Pesticides and Schools - Parent Notification Law

On March 26, 2002 the King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (LHWMP) hosted a workshop on Pesticides in Schools: Posting, Notification and IPM for school district grounds and maintenance personnel in King County at the Sea-Tac Occupational Skills Center in Burien. The workshop was a result of a survey of the 19 school districts in King County to gather information on their current practices, grounds personnel resources and knowledge of the new Pesticide Notification Law (PDF, 26K) to take effect July 1, 2002.

The purpose of the workshop was five-fold:

1. To provide participants with background and knowledge of the King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program.
2. To provide background and information on the new law (SSB 5533) including requirements and compliance.
3. To present the idea of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and various policies in place in local school districts.
4. To offer case studies from local IPM professionals covering information on indoor, outdoor and turf management IPM.
5. To offer specific alternatives related to landscape design as one part of a successful IPM program.

Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
Dave Galvin gave an overview of LHWMP explaining that the program is a regional cooperative among all cities in King County, Seattle Public Utilities, King County Solid Waste and Water and Land Resources Divisions, and Public Health, Seattle and King County. A popular program in LHWMP is "Rehab the Lab" that works with schools to inventory and remove old hazardous chemicals. The goal of the program is to reach every middle and high school in King County. In addition, the County manages 2000 miles of roads and has its own IPM policy in place for road maintenance. LHWMP is interested in the safe use of pesticides with a focus on prevention. LHWMP works with school maintenance and facilities personnel to move toward a more integrated approach to pesticide management.

Pesticide Notification Law
Dan Suomi, with the Washington State Department of Agriculture, gave a presentation on the new state law that requires schools to notify parents, guardians and interested persons of pesticide applications on an annual basis. The law includes posting requirements at the time of application.

The new law is the result of a long effort of individuals and groups concerned with children's exposure to toxic chemicals and the unnecessary use of many pesticides. The requirements include minimum standards with flexibility for the grounds and maintenance personnel to comply. All pesticides are covered under the new legislation, with the exception of disinfectants and sanitizers, and the law affects all public schools (K-12) and licensed day care centers in Washington State.

There are annual notification requirements and pre-notification requirements. The annual notification shall go out to all parents or guardians of students and employees, as well as any other interested party, to include pest control policies and methods, and posting and notification requirements. The pre-notification consists of a minimum 48-hour advanced notice prior to application, and should remain in place at least 24 hours after application (unless the Reentry Interval requires more time). The pre-notification can occur via email, fax, phone or letter so long as it reaches all interested parties. Other notes of interest with regard to pre-notification:

• Notice should include: name of product, when and where applied, pest treated, name and phone number of school contact.
• If application is not made within 48 hours of notification, the school must re-post and re-notify.
• Outdoors: must post at the time of application, place signs at location of application and at each primary point of entry to the school grounds. Signs 4"x5"-"This landscape has been recently sprayed."
• Facilities/Indoors: signs 8"x11", must stay in place 24 hours, and placed at the application site.
• Schools are not liable for removal of signs.
• Exemptions: emergency application (i.e. human health and safety potential such as stinging insects) but schools must notify afterwards.
• Application records: schools need to have annual summary of pesticide applications that is readily available for interested parties.
• The Pesticide Sensitive Registry is still active and separate from this process. In 1992, the legislature passed a law, which allows pesticide sensitive individuals to submit information to the department, be placed upon a registry, and be contacted by the applicator prior to a pesticide application to a landscape, or right-of-way that is adjacent to their principal place of residence.

WSDA has developed a Compliance Manual that will answer many questions. The format includes a series of examples and common problems. They are also developing a free, record-keeping database in Access so most schools can use it.

School District IPM Policies
Theresa Salmon and Johnny Burrow of Seattle School District, Mike Currie of Bainbridge Island School District, and Lisa Niehaus of LHWMP presented information on IPM policies and procedures to implement an IPM program.

Seattle has had an IPM policy in place for three years and has developed a registry system at every school in the district. In Seattle, 85% of parents have returned forms asking to be notified about pesticide use. Seattle tries to give four days notice whenever possible and also reinforces with employees the alternatives to pesticides. The District has licensed daycares in some of the schools, and consequently is working with them on IPM and notification policies. The Seattle School District has worked on gradually changing the perception of how a school's grounds should look. The biggest cost has been notification. Other costs are more weeds and more maintenance time, but this motivates parents and students to help.

Bainbridge Island has had a district policy in place since 1999. The following year, they eliminated 99% of their chemical stockpile. The district encourages the use of best practices and a higher level of tolerance for weeds. King County issued an executive order in 1999 in an effort to reduce the dependence on pesticide use. Lisa Niehaus outlined the following positive points and pitfalls of an IPM program:

Case Studies
Jack Marlowe, of Eden Advanced Pest Technologies, presented information on indoor IPM. Indoor pest control is essential because it works the best in terms of an integrated approach to managing pests, and in the long run is less costly. He outlined four practices for a good IPM program:

1. Pest control is proactive.
2. Pest control has many methods.
3. Monitoring and inspection drives pest control (not timing).
4. Pest control includes good documentation and evaluation.

He mentioned the best thing facilities managers and administrators can do is to get their personnel some simple tools (i.e. sticky traps), and arm them with knowledge and information to help educate other school personnel in recognizing symptoms and addressing problems. The process has four levels of control:

1. Access denial
2. Habitat modifications
3. Physical control
4. Product choice

EJ Hook, grounds maintenance supervisor for Woodland Park Zoo, discussed prevention of common outdoor pests. In outdoor IPM, at the very least it is important to mulch. He presented an example from the Woodland Park Zoo whereby the staff was responsible for maintaining some traffic circles around the zoo. Surrounding residents were complaining of weed growth in the circles when he first arrived. They decided to start from scratch on the traffic circles, and with reused wood chips and 80 hours of labor, reorganized the traffic circles. The following year, they spent 4 hours of labor on those same circles. Superheat is also an effective tool in combating recurring weeds, and there are many tools on the market that cater to this approach. The most important aspect is to understand that actions affect other parts of the local ecosystem. Doing simple tasks such as blowing leaves into flowerbeds can go a long way in mitigating pest problems.

Beth Duncan, landscape supervisor for Seattle Center, discussed turf management. At Seattle Center, they replant (perennial rye grass) and manage turf four times a year in rotation with annual festivals. They rely on grass regeneration to control pests. They do not use pesticides at Seattle Center. The grounds personnel mow at 3 ½ inches and leave the clippings. Lime is applied only when needed, which is determined through annual soil tests.

Lisa Niehaus, IPM specialist with LHWMP, discussed the following resources and ongoing programs:

• Free training tools at (206) 263-3046.
• Natural Lawn and Garden Hotline: (206) 633-0224.
• City of Seattle experimenting with golf courses and parks.
• IPM info share forum (quarterly).
• Free King County on-site consultation program.
• Green gardening program workshops on-site.
• Washington State Department of Agriculture pesticide disposal program.
• Seattle and King County pesticide tier tables.

Alternative Landscape Design
Angie Cahill, from the University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, discussed their program "Sustainable Community Landscapes." The graduate student program is a requirement for landscape design and is an interaction of the students and community. The students go to a site to do analysis, conditions, soil testing, pH, light examination and establish plans for a healthy landscape. They select native, non-invasive plants based on their own design scheme. The students are involved in the site prep, plant preparation and installation with the project site. Long-term management, installation help and cost of plants are the only requirements of the site.

Jenni Maughan, urban ecology teacher at Garfield High School in Seattle, was a recipient of a Sustainable Community Landscapes project. She had a problem with ivy and brush outside of her classroom that was attracting rats and mice into the classroom. She wrote a grant to the Seattle School District to secure a limited amount of funds ($2200) which helped pay for the plants. The gardens were redesigned two years ago, and with the help of her students, she was able to install and maintain the gardens on the site. She has not had to do much maintenance in the gardens for the last year. She commented how important it is to work with the maintenance/ground staff, students, and parents at the start and involve them in the selection/location of the plants.

Sharon Collman, EPA Pesticides/IPM Outreach Coordinator, presented the benefits certain insects can provide towards a healthy garden, since we likely will not ever be chemical-free. She recommended the book Common Sense Pest Control (by William Olkowski, 1991) as a good resource for dealing with pests. There are many insects that can be extremely beneficial towards a healthy garden. She presented that only 5% of insects are pestiferous, whereas 95% are playing an important role. The following elements should be considered when analyzing healthy gardens:

• Soil: components are air, water and structure. Soil compaction is a problem. Weeds thrive in compacted soil.
• Compost is key to nutrient replenishment. Two good nutrient-fixing composts include manure and vegetative decomposition.
• There are good fungi and bacteria. Fungi play a vital role in an ecosystem.
• Earthworms improve the soil, and are a sign of healthy soil.
• When you kill beneficial insects, you inherit their work. Let them work for you.

For more information about IPM call The Natural Lawn and Garden Hotline at (206) 633-0224.