Implementing Integrated Pest Management in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Schools - Final Report

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by an EPA assistance agreement recipient and represents only the views of the author rather than EPA.

EPA PESP 2002 Grant Project #PE-98172401-1
Submitted to EPA Region I - 13 February 2004

Project Coordinator

Kathy Murray, Maine Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources, 28 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, 207-287-7616 (phone), Kathy.murray@maine.gov

Collaborators
Cooperators
Project Objectives
Accomplishments
Training
Web Site Development
School Tool-kit
Pilot Demonstrations
Outreach
State Lead Agency Involvement
Impact Assessment
Challenges Encountered
Appendices (not included here but available upon request)

A. Strategic Planning (notes and participants)
B. Train the Trainer Workshop (agendas, presentations, handouts)
C. School Staff Training (agendas, presentations, evaluation form)
D. Pilot Demonstration Project (examples of facilities inspection reports, planning meeting notes, needs assessment questionnaire)
E. On-site School Staff Training Sessions (sample agenda and summary of participant evaluations)
F. IPM Open-House (sample postcard announcement)
G. Sample Pilot Demonstration Site Final Assessment Questionnaire Responses
H. Examples of Newspaper Articles about this Project and School IPM
I. Final Report from NH Collaborators
J. Final Report from VT Collaborators0

Collaborators

Debra Martin, The Jordan Institute
Ann Hazelrigg, University of Vermont, Cooperative Extension

Cooperators

University of Maine Cooperative Extension: Jim Dill, Don Barry
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension: Bruce Clement, Faye Cragin, Rachel Maccini

Project Objectives

Provide training for K-12 staff and administrators for the development and implementation of IPM programs in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.
Implement a demonstration school IPM program in Maine and New Hampshire that will serve as a model and foundation for the expansion of school IPM program for the tri-state region.
Develop a tool kit of material for use by New England schools for development and implementation of school IPM programs.

Accomplishments

This report summarizes our accomplishments for the tri-state project. Individual reports from the NH and VT project leaders are also included (Appendix I and J).

Strategic Planning

The grant proposal for this project was generated through many phone calls and e-mails, but the primary investigators had never met face to face before initiating this project. Therefore, it was critical that a strategic planning session be held to meet and plan. The entire project team met in Concord, NH on 12 Sept 2002 to plan project implementation (see participant list and notes from this meeting in Appendix A). An issue that arose during this meeting was whether cooperators felt they would be qualified to conduct IPM training sessions for school staff audiences after a single train-the-trainer workshop. Maine cooperators had a head start in this area and felt that they would be able to build on the train-the-trainer workshop, but the NH and VT cooperators felt that their time and efforts would better be utilized through other educational approaches. Therefore, we decided to tailor implementation of the training to meet the different needs of each state.
Additional planning was conducted among all collaborators via e-mail and telephone as needed and within each state via meetings, phone calls, and e-mails among project leaders, other participants, and stakeholders. Additional state stakeholder meetings were also held in ME and VT to generate and discuss strategies for increasing adoption of IPM in schools and to plan implementation of this project.

Training Workshops

Train-the-Trainer Workshops:

In order to give some training in structural IPM to the participants, none of whom had any formal training in this area, an all-day ‘Train-the-Trainer’ workshop was held in Bangor, ME on 05 Nov 02, and in White River Junction, VT on 07 Nov 02. The trainer for these sessions was Dr. Robert Corrigan, internationally recognized structural pest management specialist and national expert on school IPM. Dr. Corrigan gave very helpful practical instruction and led the participants in a school IPM inspection. Agendas, participant list, and hand-outs for these sessions are included in Appendix B.
Participants included cooperative extension educators, state health inspectors, IPM specialists, the research director and a field staff member from the American Lung Association, the health/safety specialist from the Maine School Management Association, the facilities specialist from the Department of Education, pesticide inspectors, all the grant collaborators, and representatives from NH, VT, and ME Departments of Agriculture.
Participants were given classroom instruction and spent several hours participating in a school IPM inspection at the host school to learn how and where to place traps for pest monitoring, how to keep IPM records, how to inspect for pest activity and pest conducive situations, how to pest-proof a building and more.
Both the organizers and the other participants found the workshops to be very valuable. These sessions were held at schools, with staff from the host school actively participating as both ‘students’ and ‘teachers’ as they discussed and showed how their school’s facilities management practices fit within an IPM approach. A participant evaluation questionnaire (Appendix B) was used at the ME workshop to serve as a measure of program effectiveness.

Excerpt from Train-the-Trainer Participant Evaluations (summary of 11 evaluations received from Bangor, ME session):

Please rank the program overall (1 = not useful…..5 = very useful): Average rating = 4.6
Are you more likely to provide IPM help to schools as a result of this training? Yes: 91% No: 9%
Did you learn new information that will help you to provide assistance to schools for the adoption of IPM policies and practices? Yes: 91% No Response: 9%
Did this program meet your expectations? Yes: 100%
Will you recommend this program to your peers? Yes: 100%
How useful were the hand-outs? (1 = not useful….5 = very useful): Average rating = 4.1

Train-the-User Workshops:

As mentioned above, at the initial strategic planning session it was decided to tailor the ‘IPM User’ education to meet the differing needs and levels of development in each of the three states. Maine offered IPM training to school staff through ‘Train the User’ Workshops (see below), VT provided IPM education to 150 school employees at the annual Vermont School Custodian Conference on June 26, 2003 in White River Junction, VT and through distribution of the ‘IPM for NE Schools’ (C. Hollingsworth et al., ed.) book. The University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension (UNHCE) developed an electronic presentation that schools and support organizations can use to provide training for school staff (see under ‘Tool-kit’ below).
A ‘Train-the-User’ workshop for school staff was held on Nov. 6, 2002 in Augusta, ME and was broadcast through an advanced interactive TV system to three additional schools located in the southern, central and northern parts of the state. Approximately 80 school staff (primarily maintenance, custodial, nursing, and administrative staff) participated (agenda, hand-outs and the participant list are included in Appendix C). Participant evaluations were used to assess program effectiveness.
Travel expenses for the trainer, Dr. Robert Corrigan, were $500 less than budgeted. Because there was a demand for more training in Maine, an additional workshop for approximately 130 school staff and structural pest control professionals was held in Lewiston, ME on 06 Nov 03 funded with the remaining $500 from the PESP grant, plus funds from the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, the New England Pest Control Association, and a registration fee charged of participants. See agenda in Appendix C. Participant evaluations are included as a measure of effectiveness (see excerpt of results under ‘Impact Assessment’ below). Two school IPM manuals (IPM for Maine School Grounds, D. Barry, ed., and IPM for NE Schools, C. Hollingsworth et al, ed.) were distributed to all participants at the second Maine workshop.
Additional on-site training was also provided to school staff at the Pilot Demonstration Schools (see below).

School IPM Websites

A website for VT school IPM was developed as part of this project (http://pss.uvm.edu/pd/schoolipm/) and will be maintained by UVMCE.
A website for NH school IPM is still under development (http://www.ceinfo.unh.edu/Agriculture/Documents/schoolIPM.htm) by UNHCE, who will also update and maintain it.
Maine’s school IPM website (www.thinkfirstspraylast.org/schoolipm) was updated and will continue to be maintained by the Maine Board of Pesticides Control.

School IPM Tool-kit

An initial strategy session among the Maine cooperators (representatives from the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, UM Cooperative Extension, Maine Department of Education, Maine Department of Agriculture) and Dr. Robert Corrigan was held on Nov. 6, 2003 to discuss objectives and outline approaches for development of the tool-kit.
School maintenance and custodial staff were polled via a state Department of Education listserve to determine their preferences for content and format of the toolkit. The majority of school staff responding indicated a preference for concisely written printed materials and checklists. Andrea Szylvian, our EPA liaison, suggested the format be easily updated and durable enough to be used stored in custodian’s work spaces. An outline of the content was developed through several additional meetings, e-mails and phone calls among collaborators.
The ‘tool-kit’ of educational materials designed to assist schools in adopting an IPM program was developed by the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office (UMCE PMO). A draft of that document was provided to EPA Region I along with this report. The final product will be comprised of concisely written backgrounders, specific pest management recommendations, and checklists formatted for placement in a loose-leaf binder. It is intended for use for self-training by school staff and administrators, as a resource guide, and as a text for school IPM training workshops.
UMCE PMO adapted the tool-kit for Maine schools with Maine-specific resource and regulation information. The Maine toolkit will be provided in hard copy in a 3-ring binder (100 binders were purchased with outside funds from the Maine Department of Agriculture) to Maine schools. It will also be distributed to schools as part of future school IPM training sessions in ME, VT, or NH. In addition, the toolkit will be made freely and publicly available via the Maine School IPM website.
NH and VT collaborators will adapt the tool-kit for their states with the addition of their state-specific resources and regulations. The NH and VT versions of the toolkit will be made publicly available via the Vermont and New Hampshire School IPM websites.
An electronic educational presentation was developed for use in training (including self-training by school staff) by UNHCE. This presentation will be distributed to key contacts including state education officials, cooperative extension educators, and all collaborators and will be made available through the ME, VT, and NH School IPM websites. It is at: http://www.ceinfo.unh.edu/Agriculture/Documents/schoolIPM.htm
Although it was beyond the scope of this one-year project to commit the necessary time and expertise to produce timely updates to the tool-kit, the Maine School IPM Program plans to take the lead to seek funding for that at some time in the future.

Pilot Demonstration Program

Our proposal called for cooperators to work closely with selected schools to implement a Pilot IPM Demonstration in NH and ME. The original proposal called for UNHCE to provide expertise for implementation of the pilot demonstration in three Manchester, NH schools. However, Manchester schools decided not to participate while Hampton Schools were eager to serve as a demonstration site. UNHCE then opted out of that portion of the project, citing the extra driving distance as an impediment, therefore, funds were directed out of the UNHCE budget to contract with Dr. Tom Fisher (independent consultant) to provide the necessary expertise and guidance to three Hampton Schools.
School districts were selected for participation in an IPM pilot demonstration program, based on geographical distribution, a variety of school administrative models (school union, municipal school department, school administrative district) and expressed interest. In Maine, the ME Department of Education and the ME School Management Association were also consulted during the selection process. The ME project leader also worked voluntarily with the school district in her community to do IPM inspections, set up IPM monitoring programs and provide on-site staff training for all eight schools. The pilot demonstration project was originally planned to be conducted in NH and ME only, however, the VT project leader, Ann Hazelrigg, volunteered to work to a limited degree with four VT schools.
Participating Demonstration Schools:
- Orono High School, Orono Middle School & Asa Adams Elementary School - Maine School Union #87 (Orono and Veazie, ME)
- Eliot Elementary School & Marshwood Middle School - Maine School Administrative District #35 (Eliot and S. Berwick, ME)
- Lewiston Middle School - Lewiston School Department (Lewiston, ME)
- Centre School, Hampton Academy & Marston School - Hampton School Department (Hampton, NH)
Additional Informal Participants:
- Williston Central School (Williston, VT)
- Neshobe School (Brandon, VT)
- Swanton Central School (Swanton, VT)
- S. Burlington Middle School (S. Burlington, VT – needs-assessment questionnaire and pest monitoring only)
- MSAD #3, (Unity, ME - needs assessment conducted, pest monitoring program established, and staff training provided at eight schools)
Initial meetings between project staff, pest management professionals already under contract with some of the schools, and key members of the school staff and administration were held at each of the four participating districts in January, 2003 to develop a customized plan for project implementation at each participating school and district. One or more schools in each district were specifically identified to serve as the primary demonstration sites. These schools are intended to serve as models for IPM program implementation for other schools within their district and across each state.
Initial Assessment: An initial assessment questionnaire developed under this project was distributed to the participating schools. Responses were used to help develop an appropriate needs-based IPM program for each school. In addition, an initial IPM facilities inspection was conducted at each demo site school. Inspections were thorough, requiring several hours for each school, and were conducted by the state project leaders, pest management professionals contracted for this purpose by the project (Dr. Tom Fisher and Don Barry), and key administrative, maintenance, and custodial staff from the participating school. A checklist developed for indoor IPM inspection was used for this purpose, plus additional professional knowledge supplied by the pest management professional. Notes from each inspection detailing needs for monitoring, pest proofing, pest prevention, and recommendations for setting up and maintaining an IPM program were presented to each school (see Appendix D for examples). Consultative visits and site evaluations of school grounds were done by landscape professionals (Chuck Ravis (independent consultant), John Roberts and Stan Swier (UNHCE), and Colin Stewart (UMCE). Additional follow-up visits by the UNHCE staff will be conducted after the end of the project in Spring 2004 at the Hampton, NH schools.
Pest monitoring supplies (glue boards, crawling insect monitoring traps and mechanical rodent traps, and locking boxes to house the traps) were donated to the project by Bell Laboratories and Atlantic Paste and Glue, Co. These monitors and traps were placed in each school following the professional’s recommendations for placement and maintenance by school staff.
Each school was given an ‘IPM Log Book’ developed by this project, in a 3-ring binder, which included pest sighting forms, trap record forms, pesticide application log forms, sample IPM plans, sample IPM contracts, fact sheets, and resource lists. The schools were shown how to use the log forms and instructed to check monitors regularly and to keep records in the binder (the IPM Log Book was provided to EPA Region I along with this report).
The contracted IPM professionals and state project leaders made several follow-up visits to each participating school during the spring and summer of 2003 to meet with school staff, inspect progress in addressing identified IPM needs, review the logbook, check pest monitors and answer questions.
On-site School Staff Training: Nine out of 10 of the demonstration schools indicated that formal training would help them to adopt IPM. Therefore, we held formal on-site IPM training sessions (see Appendix E) for school and municipal staff (maintenance and custodial staff, municipal parks and recreation staff, school nurses, kitchen staff and administrators participated). Approximately 210 school and municipal staff in ME and NH attended. Training was provided by the structural, landscape and turf IPM professionals contracted for this purpose under the project, and the state project leader. In Maine, Gary Fish and Robert Batteese, of the ME Board of Pesticides Control, also contributed to the training programs. One of the turf and landscape IPM training sessions (in Orono, ME) was made open to the public and was announced in the newspaper and by phone calls to surrounding school districts.

Outreach

Open House Events

Five School IPM Open House events at the NH and ME demonstration schools were held in Fall 2003 to allow participating schools to showcase their accomplishments and to disseminate information about school IPM to community members and other schools.
The events were open to the public and were announced via newspapers, direct mail to all public schools (see sample postcard Appendix F), and a school facilities listserve administered by the Maine Department of Education.
Printed information about school IPM was disseminated to visitors and tours were conducted. Visitors from other school districts were invited to add their name to a mailing list to receive additional information and announcements of future training opportunities.

Publicity

Project leaders utilized press releases and media events to publicize the project and garner recognition of and support for school IPM. Stories were carried in newspapers and on the radio in ME and VT (see examples in Appendix H). A table top display was also developed and displayed at fairs, a shopping mall, and professional conferences for school staff such as the Maine Indoor Air Quality conference, the Educational Plant Maintenance Association conference, School Superintendents Association Fall Conference, and the Teachers Health Summit.
Ann Hazelrigg participated in 2 press releases with VT Public Interest Research Group for the local television news on decreasing the use of pesticides in Vermont schools. She also served on a panel as the resource person for School IPM, at a program for school staff and administrators, January 30, 2003, St. Albans, VT.

State Lead Agency Involvement and Understanding of Pesticide Use Patterns in Schools

A representative from the NH Dept of Agriculture, Markets and Food Division of Pesticide Control participated in the Train-the-Trainer workshop. This agency declined to participate any further in the project but expressed an interest in being kept informed of outcomes and was sent a copy of the Jordan Institute-led school pest management practices survey findings.
The Vermont Department of Agriculture, Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets provided a letter of support for the project and was involved in Vermont strategic planning for this project. The participated in the Train-the-Trainer workshop. The agency has access to the school pest management data from a survey conducted by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) 2002 which is publicly available at http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/environmentalHealth/pesticide_report.pdf.
The results from a state-wide public school pest management survey conducted by the Maine Department of Agriculture (78% response rate) in 1999 is publicly available (http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/schoolipm/schoolipm_report.pdf). The Maine Board of Pesticides Control (MBPC) has been a full participant and an essential partner for this project. The MBPC maintains the ME School IPM webpage (www.thinkfirstspraylast.org/schoolipm) and has provided additional funding and technical expertise throughout the entire project. The MBPC has developed an IPM compliance checklist and plans to do compliance visits to ME schools beginning in early 2004 to assist schools in complying with requirements for adoption of IPM and pesticide notification practices.
The New England IPM Information Network (www.ProNewEngland.org) is currently developing a proposal to seek funding to do a regional survey of pest management/ pesticide use practices across all New England states which, if successful, will provide additional information about pest and pesticide-use risks in schools in each of the New England states.

Impact Assessment

This project was very successful in meeting the needs and goals identified by stakeholders in each of the participating states. Cooperators in all three states identified the need to educate themselves about school IPM and to gain technical skills in structural IPM to better provide assistance to schools. That was achieved. ME stakeholders had identified the need for additional training for school staff and pest management professionals in order to meet the states mandate for IPM implementation in ME schools. School stakeholders in all three states had also indicated the need to see IPM in action through demonstration projects. Both of these needs were provided for through this project.
Approximately 600 people attended school IPM training workshops in the three states under this project. Of those, 32 were trained as ‘trainers’ to provide support for schools for the adoption of IPM. The remainder were school and municipal staff, school administrators, pest management professionals, and consultants responsible for implementation of IPM in schools. The overwhelming number of participants gave these workshops very positive evaluations and indicated that the workshops would improve their ability to implement IPM in schools.

Train-the-User School IPM Workshop- Summary of participant evaluations*
1. Please rank the program overall (1 = not useful….5=very useful): Average rating = 4.3
2. Will this program change your existing pest management practices: Yes: 83% No: 17%
3. Would you recommend this program to your peers? Yes: 99% No: 1%
4. Did this program meet your expectations? Yes: 96% No: 4%
* This is a summary of the responses to some key questions only from 88 evaluations received at Nov. 6th, 2003 Train-the-User School IPM Workshop, Lewiston, ME.

Risk reduction and adoption of IPM

A final assessment and evaluation questionnaire (see Appendix G) was developed and disseminated to the ME and NH participating schools. All three participating districts in Maine responded, but we were unable to obtain responses from NH. The VT schools participated on a limited basis which was more than was originally planned and they were not asked to fill out the final questionnaire.
The Maine participants indicated that they were very happy with the program and felt that adopting IPM practices has almost eliminated pesticide use, especially the use of spray formulations, and that staff are much more aware and pro-active about preventing pest problems through good sanitation and maintenance practices (Table 1).
One of the participating Maine school districts indicated that at no additional cost, IPM provides very effective pest control, and substantially reduces risks of pesticide exposure compared with their previous pest control program that utilized monthly base-board sprays. They are utilizing notebooks placed in the main office of each school to record pest sightings and pest management actions. They have implemented a pest reporting system whereby the day custodial staff reports pest sightings to the maintenance staff who take non-pesticide actions such as installing glue boards and sealing pest entryways. Custodial staff have learned to clean-up food spills to prevent ant infestations instead of calling the pest control contractor as they did before adopting IPM. Another participating district indicated that the staff training was instrumental in implementation of their IPM program. This district has implemented in-house pest monitoring and improved cleanliness and food storage. They have also significantly improved cultural practices for turf, eliminated unlicensed pesticide applications, and have worked with pest management contractors to find least-risk approaches to carpenter ant management.
All of the participating schools have implemented more IPM practices and almost all have improved pest monitoring, record-keeping and management decision-making.
All participating pilot demonstration schools have implemented a pest monitoring program. All the participating Maine schools and one of the VT schools have adopted an IPM policy.
Written IPM plans have been drafted at all three participating districts in Maine.
IPM implementation was demonstrated at the Open House events to visitors from the host schools as well as those from neighboring schools. Approximately 200 parents, 5 pest management professionals, 30 school staff and administrators (including 8 staff from six neighboring school districts) and 3 EPA representatives attended the Open House events.

Table 1. Effectiveness of demonstration projects on adoption of IPM practices. (Changes in management practices documented from responses to questionnaires filled out at the beginning and end of the program from the three participating districts that returned the final assessment questionnaire. Note: only those districts that returned the final questionnaire are included here)

(not included here but available upon request)

Assessment of IPM-Tool Kit Functionality

Development of the tool-kit has taken longer than expected and the first draft was not completed until the end of the project. A prototype now completed will be tested for functionality and usability by a team of school IPM stakeholders in early 2004 before we make the final product widely available. Use evaluations and input from stakeholders will be incorporated into future toolkit revisions.

Longer-Term Impacts

School IPM information will be disseminated to State agencies, non-profit organizations, task forces, committees, professional organizations, and Cooperative Extension. This model has been successfully utilized in Maine for several years. It requires good communication among all agencies, organizations and individuals providing services, consulting, support, and regulation of and for schools. An enthusiastic core of representatives from the different organizations is key. Informal networks of people and organizations were established in all three states as part of this project.
Maine plans to continue offering training, outreach and problem-solving to all Maine public and private schools through cooperation with the various agencies and organizations serving schools. The state regulation adopted in 2003 requiring schools to adopt IPM policies and practices will undoubtedly serve as an incentive for continued support of this effort.
Vermont Cooperative Extension plans to continue to provide some support, as time allows, for school IPM and will maintain the Vermont School IPM webpage.
New Hampshire Cooperative Extension plans to maintain the NH School IPM webpage.
The long-term viability of school IPM in all three states will depend on cooperation among the different organizations to provide support and services to schools.
Implementing changes in human behaviors, as is required by IPM, takes time. Although we were very pleased with the successes achieved, the full-impact may not be seen for several more years as schools continue to adopt more IPM practices.

Challenges Encountered

Unfortunately, the dire fiscal situation in all three states could undermine support for long-term sustainability of school IPM. NH was especially hard-hit. The Jordan Institute did not receive grant funding to continue its work with school IPM and the NH project leader (Deborah Martin) has left the Institute to seek other employment. UNHCE has suffered severe budget cutbacks and has no plans to continue with school IPM outreach other than maintaining the NH school IPM webpage and the planned outreach visits with Hampton Schools by the turfgrass and ornamentals specialists.
We found that responsibility for shade tree management on school grounds varies widely. Attempts to include the municipal arborist and the ‘tree board’ (community volunteers) who manage shade trees on the grounds of two of the demonstration sites were unsuccessful (both declined to participate). However, project staff and cooperative extension specialists provided IPM recommendations for shade trees and ornamentals to enable the participating schools to work with municipal and volunteer staff to develop and implement a landscape IPM plan.
The Open-House events were only minimally successful in extending the successes achieved at the demonstration sites to other non-participating schools. We organized five ‘IPM Open House’ events that were advertised state-wide through newspapers, postcards sent to every school superintendent, and a well-used school facilities management list-serve. Only seven additional school districts sent representatives to attend the open house events.
This was a big project that took a tremendous amount of time and energy to get off the ground and to keep it going. The time commitment required of the project leaders to complete the objectives of the project was significantly underestimated in the grant proposal.
New England schools will need continued support to maintain and further improve IPM programs. Although we have demonstrated that school staff can establish and maintain their own pest monitoring program further support is needed to keep this activity going when pest occurrence is low due to effective pest prevention. There is always the temptation to let things slide as immediate pest problems diminish which can happen under IPM. Also, there is a fair amount of turn-over among school custodial and maintenance staff, therefore, continuing education and outreach for school staff and pest management professionals will be needed.
During this one-year project, the IPM coordinators terminated their employment at two of the participating Pilot Demonstration school districts. Thus, we essentially had to start over with new team leaders at those schools. This has resulted in a delay in getting the final impact assessments completed and extra time to bring the new coordinators up to speed.