The Quarterly e-bulletin of EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Summer 2015

A Call for Community-Scale IPM

By Mark E. James, President of Urban Green, LLC (aPESP member), and board member of the U.S. Green Building Council and National Center for Healthy Housing

As cities are seeking creative models for regenerating their aging housing and infrastructure, both public and
private sector planners are expressing a renewed interest in creating healthy, pest-free communities. As the
science and public policy behind neighborhood redevelopment has evolved, we have likewise seen an evolution
in the concept of healthy communities. Gone are the days when a lead-free, asbestos-free home with potable
water is sufficient to be called "healthy housing". Today's standards for healthy housing have expanded to include environmentally-
friendly materials, indoor air-quality and the notion of a "pest-free" community.

The need to effectively manage an often out-of-control pest population has consistently been included in our collective notion of
healthy neighborhoods. Images of rat-infested, low-income neighborhoods are engraved into the minds of many Americans. Far too
often, we silently blame our urban poor for these conditions rather than placing a more proper critique of an aging infrastructure and
housing stock that creates a perfect environment for pests to thrive. The most vulnerable to such poor conditions are our children,
the elderly and persons with chronic health conditions. Perhaps even more upsetting is that we fail to acknowledge that low-income
residents are rarely empowered to re-engineer the aged buildings where they live, work and go to school.

Leading the charge toward a healthy, pest-free building is the environmentally-friendly method of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM). IPM seeks to reduce or eliminate rodents, cockroaches, and other pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and
chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks. A central strategy to IPM is the elimination of all
free-standing water which is critical to sustaining life for these harmful pests.	continued on page 2

In This Issue:

Community-Scale IPM		1

School IPM in JtJew Orleans		1

New Column: Pest Prevention in

Structures		2

School IPM and School Nurses...	3

New Bed Bug Flier for School Nurses		3

Apple IPM in the Northeast		5

Biopesticide News in Brief.		6

Upcoming Events...		7

Grant Opportunitie s		7

Have a question on School IPM?

Cmtad-ERM's Center of Expertise for School IPM

school.ipm@epa.gOv

844-EPA-SIPM
(844-372-7476)

IPM Helps Rebuild New Orleans5

Schools

By: Roy Filly aw, MPA/MSES Candidate, Indiana University, and EPA School IPM Intern

The devastation of Hurricane Katrina had multiple, complex impacts upon the City
of New Orleans. One of the many challenges was a significant
increase in pest-infested public buildings. Claudia Riegel. the
director of the City of New Orleans Mosquito, Rodent, and
Termite Control Board (NOMTCB), not only rose to conquer the
problem of increased pests, but she did so by promoting integrated
pest management (IPM). Riegel, a passionate entomologist, and
her team worked tirelessly to promote this smart, sensible, and sustainable approach
to reduce exposure to both pests and pesticides throughout New Orleans.

Their work, which began in 2006, was bolstered by a school IPM grant from EPA in
2012. This grant enabled efforts to focus on improving the quality of New Orleans
children's learning environments. Although the grant funding ended in November of
2014, the work is ongoing for NOMTCB. and several schools in New Orleans have
become beacons for others wishing to implement successful IPM plans.

continued on page 4

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

-------
2

PESPWire Summer 2015

Community-

Scale IPM

continued from page 1

New Column:

Pest Prevention in
Structures

While the EPA has consistently led the
healthy community discussion and the
IPM school of thought, new partners
such as the National Center for Healthy
Housing and the U.S. Green Building
Council are joining the discussion
having each started national initiatives
to encourage the development of healthy
homes and buildings. These initiatives
are based on our awareness that when
left unchecked, common pests such as
vermin cockroaches and bed bugs can
promote disease, exacerbate bronchial
conditions like astluna and degrade
indoor air quality within our homes.

In Baltimore, an interdisciplinary group
of development, design and engineering
professionals lias formed an eco-district
team that includes a regional EPA
representative to explore methods of
creating a district-scale, sustainable
community with a large emphasis on
health and IPM strategies.

As these initiatives begin to flourish, we
should begin to recognize the simple
truth that a healthy, pest-free building
that is situated in the middle of a pest-
filled community will not be healthy
for long. With this in mind, a collective
community-wide approach to Integrated
Pest Management offers a potential
solution to a community-wide dilemma

As a developer of green affordable
housing. U rban Green (a leader in
the Baltimore Eco-District initiative
and member of EPA's Pesticide
Enviromnental Stewardship Program)
has embraced the ideals of IPM and
sustainability within all of its projects.
In the past 2 years. Urban Green and
a handful of other green housing
developers have begun to consider
expanding the boundaries of IPM to go
beyond a single home or building to
encompass an entire neighborhood or
eco-district. Whereas IPM strategies are
proving effective within a home, their
impact at the community-scale (i.e. eco-
districts) must also be considered.

Similar to a planned
community concept,
URBA/v EREBV an eco-district

seeks to implement
a series of eco-friendly community
renewal strategies that may include
stormwater management, renewable
energy, green infrastructure and. of
course, pest control. Within an eco-
district, IPM can be implemented at a
community-wide scale that can yield
much wider benefits than the traditional
single-building approach.

A district-wide IPM strategy is able to
consider:

1.	the elimination of free-standing
water in alleys, sidewalks and
roadways that provide rodents with
easy access to water;

2.	the reduction of foundation wall
gaps that allow water intrusions and
vermin access into buildings;

3.	a strategy'to replace impervious
surface areas with bio-retention
zones that can reduce sewer
flooding

4.	the creation of district-wide trash
management programs; and

5.	the judicious use of pest control
products.

Central to the community-wide IPM
concept is the goal of creating eco-
districts that do not allow pests to
flourish. Within these districts, education
programs can encourage residents to
implement healthy living standards
while also creating jobs for residents
who would be trained to manage and
coordinate IPM activities.

As district-wide IPM strategies gain
popularity nationwide, the EPA and its
partners will need to train thousands
of IPM representatives around the
country to ensure the continued growth
and success of the program. EPA is
promoting IPM as the standard for pest
management. This effort is making a
difference in neighborhoods across the
nation.

Pest Prevention in
Structures is a
new column
dedicated to
exploring the benefits
and advancements in
mechanical methods
and design features to
prevent and control
pests. We hope you
enjoy the first article,
A Call for
Community-Scale
IPM, in this exciting
new column.

Historically, the structural pest
management conversation started with
pests and ended with pesticides. Even
when IPM was brought up
in the context of green buildings,
chemical choice often dominated the
conversation.

While the judicious use of pesticides
remains a tool in structural pest control,
an important shift lias been made
to focusing on pest prevention and
management tactics that provide long-
term results.

If you are working or conducting
research in this area, we encourage you
to provide us articles that we will
consider including in future issues.

Please submit article ideas to
Lee Tanner at tanner.lee@ena.gov

We look forward to sharing cutting-edge
information in this growing area.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
ESPWire Summer 2015

Sharing the

IPM Message
with School
Nurses

EPA recently took
its School IPM

NASN2015 W "S;St,iiMI'

June 24-27,2015 m to school nurses.

Embracing Today-Transformina Tomorrow 0ej^ej- 0f

Expertise for School 1PM partnered with
EPA Region 2 (NY/NJ) and Region 3
(Mid-Atlantic) to host a booth at the
National Association of School Nurses
Conference held in Philadelphia. PA on
June 23-26, 2015.

The conference provided an excellent
venue to reinforce the principles of
School IPM to well over a thousand
school nurses.

School nurses are key advocates for
healthy learning environments. In that
role, they can be valuable advocates
for Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
because it reduces children's exposure
to pests and pesticides. The attendees
were appreciative of the Agency's
participation in the annual meeting and
of the importance EPA places on the role
of nurses in having IPM more broadly
adopted by schools.

School nurses found IPM, asthma,
indoor air quality, chemical awareness,
and bed bug materials at the Agency's
booth. A looping slide presentation on
bed bugs served as the backdrop to draw
attention.

Throngs of nurses made their way to
the EPA booth when the exhibition
hall opened. The constant stream of
visitors over entire conference took with
them over 8,000 documents. Another
4,000 were mailed after the conference
to the more distant school districts.
All materials were well received,
especially the new Bed Bugs in Schools
— Guidance for School Nurses, created
specifically for this audience and
debuting at the conference.

In addition to the EPA booth, Marcia
Anderson of the Center of Expertise
presented two posters on Bed Bugs in
Schools: The Role of School Nurses that
were attended by over 200 nurses. The
poster and booth were used to promote
the Agency's School IPM Webinar
Series. Over 120 nurses signed up to
receive information on next season's
offerings.

Lynne Gregory of EPA Region 2 discusses
bed bugs and School IPM with visitors to the
EPA booth.

To maximize the networking
opportunity, Marcia Anderson accepted
an invitation from the Texas school
nurse delegation to promote School
IPM, discuss bed bug challenges, and
provide EPA Regional contacts in their
evening meeting.

For additional information on School
IPM as it relates to nurses, please
contact the Center of Expertise at
school.ipm@epa. gov or toll-free at
844-EPA-SIPM (844-372-7476).

The Center of Expertise would like to thank
Regions 2 and 3 for all of their efforts in preparing
for, participating in, and following up on the
conference.

Bed Bug Flier
for School
Nurses

A new informational flier on bed bugs,
developed specifically for school
nurses, debuted at the June 2015
National Association of School Nurses
Conference. Over 700 copies of the flie ,
developed by the Center of Expertise
for School IPM with input from the
Agency's Bed Bug Workgroup, were
distributed at the conference.

The flier outlines procedures for school
nurses to follow when presented
with bed bugs and the importance of
developing IPM-based bed bug action
plans. The flier covers a checklist for
school nurses if a bed bug is discovered,
what to tell parents, bed bug hot spots
in schools, and an overview of the
elements involved in a successful bed
bug management plan.

Meeting the need of schools for such
IPM-related information a key function
of the Center.

For a copy of this flier (Publication
number EPA 730-F-15-001), please
contact the Center of Expertise at

school.ipnrWcpa.gov or toll-free at
844-EPA-SIPM (844-372-7476).

Bed Bugs in Schools

Guidance for School Nurses

tailed upon to provide vital information to students,
These tips on identifying, manning and preventing
respond if bedbugs appear.

i mdl hep you to effective^

School Nurse Checklist

What to Tell Pare





iful Bed Bug Mana



www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
4

PESPWire Summer 2015

School IPM in
New Orleans

continued from page 1

While Louisiana has school IPM
legislation, many New Orleans schools
were lacking strong IPM plans, and
did not have effective IPM programs.
The schools were also lacking strong
bid specifications for general pest
and termite control. Riegel and her
team attacked this problem with a
multi-pronged approach that included
demonstration/pilot schools, the creation
of sample IPM plans, the creation of
general bid specifications, and numerous
workshops, seminars, and speaking
engagements.

Riegel and her team were faced
with many challenges, including
changing people's expectations of
pest management. Conventional pest
management, which typically involves
scheduled pesticide application and
otherwise only coming into contact
with pest control professionals when
problems arise, looks very different than
IPM. Implementation of the proactive
approach of school IPM is unique
and requires educational outreach and
working closely with school personnel.
"There needs to be a big human
component," according to Riegel, and
"with small modifications, it can go a
long way."

Demonstration schools were a major
part of the project's effort. Three
schools were targeted in New Orleans,
each being at a different phase of
existence, with hopes to show how
successful IPM could be in a variety
of situations. John McDonogh High
School, a school existing for over a
century, Henry Schaumburg Elementary,
a school damaged by a hurricane, and
Mildred Osborne Elementary, a newly
constructed school, would each show the
benefits of IPM for a school building at
any life stage.

In the new
building of
Mildred Osborne
Elementary,
the implementation of IPM became an
example of how a proactive approach
can keep pests to a minimum without
the use of many pesticides. Maintaining
sanitary buildings and overall good
school condition proved to be successful
with minimizing pests.

I Henry Schaumburg
I Elementary offered
l a chance for IPM to
. display an efficient
elimination of
pests from a school which was flooded
during the hurricane and recently
restored. Following the devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina, the
school experienced many issues with
ants, mice, termites, and drain flies.
Following implementation of the IPM
program, red imported fire ants and
drain flies were eliminated from the
school, and the school saw a 100%
reduction in pesticides used indoors.

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing
the team was John McDonogh High
School, a building that has existed
since 1898. Extensive issues faced the
implementation of an IPM program,
such as rats thriving in the building and
affecting the daily activities of students
and employees. Reigel and her IPM
team were not deterred, and sought
to successfully implement IPM at the
school.

The measureable outcomes of the work
at John McDonogh High are impressive.
There was a 100% reduction of liquid
pesticide use, a 61% reduction in
gel bait use, and a 93% reduction in
rodenticide use. While notably reducing
the use of pesticides, there was also an
impressive 100% elimination of rodents
found in the school. From 2012 to
2014, the school saw an improvement
on the IPM Cost Calculator from a "D"
to an "A." For more information on
the IPM Cost Calculator, visit www,
ipmcalculator. com.

John McDonogh High is a glowing
example for schools nationwide
successfully implementing IPM as their
approach to pest management. The
school presented a worst case scenario
which IPM helped to improve. When
asked if these results can be replicated,
Riegel proclaimed, "If it can be done
here, it can be done anywhere!"

Administrator for
the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention. Additionally, the
Mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu,
recently acknowledged the improvement
of the city's school facilities in his
State of the City address. IPM has
contributed immensely to the school
improvements. IPM techniques are
now standard practice within Mildred
Osborne Elementary, Henry Shaumburg
Elementary, and John McDonogh High,
and the schools can serve as models
for others who are considering starting
down the IPM road.

The results of this grant and the work
Riegel and NOMTCB have done
expands well beyond three successful
schools. State regulators are actively
supporting school IPM, and schools
throughout Louisiana are now
approaching NOMTCB for pest control
assistance. NOMTCB staff are asked
to speak at training events across the
state. NOMTCB has become a resource
for both schools and for the pest
management industry.

With the help of just one EPA school
IPM grant, school IPM in New Orleans
has progressed by leaps and bounds.
School IPM is helping to rebuild
New Orleans. In turn. New Orleans is
becoming a stellar example for how to
successfully implement IPM to create
healthier school enviromnents.

The work done at
John McDonogh
High received
national attention
from NPR and Jim
Jones, EPA Assistant

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
ESPWire Summer 2015

5

Apples for the
Big Apple:

Northeast Growers
Manage Pests to
Produce Quality A.pples

Photograph: JeffKubina, flick .com

Apple growers battle pest problems on a
continual basis. To pests, such as moths,
mites, and fungus, an apple orchard is
a place to eat or lay eggs. Because the
ecology in every orchard is different,
pest conditions and circumstances are
different for every apple grower, so
controlling pests through Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) makes sense.

IPM has become more and more
engrained in apple orchard pest
management in the Northeast over the
past 30 years because most Northeastern
apple growers live right on their farms.
It is in their best interest to keep the land
and water as clean as possible. Apple
growers have found the most effective
way to control their pests is by using
scientific based practices like IPM, that
have positive long-term effects on the
orchard that work together rather than
separately.

Growers monitor their orchards weekly
from the beginning of spring through
the entire growing seasoa to determine
pest pressures. The growers and crop
consultants become intimate with their
location, learn about past disease and
pest pressures, and learn the ecology
of the orchard. Admittedly they learn
something new every year.

There is also an economic impact
when farmers use IPM. They stand
to reduce their two highest bills -
chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers)
and fuel - when they following the five
components of IPM. These components
are: 1) prevent pests, 2) identify the
specific pests present, 3) set economic
thresholds for each pest as a decision
making tool, 4) monitor for pests and
their damage, and 5) use a combination
of management tools.

Maintenance and sanitation are key parts
of preventing pests in apple orchards.
Every year, growers follow a rigorous
routine in the fall by cleaning the
orchard floo , cutting suckers off tree
trunks, and clearing weeds from under
the trees. Fallen leaves, grass clippings,
and winter pruning's are mulched
and returned to the soil. By chopping
the leaves into small bits, they will
decompose more quickly and neither the
pests nor diseases will have anywhere
to overwinter. This reduces the pest
populations that will be in the orchard
in the next spring. The only tiling that is
removed are the apples.

Just by being particular
about maintaining this
degree of sanitation,
growers have been very
successM in reducing
the presence of apple
scab, one of the most
persistent pest problems
in the orchard. Apple
scab comes from
a fungal spore that
overwinters on the ground. It normally
requires a fungicide (anti-fungal
pesticide) to be sprayed in order to arrest
its development. Those spores go on the
fruit and make leatheiy-brown scabs
that blemish the fruit. Blemished fruit is
considered to be of lower quality, so its
value is reduced leading to an economic
loss to the grower.

Apple scab also damages the tree
because it creates lesions on the
leaves that spread and interfere with
photosynthesis. A bad scab infection
can shut down a whole tree and spread
quickly throughout the orchard. So
orchard sanitation is a very important
part of scab control.

Other pest prevention methods include
planting pest-resistant varieties and
nutrient replenishing. Just like people,
apple trees need specific nutrients to
keep them healthy to produce quality
fruit. When hundreds of bushels of
apples per acre are removed annually,
that means that a lot of nutrients
are removed from the orchard soil.
Monitoring soil nutrient levels and
adding nutrients as needed is an
essential component of IPM. Nutrients
are added either directly to the soil or
through foliar application, by spraying
on the leaves of trees. Apple trees are
unique ecosystems and need a wide
range of macro nutrients including
nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium.

Many soils in the northeast have high
phosphorous levels and adequate
nitrogen levels. If nitrogen is needed,
it is most often applied through foliar
application. Potassium is the macro
nutrient that needs to be replaced on
a regular basis. By running soil tests
and recording the number of bushels of
apples that were removed, growers can
calculate how much potassium must be
added back to the soil. Micronulrients,
such as calcium, magnesium, zinc,
boron, and manganese, also need to be
replenished. These are all added through
foliar applications.

You can see northeastern growers
discuss using IPM to prevent pests in a

3-part video series by the New England
Apple Association.

Why should we care about pest
prevention and the judicious use of
pesticides on our apples? Apples are
an extremely popular fruit, whose
consumption is ubiquitous across the
nation. Northeastern apple orchards
cover close to 100,000 acres. Northeast
apple growers are able to provide high
quality apples at reasonable prices by
utilizing the scientifically-based best
practices of IPM.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
6

PESPWire Summer 2015

Biopesticide News in Brief

2015 Canadian Biopesticides and Minor Use Pesticides Priority Setting Workshops

Modified f om report by Shirley Archambault, and Leslie Cass, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Originally published in the IR-4 Newsletter Vol. 46 (2)

The 13th annual Canadian Biopesticides and Minor Use Pesticides Workshops were held from March 24-26, 2015 in Gatineau,
Quebec. The 190+ participants included growers from Canada. US and Mexico; registrants from Canada, US, Japan, and the
Netherlands; crop specialists and researchers; Canadian and Australian regulatory officials; and US IR-4 program representatives.
These workshops select, through grower consensus, top insect pests, diseases and weeds and the pesticide solutions for their control,
and up to nine biopesticide products as candidates for registration in Canada.

Forty-two crop-pest priorities were selected to address issues such as spotted wing drosophila, mites, nematodes, powdery mildew
and bacterial diseases. If similar priorities are selected by the US stakeholders at the IR-4 Food Use Workshop, in September 2015,
some of the priority issues may be addressed as joint (US-Canada) projects. Of the nine biopesticide products identified as priorities
for registration, four will be selected to receive regulatory support toward first time registration or major new use site registration
through Canada's Pesticide Risk Reduction Program. Information on integrated approaches and gaps for management of key bacterial
diseases including fireblight in apple, canker in cherr , and bacterial diseases affecting field vegetables and strawberries were
presented by research and crop specialist experts.

With limited new options coming and tendency for pathogens to develop resistance, there was agreement integrated pest management
approaches will be of critical importance for long-tenn management. This will include incorporation of products and production
practices with multiple modes of action, along with cultural and sanitation practices and use of resistant varieties. If you wish to
receive the lists of selected priorities please contact Shirley Archambault (SI i i rl c v. a rc ha m b a u! t a a a r. gc.ca or visit www.agr.gc.ca/
eng/?id= 1289590771112)

Attract-and-Kill for Vector Control

by Karl Malamud-Roam, IR-4 Public Health Pesticide Program Manager
Originally published in the IR-4 Newsletter Vol. 46 (2)

Mosquitoes and other arthropod vectors of human disease are small, dispersed, mobile,
and hard to target with pesticides. In addition, chemical control of vectors using area-wide
pesticide applications is increasingly restricted because of risks to pollinators, endangered
species, and other non-target species. Regulators generally consider that the human risk
associated with vector control practices is minimal. Public concerns about pesticides are
considerable therefore vector control programs strive to minimize pesticide drift into
inhabited areas. Larval mosquitoes have a more limited distribution than adults, but are
reasons, there has been a recent surge in interest in "attract-and-kill" technologies in vector

These approaches to vector control use the mobility of adult mosquitoes as part of a strategy which attracts pests from a wide area to
a trap or other "kill zone." In recent years, attract-and-kill systems have become increasingly practical, and many people are familiar
with the devices which trap and kill female mosquitoes while they seek blood meals. A previous IR-4 Newsletter article (Vol. 45 No 1
Winter 2014) described attractive toxic sugar baits that target male and female adult mosquitoes as they search for carbohydrate food
sources.

Another approach to trap-and-kill targets females hunting for egg-laying (oviposition) sites, and then killing them or their young.
Female mosquitoes lay eggs every 3-7 days, up to eight times. Oviposition requires female mosquitoes to search for areas in their
habitat suitable for the survival of their young, and they find these sites la gely through chemical cues. The hope is that effective
oviposition attractants will lure mosquitoes to devices which trap the adults, poison the adults, trap or poison the juveniles after
oviposition, or dose the adults with insect growth regulators which they will carry to other oviposition sites. Future articles in this
series will review each of these approaches and the research that IR-4 is conducting to evaluate them.

often in inaccessible sites. For all of these
control.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------
ESPWire Summer 2015

7

Upcoming Events

First Global Minor Use Priority Setting Workshop: Seeking
Pest Management Solutions for Growers Around the World
Sept. 20-22, 2015
Chicago. IL

IR-4 Food Use Workshop
Sept. 22-23, 2015
Chicago. IL

IR-4 Biopesticide Workshop
Sept. 24, 2015
Chicago. IL

Pest World 2015
October 20-23, 2015
Nashville, TN

Entomology 2015. Synergy in Science: Partnering for
Solutions

November 15-18, 2015
Minneapolis, MN

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

Grant Opportunities

EPA Solicits Proposals to Increase Schools'Adoption of IPM Using Educational Networks

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is soliciting proposals for a cooperative agreement. Using Educational Networks to Increase
Schools'Adoption of Integrated Pest Management, to provide education, training, resources and technical assistance to increase IPM
implementation in kindergarten to 12th grade public and tribal schools nationwide. The grantee will conduct a national program,
using its existing organizational structure and established relationships with school districts throughout the United States, to further
IPM adoption by schools. EPA intends that the recipient of the award will:

Collaborate with entities through existing educational networks to promote the benefits of IPM to public and tribal school
districts and offer them educational information, training and technical support to increase their adoption of IPM; and
Utilize established educational networks to increase the demand for school IPM across multiple geographic areas.

The Agency expects to fund a single two-year cooperative agreement for up to $250,000. Proposals are due on August 9, 2015.
Additional information on this solicitation is available on Grants.gov under Funding Opportunity Announcement
EPA-OPP-2015-006. If you have questions, please contact Cara Finn at finn.cara@epa. gov.

Proposals Requested to Assess the Economics of IPM in Schools

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is soliciting proposals for a cooperative agreement. The Economics of School Integrated Pest
Management, to research and analyze the economics of integrated pest management in K-12 public and tribal schools in the United
States. Currently, the only materials available on the economics of school IPM are anecdotal. The lack of scientifically robust
economic information creates uncertainty within school districts about the costs and benefits associated with establishing and
sustaining IPM programs. This project aims to remove this uncertainty by providing an unbiased assessment, supported by robust
data, on the economics of IPM programs in several different school settings.

EPA intends that the recipient of the award will develop and present a robust and unbiased short- and long-term economic
assessment of implementing an IPM program in several school settings (urban/rural/large/small) through research, data collection,
and analysis.

The Agency expects to fund a single two-year cooperative agreement for up to $300,000. Proposals are due on September 9, 2015.
Additional information on this solicitation is available on Grants, gov under Funding Opportunity announcement
EPA-OPP-2015-007. If you have questions, please contact Cara Fimi at finn.cara@epa. gov.

www.epa.gov/pesp

-------