from the summer class, "IPM for Teachers: Meeting New Academic Standards," includes many activities to use in the classroom along with supplemental materials. Available in HTML form at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/schools/ courseguide.html.

Glossary

Pennsylvania IPM Program, 2003. Video "Bugmobile Vs.The Invasive Species." The video, hosted and narrated by BugMobile, the talking Volkswagen, identifies the effects of humans and human events on watersheds, explains species diversity, introduces species that are classified as pests in their new environment, and analyzes the benefits to the environment and society associated with alternative practices used in IPM. Geared toward lower and upper secondary students, the video addresses the several categories of the state's new Academic Standards. Each video includes a lesson plan with content objectives, assessment strategies and procedures. Download the lesson plan free, or, to obtain a copy of the video and lesson plan, send a check or money order for $35 made payable to The Pennsylvania State University to ICT, 119 Ag Administration Building, University Park, PA 16802-2602. Visa and MasterCard orders will be accepted by calling (814) 865-6309. Shipping and handling costs are included in the price. Order Form (PDF)

Pennsylvania State Department of Education, 2000. Academic Standards for Environment and Ecology, Section 4.5. Integrated Pest Management. Detailed list of IPM topic areas to be included in curricula for students in Pennsylvania Public Schools through grade 12. Available at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/ schools/schoolEduc.htm.

Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. 2002. IPM in Schools Activity Book. This 24-page illustrated activity book contains mazes, matching games, coloring activities, connect-the-dots and much more to help kids understand Integrated Pest Management. Also includes an answer key and a "Certificate of Great Work." The activity book is now available online at http://www.entm.purdue.edu/entomology/outreach/ schoolipm/1tch/tch1.htm Requests for hard copies can be sent to Al Fournier, Department of Entomology, Purdue University, Smith Hall, 901 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054, Phone: 765-496-7520, Email: [email protected].

Safer Pest Control Project. Kid's guide to pesticides. Two-page fact sheet in PDF format includes discussion of pests, pesticides, risks, pesticide safety. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org. (go to School IPM page and follow link).

Safer Pest Control Project. The Pest Invasion, The Pest Invasion II, and La Invasion de los Insectos II. Three comic books that teach least hazardous pest control in a variety of settings. The Pest Invasion chronicles one family's successful battle against roaches and rodents in a Chicago Public Housing development. To order for $1.00 each, call The Safer Pest Control Project at 312-641-5575 or email us at [email protected].

Schumann, G.L., ed. APSNet Education Center: The Plant Health Instructor. American Phytopathological Society. Plant pathology curricula for K through higher education including plant disease lessons, laboratory exercises, illustrated glossary, resource catalogs and links to additional materials. Available at http://www.apsnet.org/education/ k-12plantpathways/top.html.

Radcliffe, T.B. and W.D. Hutchison, eds. Radcliffe's IPM World Textbook. Electronic college-level IPM textbook including line drawings, color and B&W photos, chapters on biological and cultural control, computers in IPM, crop and commodity-specific IPM, ecology, IPM policy, medical and veterinary IPM, pesticides, stored product IPM, links to IPM resources including photographs and decision-support software. Available at http://www.ipmworld.umn.edu/ ipmsite.htm.

US EPA. 2002. In commemoration of National Poison Prevention Week, Mar. 17-23, EPA is making available several resources to educate the public about ways to prevent children from being poisoned by pesticides and household products. "Learn About Chemicals Around Your House" is an interactive web site (see: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/kids/hometour/) designed to teach children and parents about household products, including pesticides, that may contain harmful chemicals. Read the Label First! Protect Your Kids" is a brochure that provides information on preventing children from being exposed to pesticides and household cleaners by reading and following product label instructions and precautions, keeping products in their original containers, and storing products out of the reach of children and is available online at http://www.epa. gov/pptintr/labeling/rtlf/kids.pdf. "Ten Tips to Protect Children from Pesticide and Lead Poisonings Around the Home" is a brochure that provides simple steps to protect children from pesticide and lead poisonings around the home, and is available in both English and Spanish. This document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/10_tips. "Pesticides and Child Safety" is a fact sheet that provides current household pesticide-related

Glossary

poisonings/exposure statistics, as well as recommendations for preventing poisonings and first aid guidelines and is available at http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/factsheets/childsaf.htm. Finally, "Help! It's A Roach" is a roach prevention activity book for kids and parents. It teaches families what they can do to prevent and control roaches without using pesticides. An interactive Web site is also available at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/kids/ roaches/english/. All of these resources are also available by calling 1-800-490-9198. More information on Poison Prevention Week is also available at the Poison Prevention Week Council's website at: http://www.poisonprevention.org/.

US EPA. 2000. Learn about Chemicals Around Your House. Interactive tutorial on toxics including disinfectants and pesticides for elementary grades including house tour, product labels, first aid, word searches and scramble, crossword puzzle. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/kids/hometour/index.htm.

US EPA Region 6. 1999. Pesticide Safety Bingo Game. 49 pp. plus cards. Beginner and advanced level games for K-6 grades about pest management and pesticides, including instructions, background information for teachers, discussion questions, picture and text cards in English and Spanish. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/bingo/index.htm.

University of Connecticut IPM Program. 1999. IPM Online Home Study Courses. Self-paced, tuition-free, non-credit tutorial-type courses with a certificate issued upon completion including IPM for cockroaches, ants/termites, turfgrass, garden weed and insect pests, resistance of woody ornamental plants to deer damage. Available at http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/ipm/homecourse/coursinfo.htm.

University of Florida Department of Entomology and Nematology, 2002. Poster on insect-related Web sites. The poster targets K - 12 students and their teachers and lists 12 outstanding Web sites from several universities, government agencies and private individuals, with URLs for many more. Go to the UF/IFAS Extension Bookstore at http://ifasbooks.ufl.edu/merchant2/ merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=IFASBOOKS&Product_Code =SP+315 to view it or call (800) 226-1764 to order.

Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom. A Kid's Journey to Understanding Weeds. Elementary school-level activities for students organized around 11 noxious weeds. Available at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weededucation/ Education_K-12/journey3rdgrade.htm.

School IPM and Related Resources in Spanish and Other Non-English Languages

Environmental Protection Agency. Contribuya a Tener un Hogar Sano. Popular 56-page booklet contains helpful information for parents, grandparents and other care givers. Contains information on environmental contaminants found in many American homes and how to protect your family from risks posed by carbon monoxide, unhealthy drinking waters, poor indoor air quality, lead poisoning, hazardous household products, pesticides, and much more. To order, call Kathy Seikel at 703-308-8272, or email [email protected].

Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. “Learn to Use Pesticides Safely" (available as a poster or bumper sticker) and “Pesticides Are Meant to Poison These... [BUGS] Not These” [KIDS] (available in poster format only) now available. Free copies of posters and stickers (bumper sticker size) urging consumers to use pesticides safely are available in both English and Spanish. Recognized for their colorful, eye-catching graphics and message, enlarged versions of these posters and stickers have appeared on trucks and metropolitan buses and trains traveling through the urban sectors of many cities. To order, write U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), Communication Services Branch, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460-0001 or call 703- 305-5017. For orders larger than 10 copies, please contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 1-800-490-9198.

EPA 2003. "10 Medidas Para Proteger A Sus Niños De Los Pesticidas Y Del Envenenamiento Debido Al Plomo." This Spanish/English brochure outlines the ten most important steps you can take to protect children from accidental poisonings associated with the presence of lead and pesticides in the home. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppfod01/cb/10_tips/childesp.htm.

Glossary

EPA Region 6 (Dallas). 2003. "Tres Amigos al Rescate." A new education and outreach package aimed at Spanish- speaking communities. The core component of this package is an entertaining and informative video that appeals to children and adults alike and provides practical information on safe use of household chemicals, including pesticides. The video is accompanied by a companion booklet, also in Spanish, designed for parents, teachers, and moderators. A helpful discussion guide and fact sheet complete the package and set the stage for stimulating discussions about steps people can take to make their homes environmentally safe. To order "Tres Amigos al Rescate," e-mail Amadee Madril at [email protected] or call 214-665-2767.

Drlik, T. Spanish IPM fact sheets include Argentine ants, cockroaches. Bio-Intergral Resource Center, P.O. Box 7414 Berkeley, CA 94707, phone (510) 524-8404.

Hollingsworth, C. 2002. What is Integrated Pest Management? An explanation of IPM, monitoring, natural enemies, habitat modification and pesticides in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Italian, Khmer, Vietnamese and Chinese. Available from University of Massachusetts Extension, www.umass.edu/umext/bookstore.

National Pest Management Association. Pest management materials, including biology and management of bumblebees, carpenter ants, fruit flies, German cockroaches, head and body lice, and pavement ants, plus diseases transmitted by pests. All are able to be translated into Spanish, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, or Portuguese. Available at http://www.pestworld.org.

New York State Department of Health. Spanish brochures include management of mosquitoes, mice, West Nile virus plus tick and insect repellents. http://www.health.state.ny.us/ nysdoh/pest/pesticid.htm

Penn State. 2003. Extension Fact Sheets. Entomology fact sheets available for aphids, black vine weevils, eastern tent caterpillars, Japanese beetles, five types of cockroaches, pavement ants, cereal and pantry pests, cigarette beetles, larder beetles, bedbugs, lice and Pennsylvania spiders available in Spanish. Available to download for free at http://www.ento.psu.edu/extension/ fact_sheets.html. For more information, contact the department at (814) 865- 1895 or visit the department's Web site at http://www.ento.psu.edu.

Pennsylvania IPM Program. 2004. "Unete a Nuestra Patrull contra las Plaga." Translated version of "Join Our Pest Patrol" publication is fun, educational resource for Pennsylvania teachers of students in grades 3-4. Like the English version, the workbook is designed to serve two audiences; elementary school students who must learn about IPM to meet the new Academic Standards in environment and ecology, section 4.5.4, "Integrated Pest Management," and kids in 4-H programs. Copies of the Join Our Pest Patrol publication in Spanish can be downloaded as printable PDF files from the PA IPM Program's web site at http://paipm.cas.psu.edu/pestpatrol.html.

Reigart, J. R. and J. R. Roberts. 1999. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, 5th edition. 236 pp. Toxicology, signs and symptoms of poisoning and treatment for more than 1500 products, in 19 chapters. Covers new pesticide products "that have come on the market since 1989, includes a new chapter on disinfectants and reviews of clinical experiences with pesticide poisonings. US EPA., request in print by phone to 703-305-7666 Fax: 703 308-2962, available in electronic format at: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safetyspanish/healthcare/ handbook/handbook.htm

Safer Pest Control Project. "Alternativas a los Pesticidas en la Casa." 2 pp. Two-page fact sheet about alternatives to pesticides in the home, including an explanation of IPM. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/homespanish.pdf.

Safer Pest Control Project. Comic-style book in Spanish "La Invasion de los Insectos", addresses cockroach IPM in public housing. Available from Safer Pest Control Project, 25 E. Washington St, Suite 1515, Chicago, IL 60602, (312) 641-5575, Fax (312) 641-5454, E-mail: [email protected], Website http://www.spcpweb.org.

Safer Pest Control Project. Lawns We Can Live With. 2-page fact sheet containing information about lawn care. Available at http://www.spcpweb.org/lawnsspanish.pdf.

Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Entomology Spanish language publications, includes Cockroaches, How to Control Cockroaches at Home, Control of Rats And Mice, Fleas, Flea Control, House Infesting Ants, How to Control Ants at Home, Subterranean Termites, The Two Step Fire Ant Control, Ticks, Tick Control. Available at http://tcebookstore.org/browse.cfm?catid=162.

Glossary

UMASS. What is Integrated Pest Management? This informative brochure is available through the University of Massachusetts in nine different languages including English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Italian, Khmer, Vietnamese and Chinese. Available at http://www.umass.edu/umext/ipm/ ipm_projects/school.html.

University of Minnesota Extension Service. Materials in Spanish include "Cockroaches - Your Safe Home," (also in English, Laotian, Cambodian and Hmong); "Molds - Your Safe Home" (English, Laotian, Cambodian, Hmong and Somali). Available at http://www.extension.umn.edu/pesticides/IPM/ pubstruct.htm.

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Head Lice Resources You Can Trust. Family guide with practical, simple directions on head lice control in Spanish and English. Also includes online "Removing Head Lice Safely" video in both Spanish, Arabic and English. Available at http://lancaster.unl.edu/enviro/HeadLice/Resources.htm.

US EPA. 2004. Proper household pesticide storage and disposal in Spanish. Spanish-speaking individuals can now view in Spanish EPA’s household consumer information on proper pesticide storage and disposal. To access, visit http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/storage.htm and click on the “En espanol” button above the “Quick Resources” box.

US EPA. Pest management materials in Spanish include "Ten Tips to Protect Children from Pesticides and Lead Poisonings around the Home" (tri-fold brochure); "Pesticides and Child Safety" (3-page tip sheet); "How to Protect Children from Environmental Threats" (brochure, IPM plus other issues, very attractive presentation and practical tips); "Pesticides and Food: What Your Family Needs to Know." Request in print by phone to 703-305-7666 Fax: 703 308-2962.

US EPA, Region 2. Materials in Spanish include brochure plus public service announcements on illegal pesticides. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region02/health/chalk.htm.

US EPA. 2002. Socorro! Una Cucaracha! (Help! It's a Roach!). The Spanish version of the popular pest prevention activity book for children is now on-line. The activities have been designed to be interactive, to provide a fun way to learn about managing indoor insect pests. The messages of removing food, water, and shelter apply to many pests, not just cockroaches. The web version is found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/kids/roaches/spanish. Paper versions are available from EPA's publication center, http://www.epa.gov/ ncepihom/ordering.htm (EPA 735-F-98- 016?English and EPA 735-F-01-004?Spanish).

University of Wisconsin's Home*Asyst. 2003. Free copies of the Spanish version of "Help Yourself to Healthy Home" (Contribuya a Tener un Hogar Sano) are now available. This booklet is geared for the consumer and answers important questions about the home and how you live in it. Every chapter provides basic information about a particular environmental issue, e.g. indoor air quality, pesticides, carbon monoxide, lead, mold and moisture, etc. Interested in copies, e-mail Kathy Seikel at [email protected] or call 703-308-8272. Organizations with Resources for School IPM

Note: Organizations listed under state headings may have resources available and applicable to users outside of the state. No effort has been made to screen entries and no endorsement is implied. The user bears all responsibility for verifying the accuracy and propriety of information obtained from Web sites, publications, etc. For the latest version of this directory, see http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ipm_org.htm.

NATIONAL

Government/University/Extension

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Dr. Philip Koehler, Urban Pest Specialist, Entomology and Nematology Department, Bldg 970, Natural Area Drive, Gainesville FL 32611-0640, (352) 392-2484, Fax (352) 846-1500, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advice to schools districts and pest management professionals; sample/model IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies); E-mail list server; Website http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ including pest management techniques from national authorities, downloadable presentations, how-to start an IPM program and sample documents.

Glossary

US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Kathy Seikel, Senior Policy Analyst, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, MC 7511C, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20460, (703) 308-8272, Fax (703) 308-7026, E- mail [email protected].

Citizen's Guide to Pest Control and Pesticide Safety (EPA Pub # 730-K-95-001, September 1995); Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting IPM (EPA Pub # 735-F-93-012, August 1993); order free of charge through EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihome.publication center

Non-governmental, non-profit organizations

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST THE MISUSE OF PESTICIDES (NCAMP), Kagan Owens, Program Director, 701 E Street, S.E., Suite 200, Washington DC 20003, (202) 543-5450, Fax (202) 543- 4791, E-mail [email protected].

Resources for parents, activists, school administrators on the hazards of school pesticide use and their alternatives; model school policies and laws; resources on IPM, pesticide bans and right-to-know programs on local, state and federal level; information on pesticide poisoning incidents and how to document; membership; quarterly newsletter: Pesticides and You; monthly publication: Technical Report; annual national pesticide conference; Web site, http://www.beyondpesticides.org.

CENTER FOR HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE, Deb Benyik, Children's Health Coordinator, P.O. Box 6806 Falls Church, VA 22040, (703) 237-2249, E-mail: [email protected].

Site-specific technical assistance to communities with environmental problems; publications: Gold Standard, school IPM guidelines, an effort of the Poisoned Schools: Childproofing Our Communities campaign, comprised of local, state and national children's environmental health activist groups; newsletter: Everyone’s Backyard; membership; Web site: http://www.childproofing.org.

HEALTHY SCHOOLS NETWORK INC., Claire Barnett, Executive Director, 773 Madison Avenue, Albany NY 12208, (518) 462-0632, E-mail: [email protected].

Kick the Pesticide Habit, 8 pp. guide for parents and others in the school community linking child environmental health research and school facility information to practical steps schools can take to pest-proof facilities and reduce pesticide use; advocacy for improved school facility conditions and practices; assistance for parents of allergic, asthmatic, and chemically sensitive students; peer and technically reviewed guides, fact sheets, packets on a variety of indoor environmental problems in institutions serving children on cleaning products, access to public information, renovation vs health, health & safety committees, molds, carpeting, and more; Web site: http://www.hsnet.org.

IPM INSTITUTE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Dr. Thomas Green, President, 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726, (608) 232-1528, Fax (608) 232-1530, E-mail: [email protected].

IPM certification; membership; newsletter; IPM Standards for Schools, 124 pp. school IPM checklist with more than 700 IPM practices and 250 resources for schools implementing IPM including model documents, how-to resources for planning, communication, pesticide risk management, non-chemical controls for school buildings and grounds; IPM verifier training; Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org including IPM Standards in html and PDF formats and brand name list of least-impact pest control options.

ALABAMA

Government/University/Extension

IPM ALABAMA PROGRAM, Mark A. Rumph, Coordinator, Alabama IPM in Schools Project, 207 Extension Hall, Auburn University AL 36849, (334) 844-6390, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training (through the Alabama Pest Control Association); advising to schools, PCOs, any other interested groups; model IPM program; newsletters tailored for schools; Web site http:/www.aces.edu/schoolipm.

CALIFORNIA

Government/University/Extension

SCHOOL IPM PROGRAM, Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency, 830 K Street, Sacramento CA 95814-3510, (916) 324-4100, Fax (916) 324-4088, E-mail: [email protected].

Glossary

IPM Guidebook and web-based resources on IPM and pesticides for schools, parents, teachers; training-the-trainers in school districts; assessing IPM adoption assessment; model school sites development; California legislation requires annual parental notification, parental advisory of individual pesticide applications upon request and posting of pesticides applications with record keeping; Web site: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov.

Non-governmental, non-profit organization

BIO-INTEGRAL RESOURCE CENTER, William Quarles, Executive Director, PO Box 7414, Berkeley CA 94707; (510) 524-2567; Fax (510) 524-1758, E-mail: [email protected].

Membership; training programs; newsletters; IPM Practitioner, Common Sense Pest Control Quarterly and more than 100 publications on IPM and reduced-risk pest control; IPM school manual; IPM curriculum; 52-page reduced-risk product list.

COMMUNITY IPM COUNCIL, Phil Boise, IPM/Agronomy Programs Manager, 930 Miramonte Dr., Santa Barbara CA 93109, (805) 963-0583 x150, Fax (805) 962-9080, E-mail: [email protected].

IPM training; conference and program development for schools, municipalities, professional landscape and communities. Web site: http://www.grc.org.

CONNECTICUT

Government/University/Extension

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, Dr. Richard A. Ashley, IPM Coordinator, Department of Plant Science, 1376 Storrs Road, U-67, Storrs CT 06269-4067, (860) 486-3438, Fax (860) 486-4562, E-mail: [email protected].

Resources for commercial growers, home gardeners, and school administrators; IPM information for turf, invasive species, weeds; online IPM homestudy courses and publications ordering; Web site: http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ipm.

FLORIDA

Government/University/Extension

Applicator training; advice to schools districts and pest management professionals; sample/model IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies); E-mail list server; Web site: http:schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ including pest management techniques, downloadable presentations, how-to start an IPM program and sample documents.

IOWA

Government/University/Extension

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, Pest Management & the Environment, Dr. Mark H. Shour, 109 Insectary, Ames IA 50011, (515) 294-5963, Fax (515) 294-8027, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advice to schools districts and pest management professionals.

ILLINOIS

Government/University/Extension

SCHOOL IPM TECHNICAL RESOURCE AND INFORMATION CENTER, Entomology Department, Purdue University, Mr. Al Fournier, School IPM Coordinator, 1158 Smith Hall, West Lafayette IN 47907-1158, (765) 496- 7520, Fax (765) 494-0535, E-mail: [email protected].

Advice to schools, pest management professionals in Indiana and Illinois via hotline (1-877-668-8IPM); workshops for school administrators, staff, pest control professionals; pilot programs operating in 3 model school districts and 4 childcare facilities.

Non-governmental, non-profit organization

SAFER PEST CONTROL PROJECT (SPCP), Jessica Bullen, Program Associate, 25 E. Washington, Suite 1515, Chicago IL 60602, (312) 641-5575, Fax (312) 641-5454, E-mail: [email protected].

Glossary

Resources for parents, teachers, and schools on IPM; sample IPM materials including sample notification and model policy; newsletter; IPM Handbook and comic book about IPM (English and Spanish); workshops on residential, garden, and school IPM; Web site: http://www.spcpweb.org.

INDIANA

Government/University/Extension

MAINE

Government/University/Extension

MAINE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL RESOURCES, Dr. Kathleen Murray, IPM Entomologist, 28 State House Station, Augusta ME 04333, (207) 287-7616, Fax (207) 624-5065, E-mail: [email protected].

Advising to parents, schools, pest management professionals; model IPM policy; publications: What's Bugging Our Schools? Pest Concerns and Pesticide Use in Maine Public Schools: Report of the School Integrated Pest Management Survey, Maine School IPM Outdoor Turf and Pest Management Guide; workshops: On-Site Training Program, a 3-hr presentation to school staff and administrators on IPM objectives and how to develop and implement an IPM program in schools.

MAINE BOARD OF PESTICIDES CONTROL, Gary Fish, 28 State House Station, Augusta ME 04333, (207) 287- 2731, Fax (207) 287-7548, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator licensing and certification; consulting/advising to parents, schools, pest management professionals; newsletter; publications (pamphlets, fact sheets); workshops and conferences (Turf IPM, Structural IPM, Ornamental IPM and other one-day seminars offered annually); Web site: http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides.

UNIVERSITY OF MAINE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PEST MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Dr. Jim Dill, IPM Coordinator, 491 College Avenue, Orono, ME 04469, (207) 581-3880, Fax (207) 581-3881, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; applicator certification; consulting/advising to parents, schools, pest management professionals; publications (pesticide applicator training manuals, insect and disease fact sheets); workshops/conferences (various pest management workshops offered); insect and plant disease diagnostic service; Web site: http://www.umext.maine.edu/topics/pest.htm.

MARYLAND

Government/University/Extension

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Pesticide Regulation Section, Mary Ellen Setting, Chief or Ed Crow, Program Coordinator, 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis MD, 21401, (410) 841-5710, Fax (410) 841- 2765, E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected].

Regulatory and reference materials: regulations, regulation summaries, sample notices, sample IPM plan, IPM Guidelines, Contracting Guidelines, IPM training manual, supplemental manual on IPM principles and practices, Yellowjackets and IPM, establishing action thresholds, IPM information sheets; Website: http://www.mda.state.md.us.

MASSACHUSETTS

Government/University/Extension

UMASS EXTENSION, School IPM Program, Reginald Coler, Coordinator, Department of Entomology, Fernald Hall, University of Massachusetts, Box 32410, Amherst, MA 01003-2410. (413) 577-3976, FAX (413) 545-5858, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advising and workshops for schools, pest management professionals.

Glossary

MINNESOTA

Government/University/Extension

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Jean Ciborowski, Integrated Pest Management Program Coordinator, Agricultural Development Division, 90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul MN 55107-2094, (651) 297-3217, Fax (651) 297-7678, E-mail: [email protected]. Applicator certification contact person: John Wagner, Agronomy and Plant Protection Division, (651) 297-7122, E-mail: [email protected].

Publications: IPM Overview, Ant Management in Schools, Cockroach Management in Schools, Small Fly Management in Schools, Wasp and Bee Management Around Schools, Rat and Mouse Management in Schools, Weed Management on School Grounds and Athletic Fields, Join Our Pest Patrol - A Backyard Activity Book For Kids - An Adventure in IPM; Web site: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/IPM/default.htm.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE, Dean Herzfeld, Minnesota Health, Environmental, and Pesticide Safety and Pesticide Applicator Training Coordinator, 495 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul MN 55108, (612) 624-3477, Fax (612) 625-9728, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training manuals plus a wide range of pest management publications and training; Web sites: Health, Environmental, and Pesticide Safety at http://www.extension.umn.edu/pesticides, Community and School IPM at http://www.extension.umn.edu/pesticides/IPM/ipmhome.htm, Pesticide Applicator Training at http://www.extension.umn.edu/pesticides/pat/mnpat.html.

Minnesota's Parents' Right-to-Know Act dealing with pesticide application at schools Web site: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2000/c489.html#a7.

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, model school pesticide application notices, school compliance and related information Web site: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/esa/hra/notification.html.

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN FAMILIES AND LEARNING maintains a searchable database listing pesticides and their EPA toxicity category at http://cfls.state.mn.us/pesticide.

MONTANA

Government/University/Extension

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Will Lanier, IPM Assistant, 422 Leon Johnson Hall, Bozeman, Montana, 59717, (406) 994-5690, Fax (406) 994-6029, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advice to schools, pest management professionals; sample/model IPM documents; e-mail list server; Web site http://IPM.montana.edu including pest management techniques from national authorities, downloadable presentations, how-to start an IPM program and sample documents, lesson plans for middle school science teachers to incorporate school IPM into science classes.

NEW JERSEY

Government/University/Extension

RUTGERS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Pest Management Office, Dr. George Hamilton, 93 Lipman Drive, Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ 08901, (732) 932-9801, Fax (732) 932-729, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advising to schools and pest management professionals; IPM certification criteria, sample/model IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies).

Non-governmental, non-profit organization

NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERATION, Jane Nogaki, IPM Program Coordinator, 223 Park Avenue, Marlton NJ 08053, (856) 767-1110, Fax (856)768-6662, E-mail: [email protected].

IPM advising to parents, teachers, schools; model notification and IPM policies; IPM training workshops for lawn care, schools, urban settings; listing of NJ schools using IPM; materials on lawn care, indoor pest control, mosquito control; Web site: http://www.cleanwateraction.org/njef.

Glossary

NEW YORK

Government/University/Extension

CORNELL COMMUNITY IPM PROGRAM, Lynn Braband, Extension Associate, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva NY 14456-0462, (800) 635-8356, (315) 787-2408, Fax (315) 787-2360, E-mail: [email protected]; LONG ISLAND: Dr. Jody L. Gangloff, IPM Area Specialist, Cornell Cooperative Extension, 1425 Old Country Road, Bldg. J, Plainview NY 11803, (516) 454-0900 ext. 270, Fax (516) 454-0365, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advising to schools and pest management professionals; funding for school IPM projects; newsletter; publication: IPM Workbook for New York State Schools; workshops; demonstration and applied research projects; Web site: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/urban/ includes IPM Workbook for New York State Schools and several other publications.

OHIO

Government/University/Extension

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY IPM PROGRAM, Margaret F. Huelsman, Extension Associate, 1991 Kenny Road, Columbus OH 43210, (614) 688-8431, Fax (614) 292-9783, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training; advising to parents, schools, pest management professionals; sample/model IPM documents; workshops: How to get a school IPM program started in your school district (Spring 2001); Web site: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ipm.

Non-governmental, non-profit organizations

RURAL ACTION SAFE PEST CONTROL PROGRAM, Heather Cantino, Coordinator, 33 Cable Lane, Athens OH 45701, (740) 594-3338, Fax (740) 593-3228, E-mail: [email protected].

Services to Midwest/Appalachia/Ohio; advising to schools, pest management professionals, IPM advocates; sample IPM documents including teacher education materials, IPM principles and implementation guidelines, pest prevention checklists, home safe pest control strategies; workshops/presentations for school officials, teachers, and parents on IPM rationale, methods, techniques, implementation goals and process; Web site http://www.ruralaction.org/ipm.html, including downloadable sample documents.

PENNSYLVANIA

Government/University/Extension

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Lee B. Bentz, IPM Coordinator, 2301 N. Cameron St., Harrisburg PA 17110-9408, (717) 772-5204, Fax (717) 783-3275, E-mail: [email protected]; Dr. Ed Rajotte, IPM Coordinator, The Pennsylvania State University, 501 ASI, University Park PA 16802, (814) 863-4641, Fax (814) 865- 3048, E-mail: [email protected].

Advice to school districts and pest management professionals; sample IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies); publications: Common Household Insects, Pyramid of IPM Tactics for Schools; video: Insects and Spiders and Mites Oh My!, quarterly newsletter; workshops for teachers; Web site: http://paipm.cas.psu.edu.

TENNESSEE

Government/University/Extension

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, Karen M. Vail, Urban Entomologist, Entomology and Plant Pathology Department, 218 Plant Science Building, 2431 Center Drive, Knoxville TN 37996, (865) 974-7138, Fax (865) 974-8868, E-mail: [email protected].

Advising to parents, schools, and pest management professionals; sample IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies); publications: Suggested Guidelines for Managing Pests in Tennessee's Schools: Adopting Integrated Pest Management (PB1603), Integrated Pest Management of Landscapes (PB 1639); workshops/conferences for school officials, pest management professionals and school plant managers; Web site: http://www.utextension.utk.edu/pbfiles/pb1603.pdf.

Glossary

TEXAS

Government/University/Extension

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, Dr. Michael Merchant, Associate Professor and Extension Urban Entomologist, Texas A&M University Center, 17360 Coit Road, Dallas TX 75252-6599, (972) 231-5362, Fax (972) 952-9632, E-mail: [email protected].

IPM Coordinator training; applicator training; CEU training; advice to schools districts and pest management professionals; sample/model IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies); publications: Pest Control in Texas Schools. Adopting Integrated Pest Management. B-6015; ABCs of IPM video training modules for school districts, includes an introductory video on IPM for schools; IPM Posters.

WASHINGTON

Government/University/Extension

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY PUYALLUP, Carrie R. Foss, Pesticide Education and Dr. Art Antonelli, Extension Entomologist, 7612 Pioneer Way, E. Puyallup WA 98371-4998, (253) 445-4577 and (253) 445-4545, Fax (253) 445-4569, E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected].

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Dr. Dan Suomi, Agricultural Chemical Specialist, P.O. Box 42589, Olympia WA 98504, (360) 902-2044, E-mail: [email protected].

Non-governmental, non-profit organization

WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION, Cheryl Holzmeyer, Healthy Schools Campaign Coordinator, 4649 Sunnyside Ave. N, Suite 540-East, Seattle WA 98103, (206) 632-1545 x11, Fax (206) 632-8661, E-mail: [email protected].

Advising to parents, school districts, and others seeking to reduce pesticide use in schools; membership; sample/model IPM documents (e.g., contracts, policies); newsletter: Alternatives; reports and fact sheets including Toxic by Design: Why We Need to Reduce Pesticide Use NOW, Healthy Homes for Healthy Kids, Weed Wars: Pesticide Use in Washington Schools, and others including a series designed for professional landscapers; Toxics Hotline (800) 844-SAFE; Web site: http://www.watoxics.org including Seven Steps to Reducing Pesticide Use in Schools, and a model least-toxic IPM policy.

WEST VIRGINIA

Government/University/Extension

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Pesticide Regulatory Programs, Dr. Peggy K. Powell, Certification/Compliance Assistance Supervisor, 1900 Kanawha Blvd East, Charleston WV 25305-0190, (304) 558- 2209, Fax (304) 555-2228, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator training and certification; advising to parents, schools and pest management professionals; West Virginia Title 61, Series 12J Rules for IPM Programs in Schools and Day Care Centers; bulletins and fact sheets.

WISCONSIN

Government/University/Extension

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, Brian Becker, School IPM Specialist, PO Box 8911, Madison WI 53708-8911, (608) 224-4547, Fax (608) 224-4656, E-mail: [email protected].

Applicator certification; advising and workshops for schools; School Integrated Pest Management Manual for Wisconsin's Schools; Web site: http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school/table.htm including School IPM Manual.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, Department of Horticulture, Dr. John Stier, Asst. Professor, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706, (608) 262-1624, Fax (608) 262-4743, E-mail: [email protected]; Department of Entomology, Karen Delahaut, IPM Outreach Specialist, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706, (608) 262-6429, Fax: (608) 262-3322, E-mail: [email protected]; Dr. Chris Williamson, Turfgrass Entomologist, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706, (608) 262-4608, Fax (608) 262-3322, E-mail: [email protected]; Phil Pellitteri, Insect Diagnostician and Indoor Pest Specialist, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706, (608) 262-6510, Fax (608) 262-3322, E-mail: [email protected].

Glossary

Applicator training (Turf and Landscape category 3.0 and Structural Pest Control category 7.1); advising and workshops for schools and pest management professionals; Web site http://ipcm.wisc.edu/programs/school; including Wisconsin's School Integrated Pest Manual with sample IPM documents.

School Pest Management in the News

These headlines were culled from a search of articles in U.S. publications containing the words “school” plus “pest,” “pesticide,” or “integrated pest management” between 1/17/2003 to 05/29/2003. To read the complete articles, most newspaper Web sites permit searching for recent articles free of charge, and archive searches for a fee.

“DANGERS IN THE AIR: CHILDREN ARE THE SUBJECTS OF UNCONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS EXPERIMENT, EXPERTS FEAR,” National Post, 13 July 2004

”BATS BEING REMOVED FROM HATTIESBURG HIGH,” Associated Press Newswires, 07:53, 12 July 2004

”32 THAI CHILDREN SENT TO HOSPITAL AFTER DRINKING BEVERAGE,” Xinhua News Agency, 29 June 2004

”STUDENTS LOBBY AGAINST PESTICIDES; ORANGEVILLE YOUNGSTERS COLLECT 300…,” The Toronto Star, 28 June 2004

”STOP PESTICIDE ABUSE,” Edmonton Journal, 24 June 2004

”'PRANK' SENDS 11 TO HOSPITAL…,” The Toronto Star, 16 June 2004

”POISONS TAINT NEW SCHOOL SITE...,” Orlando Sentinel, 15 June 2004

”PESTICIDES ARE FOUND FRUIT GIVEN TO SCHOOLCHILDREN,” Western Morning News, 14 June 2004

“IT'S NOT EASY BEING GREEN...,” Calgary Herald, 30 May 2004

”PESTICIDE FILINGS NOT POURING IN…,” Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 25 May 2004

“MOST SCHOOLS IGNORE PESTICIDE LAW AUDIT…,” The Boston Globe, 25 May 2004

”SCHOOL: FIELD MICE NO LONGER A PROBLEM…,” Greensboro News & Record, 20 May 2004

”PESTICIDE SPILL PROMPTS EVACUATION…,” San Bernardino County Sun (KRTBN), 20 May 2004

”FUMES MAKE STUDENTS ILL,” Monterey County Herald, 20 May 2004

”THE REGION; FUMES SICKEN STUDENTS IN GRAND TERRACE,” Los Angeles Times, 20 May 2004

“NABE FIGHTING NEW SCHOOL ASBESTOS, MERCURY COULD TAINT…,” New York Daily News, 12 May 2004

”WESTLAND STUDENT PROJECT PROTECTS RIVER FROM EROSION,” The Detroit News, 12 May 2004

“SCHOOL USE OF PESTICIDES TO BE CURBED,” Asbury Park Press, 4 May 2004

”CHEMICAL DANGERS AT SCHOOLS…,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 30 April 2004

”EVERGREEN, B.G. SCHOOLS NOTED FOR PESTICIDE USE,” The Columbian, 30 April 2004

”MARLTON ELEMENTARY SHINES ON EARTH DAY,” Courier-Post, 29 April 2004

”NEW STATE RULES PROTECT STUDENTS FROM PESTICIDES,” The Star-Ledger, 24 April 2004

“MORE TOXIC TESTS SET FOR BROWN-BARGE,” Pensacola News Journal, 20 April 2004

”ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS; STUDY SHOWS BENEFITS TO NEWBORNS OF FEDERAL BAN ON HOME USE OF TWO INSECTICIDES,” Women's Health Weekly, 15 April 2004

”CITY FINDS 130 VIOLATIONS AT FIVE SCHOOLS IN LAUSD,” Los Angeles Daily News, 13 April 2004

”MILTON SCHOOL GIVEN CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH…,” The Patriot Ledger, 8 April 2004

”U.S. PLANS STUDY ON ENVIRONMENT AND KIDS,” Associated Press Newswires, 17:30, 5 April 2004

“PEST MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS GO 'BACK TO SCHOOL'…,” Business Wire, 16:43, 29 March 2004

”THE BUG LADY KEEPS LID ON PESTS IN PITTSBURGH SCHOOLS,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 28 March 2004

”SPRAYING WHERE CHILDREN GATHER IS SIMPLY IRRESPONSIBLE,” Santa Fe New Mexican, 28 March 2004

Glossary

”CHILDREN HELP SPREAD THE WORD; GROWERS INVOLVE SCHOOLS IN A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMME TO REDUCE SPRAYING,” New Zealand Herald, 15 March 2004

”CHICAGO RODENT INSPECTORS TAKE TOUGH JOB,” Associated Press Newswires, 21:48, 13 March 2004

“A SWIPE AT SPRAYERS IN SCHOOL,” The News & Observer, 4 March 2004

”SPORTS-LOVING BATS BACK AT SLIDELL HIGH GAME…,” Times-Picayune, 2 March 2004

”THE HAIR ITCH PROJECT,” The Palm Beach Post, 26 February 2004

”MOSQUITO-BUSTING GADGETS BEING MARKETED,” Associated Press Newswires, 06:41, 26 February 2004

”MOSQUITO-BUSTING GADGETS MARKETED TO CONSUMER..,” Associated Press Newswires, 25 February 2004

”PESTICIDE-FREE PLAYING FIELDS A HEALTHY GOAL…,” Edmonton Journal, 23 February 2004

”'HELPING ATTITUDE' AT SCHOOL PAYS OFF YULEE…,” The Florida Times-Union, 11 February 2004

”LAKE PARK WEST STRIVES TO ELIMINATE MICE…,” Chicago Tribune, 11 February 2004

”COUPLE ASK DEFOREST SCHOOLS TO DROP PESTICIDES,” Wisconsin State Journal, 1 February 2004

”EVIDENCE FOUND OF TREE PEST IN VIENNA…,” The Washington Post, 29 January 2004

”GROUP THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX FOR RAT CONTROL,” Newsday, 26 January 2004

”CITY TO CLEAN 600 SCHOOLS OVER RODENT PROBLEMS,” Chicago Tribune, 23 January 2004

”HOW TO CURB HEAD LICE INFESTATIONS THAT SPREAD RAPIDLY…,” PR Newswire, 04:06, 19 January 2004

”'LICE BRIGADE' INSPECTS HEADS WEEKLY…,” Montreal Gazette, 17 January 2004

”STRESS-FREE PLANTS WILL BE PEST-FREE,” Poughkeepsie Journal, 16 January 2004

”PARENTS OF CHILDREN ATTENDING SOME ELEMENTARY...,” Associated Press Newswires, 7 January 2004

”REGULATORY OUTLOOK 2004-- PART ONE,” Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 5 January 2004

”BRIEFING,” The Journal News, 2 January 2004

”ASTHMA AND PESTICIDES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS…,” Boston College Env. Affairs Law Review, 1 January 2004

Glossary

The IPM Continuum

IPM is a collection of practices, all designed to maximize effectiveness and minimize risks associated with pests and pesticides:

! Monitoring and thresholds. Actions are taken against pests only when truly necessary, not on a routine basis or regular schedule. Pests are dealt with as problems arise with a focus on monitoring and chemical control. Pest and pesticide risks are reduced by improving timing and pest-specificity of control actions and eliminating routine pesticide applications. Entry Level IPM practices include inspection and monitoring to identify pest levels and conditions favoring pests; accurate identification and diagnosis of problems; and using the minimum effective amount of least-risk pesticides only when pests exceed predetermined levels.

! Choosing effective, reduced-risk options. Efforts to reduce pesticide risks include replacement of high-risk pesticides with lesser risk alternatives. Broad-spectrum pesticides, toxic to many different pests, are replaced with selective controls tailored to the pest problem at hand, including non-chemical options. Pesticides, when necessary, are applied at the lowest effective rate and to as limited an area as possible. Responses to insect, disease, weed and other pest problems are coordinated to minimize unfavorable interactions.

! Establishing long-term, preventive and avoidance strategies. Implementing solutions to prevent pest problems reduces the need for chemical or non-chemical intervention. Pest management is integrated with structural design and maintenance, sanitation, horticultural practices, personnel training and other key factors to maximize overall performance and minimize risks and environmental impacts. High Level IPM practices include modifying structures to avoid pest problems, new or renovated structure design minimizes pest problems and staff and students are educated to actively participate and share responsibility in preventing and avoiding pest problems.

- After Balling, S., 1994. The IPM Continuum. In Constraints to the Adoption of Integrated Pest Management, A.

Sorenson, ed. National Foundation for IPM Education; and Benbrook, et al., 1996. Pest Management at the

Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers NY.

IPM Standards for Schools V3.1

Published by

The IPM Institute of North America, Inc.

1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 USA (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530 E-mail: mailto:[email protected] Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org

Glossary

Published by The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI 53726 (608) 232-1528, FAX (608) 232-1530, E-mail [email protected], Web site: http://www.ipminstitute.org