C AL E NVIRO S CREEN : A N EW T OOL FOR E VALUATING C ALIFORNIA C - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CALENVIROSCREEN: A NEW TOOL

FOR EVALUATING CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES

FEBRUARY 14, 2014

John Faust & Laura August, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

CALENVIROSCREEN

• Screening tool that can be

used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution

• Identifies 17 indicators of

environmental and socioeconomic conditions

• Latest version September 2013

2

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA: STATE LAWS

▪ “The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws and policies.” ▪ “…identify and address any gaps in existing environmental programs, policies, or activities that may impede the achievement of environmental justice.”

▪ Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice ▪ California Environmental Justice Advisory Committee

3

FOCUS OF CALENVIROSCREEN

“…exposures, public health or environmental effects from the combined emissions and discharges in a geographic area, including environmental pollution from all sources, whether single or multi-media, routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts will take into account sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors, where applicable and to the extent data are available.”

• - Working definition of

“cumulative impacts” by Cal/EPA Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice

4

BASIS OF CONCERN FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

▪ Numerous studies have shown that multiple pollution sources are disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities with high-minority populations. ▪ Studies have reported communities with certain socioeconomic factors (i.e. low-income, low-education) have increased sensitivity to pollution. ▪ Combination of multiple pollutants and increased sensitivity in these communities can result in higher cumulative pollution impacts. ▪ Issues reviewed in:

▪ California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. “Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation”, (2010) Sacramento, CA http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/CIReport123110.pdf

5

DEVELOPMENT OF CALENVIROSCREEN 1.1

6

2008+ Nine public meetings

• f the Cumulative

Impacts and Precautionary Approaches Work Group. December 2010 Framework report released Cumulative Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation July 2012 First CalEnviroScreen draft report released for public comment. Summer-Fall 2012 12 public workshops, academic workshop, 1,000 oral and written comments. January 2013 Revised draft released. 65 written submissions with comments. April and September 2013 CalEnviroScreen 1.0 and 1.1 finalized.

OBJECTIVES

▪ Keep it relatively simple (!) ▪ Geography-based assessment

▪ Roughly community-scale

▪ Contributions to impact from multiple media

▪ Air, water, soil

▪ Find data to represent each of the components

▪ Exposure, environmental conditions, population sensitivity, and socioeconomic factors

▪ Combine the information

Industrial emissions inventory; Traffic data; Brownfield locations; Solid waste sites & landfills; Pesticide use reporting; Hazardous materials spills Air quality data; Drinking water quality Biomonitoring data Pesticide illness surveillance; Health statistics (cancer mortality, birth defects, etc.)

Source or Use Dose Exposure Concentration Health Effects

Fate & transport Activities Uptake Interaction

THE HEALTH RISK MODEL

8

▪ Provide a good measure of environmental or socioeconomic conditions

▪ Pollution indicators should relate to issues that may be actionable by Cal/EPA

▪ Publicly available ▪ Statewide ▪ Location-based information (e.g., address, latitude/longitude) ▪ Good quality data (e.g., covers the state, accurate, current)

CRITERIA FOR INDICATOR SELECTION

9

INDICATORS USED

Pollution Burden Population Characteristics Exposures Environmental Effects Sensitive Populations Socioeconomic Factors

PM 2.5 concentrations Ozone concentrations Diesel PM emissions Pesticide use Toxic releases from facilities Traffic density Drinking water (in progress) Cleanup sites Groundwater threats (Leaking underground tanks and cleanups) Impaired water bodies Solid waste sites and facilities Hazardous waste facilities and generators Prevalence of children and elderly Asthma emergency department visit rate Rate of low birth weight births Educational attainment Linguistic isolation Poverty: Percent residents below 2x national poverty level

10

GEOGRAPHIC UNIT: ZIP CODES

 Census ZIP Codes:

ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA)

 Familiar scale  Public recognition  Not too large: can

see differences

 Not too small: can

use data

 Moving to census

tracts in 2014

11

HOW TO STANDARDIZE INDICATORS TO A

GEOGRAPHIC UNIT?

▪ Indicator datasets exist in different formats

▪ Tabular, vector-based, spatial models

▪ Every indicator is summarized at ZIP code

▪ For example, each ZIP was assigned a PM2.5 concentration

▪ Unique methods implemented for each indicator

12

SCORING

Components Maximum Score

Exposures & Environmental Effects (½) 10 Sensitive Populations & Socioeconomic Factors 10

CalEnviroScreen Score

Up to 100 (= 10 x 10)

13

▪ For each indicator, ZIP codes are assigned percentile values based on where they fall in the statewide distribution

Magnitude of Indicator (i.e. percent poverty, ozone conc.) Number of ZIP Codes

Example indicator

INDICATOR EXAMPLE: PESTICIDE USE

Data source: Pesticide Use Reporting

(CA Department of Pesticide Regulation)

Indicator: Pounds of selected* agricultural-use active pesticide ingredients per square mile Raw data: ▪ Pounds of pesticides applied in a ~ 1 sq. mile grid from the Public Land Survey System ▪ Subset more toxic and higher exposure potential pesticides were used

*For a complete listing of the pesticides used, see our report: http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces11.html

14

Analysis: ▪ 1 sq. mile grid (Sections)

• verlaid on all ZIPs across

California ▪ Area-apportioned relationship file in ArcGIS created to associate Sections with multiple

• verlapping ZIPs
• ‘R’ used to allocate

proportion of PUR lbs per ZIP based

• Total pesticides summed

per ZIP

INDICATOR EXAMPLE: PESTICIDE USE

15

▪

Percentiles calculated across ZIPs based on lbs of agricultural pesticides, data was symbolized into deciles.

PESTICIDE USE RESULTS

16

INDICATOR EXAMPLE: ASTHMA RATES

Data source: Emergency Department and Ambulatory Surgery Data

(CA Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development & CA Environmental Health Tracking Program)

Indicator: Spatially modeled, age- adjusted rate of emergency department (ED) visits for asthma per 10,000 (2007-2009) Raw data: CEHTP obtained records for ED visits occurring during 2007- 2009 for asthma codes by ZIP Code

www.niehs.nih.gov

17

Analysis: ▪ Age-adjusted rates were spatially modeled to provide estimates for ZIP codes with fewer than 12 ED visits ▪ Metric calculated based on assumption of perfect

• verlap between postal ZIPs

and census ZIPs

INDICATOR EXAMPLE: ASTHMA RATES

Example of Postal ZIP and Census ZIP Code boundaries

18

ASTHMA RATES RESULTS

Percentiles calculated across ZIPs based on average % asthma rate, data was symbolized into deciles.

19

INDICATOR EXAMPLE: CLEANUP SITES

Data source: EnviroStor Cleanup Sites Database

(CA Department of Toxic Substances Control & (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry)

Indicator: Sum of weighted cleanup sites within each ZIP code. (Sites include Federal Superfund, State Response, etc. categories) Raw data: Facility locations (points) and site boundaries (polygons)

20

INDICATOR EXAMPLE: CLEANUP SITES

Analysis: ▪ Sites weighted based on type and status ▪ 250m buffer applied to all sites ▪ ZIP codes given score based on overlap with buffer ▪ Scores summed within ZIPs

21

CLEANUP SITES RESULTS

Percentiles calculated across ZIPs based on weighted cleanup sites, data was symbolized into deciles.

22

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RESULTS

▪ CalEnviroScreen Report

▪ Maps for individual indicators ▪ Description of each indicator

▪ Excel spreadsheet

▪ “Raw” values and percentiles for each indicator ▪ Overall CalEnviroScreen scores ▪ Grouped scores (e.g., Top 5 and 10% scoring ZIPs, etc.)

▪ Google Earth results (overall; Top 5 & 10%) ▪ ArcGIS geodatabase ▪ On-line mapping tool (ArcGIS On-Line) www.oehha.ca.gov/ej

CalEnviroScreen Scores: Statewide HIGHEST 10% CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES

• 176 of 1769 ZIP codes in

California.

• Covers 7.7 million

people (~21% of California’s population).

24

25

CalEnviroScreen Scores: Statewide CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES

• All 1769 ZIP codes in

California

• Each color represents

~10% of all ZIP codes

ONLINE TOOL

Available at: oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces11.html

26

SOME USES OF TOOL

▪ To aid ongoing planning and decision-making within Cal/EPA ▪ Environmental Justice Small Grant program ▪ Promote greater compliance with environmental laws ▪ Prioritize site-cleanup activities

▪ Strategic Growth Council

▪ Sustainable Communities Planning Grants ▪ California Senate Bill 535 (De Leon, 2012)

▪ Cal/EPA shall identify “disadvantaged communities” for investment opportunities based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health and environmental hazard criteria.

27

CHANGES IN CALENVIROSCREEN

▪ Adapt tool to census tract scale ▪ Develop drinking water quality indicator ▪ Reach out to interested local governments and

• thers on potential uses of CalEnviroScreen

▪ Solicit suggestions for overall refinement and updating of tool (ongoing)

28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

OEHHA : John Faust Laura August George Alexeeff Komal Bangia Rose Cendak Lara Cushing Allan Hirsch Tamara Kadir Julian Leichty Carmen Milanes Shankar Prasad Andrew Slocombe Karen Randles Robbie Welling Lauren Zeise

THANK YOU!

email: Laura.August@oehha.ca.gov more info: www.oehha.ca.gov/ej

Cal/EPA : Miriam Barcellona Ingenito Arsenio Mataka Gina Solomon Other thanks:

• Cumulative Impacts and Precautionary

Approaches Work Group

• Cal/EPA Boards and Departments who provided

comments and data

• California Department of Public Health and the

Public Health Institute who provided data

• Residents and stakeholders who participated in
• ur regional workshops; Tara Zagofsky, consultant

and facilitator, University of California, Davis, Common Ground: Center for Cooperative Solutions

• Dr. Rachel Morello-Frosch and academic

colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley

• Academic expert panel who provided comments at

a workshop in September 2012

• Graduate students assisting in the project

29