The Scientific Coalition on Pest Exclusion Project Report 2017 Project Leader(s): Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann and Matthew Frye Cooperator(s): Robert Corrigan, RMC Consulting; Stephen Kells and Sabrina Hymel, Dept of Entomology, Univ. of Minnesota; Claudia Reigel, Dept of Vector Control, City of New Orleans, LA; Changlu Wang, Dept of Entomology, Rutgers Univ.; Lyn Garling, Dion Lerman, PAIPM Program, Penn State Univ., Richard Pollack, Harvard University; Gil Bloom, Standard Pest Management; Martin Overline, Aardvark Pest Control; Raymond Delaney, Philadelphia Dept of Health; Jill Gordon, Mantis Consulting; Ellen Tohn, Tohn Environmental Consulting; Chris Geiger, City of San Francisco. Abstract: Effective IPM plans for buildings and structures should rely upon the exclusion of pests through good design and maintenance as a prerequisite to sustainable pest control and prevention. Unfortunately, this critical tenet of IPM is often ignored or overlooked, especially in aging structures. Teaching pest management personnel, landlords, residents and others how to exclude pests more effectively requires a better understanding of pest behavior. However, there are many knowledge gaps regarding dispersal behavior of urban pests, and how they establish infestations. There is a need for better understanding of different building structures and problems related to deterioration that allows pest access. There is also a need for understanding how exclusion relates to other programs for building improvements, such as weatherization efforts. The SCOPE 2020 (Scientific Coalition of Pest Exclusion) working group has begun to study and promote the use of exclusion methods in existing buildings for improved urban IPM. This group has engaged with urban IPM stakeholders in a project to develop the foundations of known and needed pest exclusion research and training effort. Working with members from the Northeast, North Central and Southeastern regions, this coalition has established a plan for project development, a list of interested supporters, a website and Facebook page. A robust network of partners from various industries and states are included in the development of a strategic plan for SCOPE, a literature review of pest dispersal and exclusion research, development of priorities for research and outreach, developing pest exclusion recommendations and managing social media outreach. Although this is a Northeastern IPM Center-funded working group (2015-2017) the work precedes this funding and will continue far beyond the termination of the grant. Objectives: 1. Assemble the SCOPE 2020 working group and begin annual meetings to network among various fields, including academia, pest management, building maintenance and WAP program staff. This group coordinates with a proposed North Central IPM Working Group of the same name, but with the objective of addressing pest exclusion in commercial buildings. Membership is overlapping. 2. Continue to build a database of current and future collaborators and stakeholders through outreach using an established online “interest form” at www.pestexclusion.org. 3. Develop a pest exclusion checklist for multi-family housing (indoor and outer perimeter) that categorizes and prioritizes deficiencies in construction and from deterioration. 4. Publish a review of literature and scientific information on pest suppression and exclusion to identify verified knowledge, research gaps and potential projects for the evaluation of techniques and materials for pest exclusion in aging buildings, and to examine ways that weatherization and pest exclusion overlap and/or conflict. 5. Prepare written outputs, including a strategic plan for SCOPE 2020 for multi-family housing, a list of urban IPM priorities for the IPM Centers, research and outreach priorities for pest exclusion, and recommendations for the pest management industry as well as other building services, including weatherization programs. 6. Develop extension outreach materials, network (including social media) to promote pest exclusion as a critical action in pest management. Evaluate our work through networking and feedback. Procedures and Results: The SCOPE working group was formed in 2013 by Drs. Stephen Kells and Bobby Corrigan with the intention of highlighting the need for and gaps in knowledge on pest exclusion. The SCOPE 2020 coalition has held frequent conference calls since January 2014 to organize the mission, scope, and direction of this project. The group initially included Matt Frye, Jody Gangloff- Kaufmann, Claudia Riegel, and Allison Taisey. With a need to pursue funding, Jody Gangloff- Kaufmann proposed a SCOPE Working Group to the Northeastern IPM Center and Stephen Kells proposed a Commercial/Industrial SCOPE Working Group to the North Central IPM Center. Both projects were funded with the knowledge that they had overlapping membership and goals. Before this funding, the group had been meeting for two years and developed an interest form, posted online. The Pest Exclusion interest form (www.pestexclusion.org) has, to date, amassed nearly 200 associates from the fields of pest management, academia, building management, vector control and weatherization in the United States and other countries. This interest form has been used to populate the Google Groups messaging forum of about 190 members. This e-list is not very active, but serves as a conduit for sending announcements and information. The Pest Exclusion Facebook page has 78 followers and administrators post relevant articles about rodents, bed bugs and other pests and issues when articles are available. Objective 1.) Assemble the SCOPE 2020 working group and begin annual meetings to network among various fields, including academia, pest management, building maintenance and WAP program staff. This group coordinates with a proposed North Central IPM Working Group of the same name, but with the objective of addressing pest exclusion in commercial buildings. Membership is overlapping. The SCOPE project began in 2013 with core members (Corrigan, Kells, Hymel, Reigel, Taisey, Frye and Gangloff-Kaufmann) and conference calls for planning an approach to studying and promoting the use of pest exclusion in pest management. Since that time, this grant was funded and several key members have been added to the group. Membership now includes the pest control industry, the Pennsylvania State University, Harvard University, Rutgers University, and The City of Philadelphia Dept. of Public Health. An effort was made to reach out and include a representative in the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) both locally and at a higher level with no success. Instead we connected with Ellen Tohn, of Tohn Environmental Strategies, who conducted a weatherization/IPM project in New Hampshire titled “Rodent Exclusion During Weatherization Projects”. Ellen Tohn attended the SCOPE meeting in Cambridge, MA to discuss strategies for integrating IPM and weatherization projects. Dr. Richard Pollack hosted the Cambridge, MA meeting at Harvard University, where a large dormitory renovation project was underway. After our meeting, we toured the building under construction and learned about the pest exclusion efforts being incorporated into the building plan. This was a truly remarkable and well-thought out pest exclusion endeavor that will be described in a presentation at the 9th International IPM Symposium. Members of the Residential SCOPE Working Group (*member added during grant period): • Gil Bloom, Standard Pest Management, Astoria, NY • Bobby Corrigan, RMC Consulting, Ossining, NY • Raymond Delaney, City of Philadelphia Department of Public Health • Matthew Frye, NYSIPM • Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann, NYSIPM • Lyn Garling, Penn State IPM Program (retired) • Chris Geiger, City of San Francisco Department of the Environment* • Jill Gordon, Mantis Consulting, Budd Lake, NJ* • Sabrina Hymel, Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Minnesota • Stephen Kells, Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Minnesota • Dion Lerman, Penn State IPM Program* • Martin Overline, Aardvark Pest Management, Philadelphia, PA • Richard Pollack, Harvard University* • Claudia Riegel, City of New Orleans, Termite and Mosquito Control Board • Ellen Tohn, Tohn Environmental Strategies, Boston, MA* • Changlu Wang, Dept. of Entomology, Rutgers University Meetings of the Residential SCOPE Working Group were held on: • December 18th, 2015 – Elmsford, NY • July 28-29, 2016 – Tarrytown, NY • February 21-22, 2017 – Cambridge, MA Objective 2.) Continue to build a database of current and future collaborators and stakeholders through outreach using an established online “interest form”. The website www.pestexclusion.org currently houses a form for individuals who are interested in the SCOPE 2020 project. Five core members of the coalition have solicited interest among peers during the past year and thus far nearly 200 people from the United States and other countries have signed up to receive updates. Further advertising of the SCOPE 2020 project by members and through social media will build this network of colleagues wishing to stay informed. We will ask for inputs (ideas, priorities, editing and feedback) on project outputs. A Google Groups email list has been created for this group to facilitate discussion and disseminate information among its nearly 200 members. Objective 3.) Develop a pest exclusion checklist for multi-family housing (indoor and outer perimeter) that categorizes and prioritizes deficiencies in construction and from deterioration. The Pest Exclusion Checklist – (Copy attached at the end of this report) In structural IPM, school IPM, food safety and many other fields related to pest management, checklists are used to foster compliance, identify areas for improvement, and enforce safe and sanitary practices. Pest inspection checklists can be found in many manuals and on state IPM program and pest management websites. However many of the available checklists combine all aspects of good pest management, such as pest sightings and evidence of activity, sanitation, availability of food, water and shelter, and conditions that encourage pests like lighting or landscapes. Pest exclusion is often a small part of such checklists and is not usually considered a main focus. We feel that pest exclusion, especially for rodents and cockroaches, but also for many other pests, should be a primary tool and subject of focus in progressive pest management programs. The activity of repairing buildings to exclude pests can reduce or eliminate the need for pest management inside buildings. Beginning with a simple, “bare bones” version of the pest exclusion checklist developed by Dr. Corrigan, the working group worked together to expand and enhance the types of data to be collected in order to develop a more thorough understanding of factors important to pest entry and exclusion. This resulted in a five-page checklist that included characteristics of building construction, roof, foundation, siding materials, door types, numbers of doors and windows, landscape, sanitation, the number of exterior and interior line penetrations, interior building materials, a property/building sketch and pest activity. See attached checklist in appendix for reference. This expanded checklist was piloted in several NY locations (Elmsford, Rockaway, Cedarhurst, Central Islip, Wyandanch, and Manhattan) to determine whether it provided adequate instruction and accounting of pest facilitative conditions. In all cases, and for various reasons, the expanded checklist was difficult for a research/extension specialist to use, except for potential collection of various data that may or may not be predictive of pest activity. Although data collection was a goal in the sister grant “Industrial-Commercial SCOPE Working Group” (funded by the North Central IPM Center), data collection was not the goal of this grant project. For Residential SCOPE, a practical and simple checklist or audit form would be more helpful to determine and communicate information about repairs, improvements and pest activity that could be put into immediate use. This checklist should also be easy enough for a pest management technician to use, as well, or it will never be implemented. A simpler version of a SCOPE checklist has also been tested and is included in the appendix. Lessons learned from piloting a complex exclusion checklist: - Building age and construction information may not be obtainable, but building age is a determinant of decay, which increases risk of pest activity. - Pest exclusion audits are limited to the height of a 2-fly ladder (about 24 feet), when available. Otherwise they are limited to the first floor and accessible below-ground floors. - Beyond 24 feet, only a visual inspection can be made in most cases, and binoculars help. As a result, the integrity of windows and eaves are difficult to assess on taller buildings. - SCOPE may need to rely on wildlife management specialists to access higher floors and roofs for pest access. - Penetrations through interior walls and floors are complex and not easily counted, as proposed on the complex checklist. A simpler assessment of whether an insect, mouse or rat could pass through and enter into the building is a better option. - Assessment of four sides (west, north, east, south) of a building can be challenging in many residential settings where, to provide many windows for many apartments, buildings might have as many as 56 sides (Cedarhurst example). - Remarks about deficiencies in a building are more useful than an assessment of all points, sealed and not sealed. - Checklists for residential buildings will be very different than checklists for schools and commercial buildings, unless all are very generic. There is a need for the development of a checklist specific to schools and buildings of other uses. In late spring of 2015, four members of the working group met and toured residential and commercial buildings in NYC to document pest activity, photograph and categorize pest entry points and decay in preparation for building a pest exclusion checklist. This documentation was prepared and discussed during the first working group meeting as a starting point for recommendations and the checklist of critical pest exclusion steps for multi-family buildings. We examined building perimeters, loading docks, trash compacter and boiler room spaces and common areas for evidence of pest activity and movement. We visited the NYC Housing Authority-operated Lilian Wald Houses, Avenue D, NY, NY, where a tour of the ground floor doorways and garbage compacter rooms revealed many deficiencies. Steel doors were bent and rusted on interior building access and garbage compactor rooms. In one compactor room, we found evidence of both rats and mice, plus access to higher floors through the ceiling. The compactor room would be the highest priority repair recommended. We toured the perimeter of the Harborside Financial Center, Jersey City, NJ, a location known for high rat activity. This structure is built on a pier and was the site of a food distribution warehouse, both conditions that favor rats. We discovered rat activity on the outer perimeter of the building, especially the loading dock area and many deficiencies that would (and probably did) allow rats to enter the first floor restaurants. This center is currently undergoing renovations and its anchor restaurant has closed permanently. Multi-family Residential Housing SCOPE Inspections I performed inspections of three residential multi-family buildings and one interesting commercial site with Michael Deutsch of Arrow Exterminating (Lynbrook, NY). These inspections helped to pilot the different inspection forms. Cedarhurst, NY – A condominium building of 20 units with deficiencies that included gaps under doors, gaps at garage door corners and missing 2nd floor soffit covers. No major pest issues reported at this time. Pest vulnerability is moderate to high based on the ability of rodents to enter under doors. Pest activity in the area was low. This building had low to moderate vulnerability to pest intrusion. Far Rockaway – A complex, 56-sided building with 148 units. This building is in good condition but we discovered termite activity in the basement. Again, garage doors, unsealed at the corners were a point of pest vulnerability, but there is low pest activity in this area. I would rate this building as a low to moderate pest vulnerability. Great Neck – This building with 55 units, had experienced an American cockroach outbreak after nearby road and water main repairs and renovations inside that left sewer pipes uncapped. In addition, many residents have 2 bathrooms but use only one regularly, thus allowing the water trap to dry out and cockroaches to crawl up. After recommending some changes (superintendent should fill water traps regularly) we toured the outer and inner perimeter. I documented several vulnerabilities, including utility openings, gaps under doors and standing water in a below-grade (basement) door. This building is moderately vulnerable to rodents and was highly vulnerable to American cockroaches, although that issue has been addressed. Commercial Site – Cintas, Central Islip, NY – This site was interesting because of the nature of the business. Cintas provides linen services, and in the process they launder uniforms, aprons and mops from restaurants, among other things. The used mop heads bring in cockroaches, which were concentrated in a small corner of the building near washing machines. The PMP constantly addresses cockroaches, but prevention is unlikely in this account. A byproduct of laundering linens is the production of lint, which litters the landscape. This might be attractive to mice and birds, but we saw no evidence of these pests inside or on the outer perimeter of the building. Objective 4.) Publish a review of literature and scientific information on pest suppression and exclusion to identify verified knowledge, research gaps and potential projects for the evaluation of techniques and materials for pest exclusion in aging buildings, and to examine ways that weatherization and pest exclusion overlap and/or conflict. Our group has and continues to collect and index scientific references on pest dispersal and exclusion. A literature review is being written by working group leaders and members with the intention of publication in a scientific journal (such as the Journal of IPM). This publication will describe current knowledge in urban pest exclusion, identify verified techniques for residential exclusion and highlight gaps in that understanding and barriers to adoption. The goal is to increase knowledge of pest exclusion research for readers and identify opportunities for research and demonstration. This publication will inform our other outputs, including a checklist and recommendations for pest exclusion. For residential SCOPE, I am currently writing a white paper that outlines what is known about pest exclusion and what works. In addition, the white paper will address knowledge gaps and possibilities for integrating pest exclusion into other home services, such as home inspection, weatherization, fire safety and renovations. I expect to have this white paper written before September 2017. Objective 5.) Prepare written outputs, including a strategic plan for SCOPE 2020 for multi-family housing, a list of urban IPM priorities for the IPM Centers, research and outreach priorities for pest exclusion, and recommendations for the pest management industry as well as other building services, including weatherization programs. A strategic plan for the SCOPE 2020 project outlining the future objectives of SCOPE has been developed. The strategic plan matrix was created using a logic model format and contains short and long-term desired outcomes and proposed pathways and tasks for achieving each goal. One of the most important aspects of a long term project that aims to change an entire industry is to have a strategy with achievable goals. This strategic plan was developed with the Residential SCOPE working group and reviewed by members of the Commercial SCOPE working group. A copy of the SCOPE Strategic Plan is included at the end of this report. In addition, the SCOPE 2020 Working Group has developed a set of updated Urban IPM Priorities for the IPM Centers to support future funding opportunities. These priorities have both a pest exclusion focused group and a non-pest exclusion list. These priorities are included at the end of this report. Objective 6.) Develop extension outreach materials, network (including social media) to promote pest exclusion as a critical action in pest management. Evaluate our work through networking and feedback. Our group currently owns the domain www.pestexclusion.com and plans to build a website that will serve as a clearinghouse of pest exclusion science and outreach in the future. This website will likely be housed at the NYSIPM Program website. Outreach materials will be developed by members, including recommendations and PowerPoint presentations and will be housed on our site. The Pest Exclusion Facebook page has 79 followers, which is a low number, but gains higher reach with popular posts. To elevate the awareness of SCOPE and our focus on pest exclusion, and to gather information about pest managers’ use of exclusion, I created a Facebook survey about pest exclusion. I deployed this survey on our own Pest Exclusion Facebook page and the Pest Cemetery Facebook page, a community of over 4,000, which is managed by a well- known pest management company owner. Results are included in the discussion section. In addition to these materials, members of the SCOPE working group have been invited to speak about pest exclusion at numerous conferences throughout the country and webinars. Outreach on the Science and Adoption of Pest Exclusion Articles on pest exclusion: • Gangloff-Kaufmann, J.L. “Moving the Bar in Integrated Pest Management”. Newsletter of the NY Pest Management Association. October 2015. • Frye, M. “Exclusion: The Future of Pest Management”, PCT Magazine, August 2016 Talks given by NYSIPM members: 4/5/2016 St. Croix, USVI EPA Region 2 IPM Forum “Reducing Pesticides in Restaurants, Schools and Hotels” 64 4/6/2016 San Juan, Puerto Rico EPA Region 2 IPM Forum “Reducing Pesticides in Restaurants, Schools and Hotels” 94 4/19/2016 Poughkeepsie, NY Community IPM Council “The Scientific Coalition of Pest Meeting Exclusion” – Dr. Bobby Corrigan 30 4/26/2016 Oakbrook, IL McCloud Services Annual Pest Invasion Seminar “Rodent Exclusion” 75 5/23/2016 Albuquerque, NM National Conference of “The Scientific Coalition of Pest Urban Entomology Exclusion” 53 10/6/2016 Los Angeles, CA GreenBuild International “Designing Pests and Pesticides out of 45 Expo and Show (LEED) Green Buildings” 1/19/17 Atlantic City, NJ NPMA Eastern Conference “Pest Exclusion: And Old Concept with a New Life” 325 4/25/17 Oakbrook, IL McCloud Training “Exclusion: The Future of Pest Workshop Management” 350 10/27/17 Baltimore, MD Pest World, NPMA “Developing a Pest Exclusion Program for Cockroaches and Rodents” 129 10/27/17 Baltimore, MD Pest World, NPMA “Exclusion: The Future of Pest Management” 129 The SCOPE Working Group includes a variety of members who do trainings and give presentations all over the world. Although I have asked several times if Dr. Corrigan could share some of the examples of his presentations with me, he has not had the time to provide that information. It is accurate to say that the core members of this working group speak about SCOPE frequently and promote pest exclusion as the best IPM tool in many types of educational settings. We have proposed a 2-part session at the 9th International IPM Symposium titled “Partnerships to Strengthen the Role of Pest Exclusion in IPM” featuring Corrigan, Kells, Wang, Marc Lame, Gangloff-Kaufmann, Frye, Pollack, and Geiger as speakers. Evaluation - Industry Survey Using Facebook Surveys To gather a bit of information about individual and company use of and views on pest exclusion, I developed a survey on Facebook’s survey app in January of 2017. I deployed this survey on the Facebook page of a popular company owner (Pest Cemetery) who agreed to pin it to the top of his page and let it run for a period of time. While response was fairly low compared to the number of members in that group, results were high enough to provide insights about real world use of exclusion by the pest management industry. Highlights: • 89% of respondents believe that pest exclusion is a valuable part of their work. • 70% use some form of exclusion for blocking harborage and passageways for pests indoors. • 84% use exclusion to control rodents inside buildings (although traps were more popular). • Only 30% used exclusion to keep cockroaches out of buildings. • 56% of respondents said that they need more information about both the right materials to use and training on how to use those materials. • Almost half of respondents said that exclusion may not be used in their company because customers don’t want to pay for it and not all technicians have the right skills. • About half of the respondents work for a company that provides wildlife services (wildlife exclusion). • A vast majority of respondents carry exclusion materials with them, though what they carry varies. 89% carry steel or copper wool. 84% carry sealants. From these results, we can infer that pest exclusion is widely accepted in the pest management industry and is worth promoting as a viable tool in pest management. However, there is a need to address the barriers to adoption and use of exclusion, specifically that customers will not pay for it and technicians may not be skilled. Education of customers, homeowners and building managers must stress the purchase and value of exclusion as a permanent solution to pest problems, especially for rodents. Training opportunities for pest managers that highlight the best and longest-lasting materials are in need. Hands-on training in building repair for technicians and building managers is also needed. Future Projects - Dictionary of Exclusion Training and skill building for pest management technicians is a high priority if pest exclusion is to be fully implemented. During meetings of both working groups, members decided that a pest exclusion reference book would be useful to those learning about pest exclusion. We have called this the “Dictionary of Exclusion”. Although this was not part of the work plans of either working group, members felt strongly that this kind of project could be a key training apparatus for both pest managers and building managers. An outline has been created for this resource and is shared on the Google Drive account for SCOPE. We envision this resource to contain definitions of terms relevant to building construction and improvements, as well as specific pest exclusion terms (escutcheon plate, for example). Additionally, instructions, illustrations and photographs and possibly videos will describe the correct materials, methods and specifications for repairs that keep pests out. Future Projects – Website We are planning to add a page to the NYSIPM website (www.nysipm.cornell.edu) devoted to pest exclusion in the upcoming year. This page will house all SCOPE educational materials as they become available. This report, the Residential SCOPE literature review, checklists and the Dictionary of Exclusion will be posted to this site. We may also redirect www.pestexclusion.com to this website for easy access. Appendix: A. Strategic Plan for the Scientific Coalition of Pest Exclusion The support of the Northeastern and North-Central IPM Centers for SCOPE working groups has enabled members to meet and solidify a direction for this long-term industry-changing movement. Although the Commercial/Industrial SCOPE and the Residential SCOPE efforts have different objectives, they serve the same purpose – to verify and promote the use of pest exclusion as a primary management tactic. The Residential SCOPE working group has developed a strategic plan to guide our work into the future. We envision extending SCOPE to schools, child care centers, public housing and other sensitive places where IPM relationships already exist. This strategic plan will evolve as we move forward. Strategic Plan for the Future of the Scientific Coalition of Pest Exclusion - 3/9/17 Objective Pathway Actions Long Term Outcomes Stakeholders Identify and Return on 1. The Pest understand the return overcome barriers to investments in Exclusion on investments (ROI) the use of pest exclusion proven: movement for using pest exclusion: -Document causes or exclusion. -lack of cost/benefits: facilitates the understanding, cost of pest pest Stakeholders: -lack of proof of damage (loss of management -pest management ROI, revenue, industry to industry -PMP business property value, innovate better -architects models prevent the disposed product, technology -building managers use of exclusion, energy loss, or and materials. -food plant quality -building managers health costs); 2. Healthier control lack cost of pest buildings - restaurant owners motivation/interest exclusion materials 3. Lower asthma -Retailers - and labor rates -school building 4. Fewer managers - Communication of insecticides - benefits of pest and exclusion to varied rodenticides audiences with proof used indoors of ROI. Assumption: 5. Better pest ROI is positive management Objective Pathway Actions Long Term Outcomes SCOPE creates the A University partner SCOPE members and 1. Home Dictionary of uses resources to cooperators create inspectors and Exclusion website create SCOPE content in the form of WDO (wood with terminology, dictionary as a hub of written materials, destroying basic pest exclusion videos, terminology organism) recommendations, training and … inspectors high performing information. understand products, and how-to More? Funding? pest exclusion videos, which serves SCOPE working and can as the go-to source of group develops identify points pest exclusion “Dictionary of of entry and information. Website Exclusion” as a major conduct home is useable for the collaborative project. inspections public. that include pest exclusion recommendati ons 2. The Pest Exclusion movement causes or facilitates the pest management industry to innovate better technology and materials. 3. Healthier buildings 4. Lower asthma rates 5. Fewer insecticides and rodenticides used indoors 6. Better pest management 7. Greater food safety 8. Compliance with FSMA Objective Pathway Actions Long Term Outcomes SCOPE works with Audiences of Healthy Proven benefits of Healthy Homes, Homes etc become Pest Exclusion are 1. Social service Healthy knowledgeable about discussed in Healthy and home Neighborhoods and pest entry and Homes/Neighborhood helpers asthma reduction exclusion through s workshops and (various programs to prevent trainings, trainings. agencies that pest entry, especially demonstrations and perform home in low-income written materials. SCOPE members inspections) housing. provide outreach to understand the Healthy Homes and non-pest control importance of Healthy audiences, such as and promote Neighborhoods social services pest exclusion promote pest providers and other in addition to exclusion in more in-home health and pest treatment. detail safety services 2. Healthier buildings 3. Lower asthma rates 4. Fewer insecticides and rodenticides used indoors 5. Better pest management Objective Pathway Actions Long Term Outcomes Incorporation of Pest Developers and Reach out to other 1. Healthier Exclusion into other managers of such certifying and buildings building and codes, experts in these standards 2. Lower asthma management codes, related fields organizations as a rates such as fire code, understand the group (SCOPE), 3. Fewer LEED standards, benefits of pest engage with experts insecticides WDO/housing exclusion and value in these other fields to and inspections, their addition. see how pest rodenticides weatherization, best exclusion can fit in used indoors practices for PMPs, Pest exclusion is 4. Better pest food plant guidelines incorporated into Communication of management for FSMA housing and benefits of pest 5. Greater food commercial exclusion to varied safety, fewer inspection standards audiences with proof violations of ROI. Assumption: 6. Safer healthier ROI is positive. schools Objective Pathway Actions Long Term Outcomes Consumers and clients SCOPE successfully Videos? How do we 1. Healthier come to expect pest demonstrates and capture the public’s buildings exclusion services in promotes the ease and attention? 2. Lower asthma pest management, effectiveness of rates building management, exclusion. Layperson-targeted 3. Fewer and food safety. Audiences include: articles in insecticides - Homeowners newspapers, and - Restaurateurs magazines, online rodenticides - School facility articles. One article used indoors managers can be published in 4. Better pest - Food plant many places! management managers 5. Greater food - Building Industry-targeted safety, fewer managers articles about benefits violations - Renters/landlo of pest exclusion. 6. Safer healthier rds schools Increased awareness of pest exclusion, maybe a “Keep pests Out” campaign Objective Pathway Actions Long Term Outcomes Pest management Training improves SCOPE members 1. Pest exclusion professionals PMP construction provide video and becomes a overcome the barrier skills hands-on training and more common to exclusion demonstration. practice in performance (lack of Pest management pest control skills) and can perform business owners SCOPE promotes the industry pest exclusion because understand value of idea of hiring workers 2. Healthier they are well-trained hiring employees with with construction buildings or hired to perform construction skills skills. 3. Lower asthma exclusion rates Pest management 4. Fewer business owners hire insecticides workers with building and skills and pest control rodenticides knowledge. used indoors 5. Better pest management 6. Cost of exclusion is incorporated into business model Long Term Future Outcomes – Promotion and adoption of Pest Exclusion results in: 1. The Pest Exclusion movement causes or facilitates the pest management industry to innovate better technology and materials. 2. Buildings are healthier for people. 3. Asthma rates are lowered. 4. Fewer insecticides and rodenticides are used indoors. 5. Better pest management and a stronger pest management industry emerges. B. Urban IPM Priorities from SCOPE Working Group Urban IPM Priorities – from the perspective of pest exclusion and structures 11-2-16 These priorities were developed in two meetings of the SCOPE IPM Working Group, which consists of extension and research entomologists, public health officials and pest management professionals. Please feel free to add, edit or provide comments about these possible priorities and return them to Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann (jlg23@cornell.edu) so they can be finalized and provided to the Northeastern IPM Center. Determine whether interior sealing of gaps (along moldings, walls, floors, cabinets, outlets) help mitigate populations of bed bugs, cockroaches and/or other indoor pests. Identify the top priority pest exclusion points for ensuring rodent exclusion in multi-family housing. This might be door sweeps, foundation openings, vent screens, utility chases or any other opening. Identify the environmental and human health impacts of pest management practices, both positive and negative. (John Carlson Felicia Rabido) Conduct a cost/benefit analysis of pest exclusion in a setting that helps determine the value of exclusion versus monthly pest control costs or another conventional program. Develop a scientifically-validated pest proofing “report card” system for multi- family housing. The intent of which would be to inform residents and potential renters about a building’s pest safety risks and encourage better practices among residents, landlords and managers. Study the biology and ecology of urban pests with the intention of finding vulnerabilities for use in lower-risk control options. Develop a building-wide pest management program for private multi-family housing, including model policy and plan, educational resources, best materials and methods. Provide plans for adoption of such a program. Investigate better methods of monitoring and treating sanitary (sewer) systems and underground infrastructure for pests such as American cockroaches, Norway rats, or flies. Determine what the most common sources of pest and pest management information are for the general public today, for example the internet, pest management companies, neighbors, family and friends, or the library. Develop model IPM programs (policy, plan, contract) for underserved types of pest management contracts, such as child care, public housing, private rentals, restaurants, office buildings, hospitals, or nursing homes using improved IPM criteria. Design and conduct IPM outreach using an interdisciplinary approach involving sociologists, psychologists, community health workers and others who specialize in human behavior change. Develop more effective communication for a wider audience to prevent the use of dichlorvos strips and rodent tracking powder in illegal settings (such as in restaurants and bars). Find innovative strategies to improve urban IPM awareness and adoption. Develop an alternative to the agricultural IPM model (7 steps of IPM). Define target audiences among “the general public” and shape urban IPM messaging to those audiences. (renters, homeowners, property managers, travelers, pet owners, cooks, gardeners, construction experts, architects, etc.). Work with agencies responsible for heath (food service) and housing inspection to assure that pest monitoring is included, adequate and that inspectors are well trained. Develop and enhance access to multilingual outreach materials including and beyond Spanish, especially for public health pests. Develop in-depth IPM skills training for prospective and current pest management professionals, that includes hands-on pest exclusion (building repair) training and communication skills. Develop ways to incorporate IPM plans into other health, safety and energy efficiency programs such as LEED, HACCP, or the Food Safety Modernization Act. C. Complex and Simple Pest Exclusion forms included as PDFs D. Survey results in PDF- Two similar surveys were conducted at different times. Both are included. SCOPE Pest Exclusion and Harborage Index Assessment—Residential Date: m__m / _ d_d / _ y_y Address: _____________________________ UTM Locator Inspector: _________ City: _________________ State: ______ Northing:_____________ Postal Code: ______ Country:_______ Easting:_______________ Housing Type: P/O_______ P/R_______ Sec8 _______ PHD_______ Commercial Food: Y / N People Involved _________ Number of Units Senior Housing? Y / N _________ Number of residents (approx.) Building and Area Characteristics (Check all that apply) Building Foundation Standalone Residential Basement Attached to Other Residential Slab on grade Attached to Commercial Crawl space Multi use building Dirt floor Multi-floor Combination __________ # of floors Foundation Type Anything unique? Brick Poured concrete Stone Pilings Concrete hollow block Metal Sheath Other Roofing type Siding and wall type Asphalt Membrane Brick veneer Metal cladding Shakes  with gravel Concrete Insulated metal panels Tile Metal Hollow block Stucco Slate Other Precast Mortar Spanish Poured Synthetic Flat Parapet    Vinyl Solar panels Garden Wood Composite concrete  Ornamental Façade Other  Contacting grade? Location of HVAC and Vents Balloon vs Fire Stop Roof Walls  Windows On ground Climbing plants? Active air Passive air Other plants touching or overhanging building? How much? Data Entered: __ / __ / __ Entered By: ___________________ Entry Number (from database):_______________ Page 2: SCOPE Pest Exclusion and Harborage Index Assessment Services Surrounding Areas Water Food Refuge Y / N Contracted In house Pest Control   Hardscape /    Landscape   Landscape plantings /    Custodial   Greenscape (park) /    Facility Management    Building Engineering   Storage /    Garbage Management /    Location of trash storage Playground /    Body of water nearby /    Unsealed against Insects Unsealed against mice Unsealed against rats TOTAL Structural Feature Tally Total Tally Total Tally Total Sealed Exterior Doors Main Entrances Side entrance/ egress Delivery: Street Level Stairs down Loading dock Elevator Windows North South East West Interior Doors Hollow No Door Windows / Pass-throughs Elevators Food transport Visible damage or openings near eaves or roof If yes, describe briefly: Page 4: SCOPE Pest Exclusion and Harborage Index Assessment Sketch of property Est. Structural Area (or Dimensions) : ________________ Est. Property area: ______________ Please sketch the foot print of the property –OR– attach documentation (fire suppression documentation or blueprints). Indicate location of possible exclusion faults, pest activity, conducive conditions, landscape or green scape features Indicate North Legend and other notes: Aerial Image File: ______________________ Data Entered: __ / __ / __ Entered By: ___________________ Entry Number (from database):_______________ Page 5: SCOPE Pest Exclusion and Harborage Index Assessment Pest Observations Assoc. w Assoc. w. How detected Burrow Drop- Interior Exterior Rodents Live Dead Runways Rubmarks Gnawing O/M/C/R (see or Nest pings Fault Fault below) Y/N Y/N Norway Rat        /// / / Roof Rat        /// / / House Mouse        /// / / Deer Mouse        /// / / Other: __________        /// / / How detected Assoc. w Assoc. w. Pest Live Other signs O/M/C/R (see Interior Fault Exterior Fault (Please be specific as possible) below) Y/N Y/N   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / /   /// / / Other Details (Specify pest Codes: O: Observed during inspection M: In Monitoring traps C: Complaints from pests noted R: Mentioned in records Data Entered: __ / __ / __ Entered By: ___________________ Entry Number (from database):_______________ Address  _________________________________________       Building  Type  __________________________________   Inspector  _______________________________________     Field  Worksheet     Estimated  Age  __________________________________  Date  _____________________________________________       Estimated  Square  ft  ____________________________   Time  In  ______________    Time  Out  _______________       Foundation  Type  _______________________________     Basement  Type  _________________________________     Structure   Type   Size  of  Gap/Penetration   Within  100ft   Largest  Permissible  Pest   Code   #   (Door,  Roof,  Sof@it,  Foundation,  Exterior   (see  codes  below)   (not  pest  proof)   of  Food  Zone?   (Insect,  Mouse,  Rat)   Value   line,  Interior  line,  Wall,  Window,  Drain)         1.   2.   3.   4.   5.   6.   7.   8.   9.   10.   Building  Type   Door  Type   Exterior  Line  Penetration/Type   Interior  Line  Penetration/Type   Independent  (unattached)   Front   Roof  (R)   Floor  (FL)   Attached   Side   Foundation  (FD)   Ceiling  (C)   Delivery  (St.  Level)   Floor  (FL)   Wall  (Sheetrock  Conventional)   Foundation  Type   Delivery  (Sidewalk/Stairs)   Ceiling  (C)   Wall  Poured  Concrete  Solid  (W)     Concrete  Hollow  Block   Wall  (W)   Wall  :  Concrete  Hollow  Brick  (CHB)   Metal  Sheathing  over  Studs   Escutcheon  Plate  Type   Utility  Elect.  (UE)   Ceiling  (Solid  Pour)   Poured  Concrete;  Solid   (1)  Present  and  Sealed   Utility  Plumb  (UP)   Ceiling  (Suspended)   Brick   (2)  Present,  Unsealed;  allows  insects,  not  rodents   Utility  Gas  (UG)   Ceiling  (other)   Stone   (3)  Present,  Unsealed;  allows  insects  and  rodents   Utility  (?)  (UU)   Utility  Elect.  (UE)   (3)  No  plate;  Sealed  to  closure   Basement  Type     Utility  Plumb  (UP)  (4)  No  plate,  Foam  Fill  Around  Pipe.     Conventional   Utility  Gas  (UG)  (5)  No  plate;  Open  ;  allows  for  insects,  but  not  rodents   Crawl   Utility  (?)  (UU)  (6)  No  plate  Open;  allows  insects  and  rodents   Field  Worksheet   Address  _________________________________________          Date  _____________________________________________     Structure   Type   Size  of  Gap/Penetration   Within  100ft   Largest  Permissible  Pest   Code   #   (Door,  Roof,  Sof@it,  Foundation,  Exterior   (see  codes  below)   (not  pest  proof)   of  Food  Zone?   (Insect,  Mouse,  Rat)   Value   line,  Interior  line,  Wall,  Window,  Drain)         Address  _________________________________________       Building  Type  __________________________________   Inspector  _______________________________________     Summary  Sheet     Estimated  Age  __________________________________  Date  _____________________________________________       Estimated  Square  ft  ____________________________   Time  In  ______________    Time  Out  _______________       Foundation  Type  _______________________________     Basement  Type  _________________________________   Value   Doors   Calculations   Value   Exterior  Penetrations   Calculations   A   Total  #  Doors   J   Total  #  Ext.  Penetrations   B   #  Doors  Pest  Proof   K   #  Ext.  Penetrations  Pest  Proof   C   #  Doors  Not  Pest  Proof   L   #  Ext.  Penetrations  Not  Pest  Proof   Percentage  Pest  Proof   B/A  *  100  =   Percentage  Pest  Proof   K/J  *  100  =   Percentage  Not  Pest  Proof   C/A  *  100  =     Percentage  Not  Pest  Proof   L/J  *  100  =     Value   Windows   Calculations   Value   Interior  Penetrations   Calculations   D   Total  #  Windows   M   Total  #  Int.  Penetrations   E   #  Windows  Pest  Proof   N   #  Int.  Penetrations  Pest  Proof   F   #  Windows  Not  Pest  Proof   O   #  Int.  Penetrations  Not  Pest  Proof   Percentage  Pest  Proof   E/D  *  100  =   Percentage  Pest  Proof   N/M  *  100  =   Percentage  Not  Pest  Proof   F/D  *  100  =     Percentage  Not  Pest  Proof   O/M  *  100  =     Value   Floor  Drains   Calculations   Structure   Totals  and   Pest  Vulnerability   Harborage  Index   Values   Index   G   Total  #  Drains   Doors   H   #  Drains  Pest  Proof   Windows   I   #  Drains  Not  Pest  Proof   Exterior  Penetrations   Percentage  Pest  Proof   H/G  *  100  =   Interior  Penetrations   Percentage  Not  Pest  Proof   I/G  *  100  =     Floor  Drains   5/16/2017 Surveys for Pages What do you think of Pest Exclusion? Let us know! Created on November 11, 2016 by Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann Are you the owner or an employee of your Owner 31 votes 62.0% company? 50 answers Employee 19 votes 38.0% How many employees does your company have? 1-10 34 votes 68.0% 50 answers 11-50 9 votes 18.0% 51-100 2 votes 4.0% 101+ 5 votes 10.0% What percentage of the company's work is 0-25% 3 votes 6.0% residential (not commercial accounts)? 50 answers 25-50% 11 votes 22.0% 50-75% 16 votes 32.0% 75-100% 20 votes 40.0% What do technicians routinely use to control Rodenticide baits 27 votes 54.0% rodents inside buildings? (Check all that apply) 50 answers (122 votes) Tracking powder 6 votes 12.0% Traps (snap/ sticky/ other) 47 votes 94.0% Exclusion 42 votes 84.0% What do technicians routinely use to control Insecticides (dust or spray) 40 votes 80.0% American and/or Oriental cockroaches indoors? (Check all that apply) Baits (gel, liquid or granular) 38 votes 76.0% 50 answers (140 votes) Traps (glue, pheromone or other) 25 votes 50.0% Exclusion from outdoors 15 votes 30.0% Sealing gaps indoors 22 votes 44.0% https://apps.facebook.com/my-surveys/?fb_source=sidebar_bookmark 1/3 5/16/2017 Surveys for Pages Does your company offer wildlife control Yes 25 votes 50.0% services? 50 answers No 25 votes 50.0% For which other pests is exclusion used in your Mammals 40 votes 80.0% company? (Check all that apply) 50 answers (158 votes) Birds 31 votes 62.0% Yellowjackets and/or bees 22 votes 44.0% Ants 21 votes 42.0% Stink bugs, ladybugs, or other 19 votes 38.0% overwintering pests Snakes 15 votes 30.0% Other 10 votes 20.0% What exclusion materials do techs typically carry Copper or steel wool 44 votes 88.0% to job sites? (Check all that apply) 50 answers (207 votes) Sealants/caulks 42 votes 84.0% Screen or hardware cloth 39 votes 78.0% Expanding foam 31 votes 62.0% Concrete patch 26 votes 52.0% Wood and other building materials 17 votes 34.0% Other 8 votes 16.0% Do you (or your workers) have a need for more Need information about the right materials 27 votes 54.0% information or training in pest exclusion? to use 50 answers (89 votes) Need training on how to use materials 28 votes 56.0% No, we're doing a good job already 17 votes 34.0% No, we do not do exclusion work 1 vote 2.0% Need pest biology information 16 votes 32.0% https://apps.facebook.com/my-surveys/?fb_source=sidebar_bookmark 2/3 5/16/2017 Surveys for Pages What are some of the reasons that pest exclusion We offer, but customers don't want to pay 28 votes 56.0% may not be used in your company? (Check all that for it apply) 50 answers (78 votes) Training - Not all technicians have building 25 votes 50.0% repair skills Technician time - exclusion jobs take too 12 votes 24.0% long Other 8 votes 16.0% Company policy doesn't emphasize 2 votes 4.0% exclusion Company policy doesn't allow technicians to 2 votes 4.0% do exclusion Union workers are responsible for building 1 vote 2.0% repairs Do you use exclusion for interior work (sealing Yes 34 votes 68.0% gaps and blocking passageways inside and between parts of buildings)? No 16 votes 32.0% 50 answers Overall, is pest exclusion a valuable part of your Yes 44 votes 88.0% work in pest management? 50 answers No 6 votes 12.0% https://apps.facebook.com/my-surveys/?fb_source=sidebar_bookmark 3/3 5/16/2017 Surveys for Pages Pest exclusion survey for pest management professionals Created on September 27, 2016 by Jody Gangloff-Kaufmann Are you the owner or an employee of your Owner 8 votes 57.1% company? 14 answers (0 locked) Employee 6 votes 42.9% What do technicians routinely use to control Rodenticide/ bait 11 votes 78.6% rodents inside buildings? (Check all that apply) 14 answers (37 votes) (0 locked) Tracking powder 2 votes 14.3% Traps (snap or sticky) 12 votes 85.7% Exclusion of rodents 12 votes 85.7% What do technicians routinely use to control Insecticides (dust or spray) 9 votes 69.2% American and Oriental cockroaches indoors? (Check all that apply) Baits 11 votes 84.6% 13 answers (36 votes) (0 locked) Traps (glue, pheromone) 5 votes 38.5% Exclusion from outdoors 4 votes 30.8% Sealing gaps indoors 7 votes 53.8% Does your company offer wildlife control Yes 7 votes 53.8% services? 13 answers (0 locked) No 6 votes 46.2% Does your company use exclusion for the Birds 7 votes 53.8% following? (Check all that apply) 13 answers (26 votes) (0 locked) Wildlife, including bats 6 votes 46.2% In every account 5 votes 38.5% Other 4 votes 30.8% Ants 2 votes 15.4% Yellowjackets and bees 2 votes 15.4% https://apps.facebook.com/my-surveys/?fb_source=sidebar_bookmark 1/3 5/16/2017 Surveys for Pages What exclusion materials do you typically carry Copper or steel wool 12 votes 92.3% to job sites? 13 answers (44 votes) (0 locked) Sealants/caulks 11 votes 84.6% Expanding foam 6 votes 46.2% Screen or mesh 6 votes 46.2% Other 4 votes 30.8% Wood and other building materials 3 votes 23.1% Concrete patch 2 votes 15.4% None, we do not do this. 0 votes 0% Do you or your company need more information No, we're doing a good job already. 3 votes 23.1% or training in pest exclusion? 13 answers (19 votes) (0 locked) No, we do not do exclusion work. 0 votes 0% Need pest biology information 1 vote 7.7% Need information about the right materials 8 votes 61.5% to use Need training on how to use materials 7 votes 53.8% What are some of the reasons that pest exclusion Technician time - exclusion jobs take too long 6 votes 46.2% is not the rst option? (Check all that apply) 13 answers (19 votes) (0 locked) Training - Not all techs have handyman skills 5 votes 38.5% Other 5 votes 38.5% Union workers are responsible for building 2 votes 15.4% improvements Company policy does not emphasize 1 vote 7.7% exclusion Company policy does not ALLOW exclusion 0 votes 0% Do you use exclusion for interior work (sealing Yes 10 votes 76.9% gaps and blocking passageways inside and between parts of buildings)? No 3 votes 23.1% 13 answers (0 locked) https://apps.facebook.com/my-surveys/?fb_source=sidebar_bookmark 2/3 5/16/2017 Surveys for Pages Overall, is pest exclusion a valuable part of pest Yes 12 votes 92.3% management? 13 answers (0 locked) No 1 vote 7.7% https://apps.facebook.com/my-surveys/?fb_source=sidebar_bookmark 3/3