New Directions Workshops: Community Assessment Series
Workshops: Focus Areas
Summary Report
Prepared for.'
Office of Science Policy
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
March 30. 2000
-------
60O20002
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Table of Contents
Preface
in
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Community Assessment Overview (Dorothy Patton - ORD OSP) 1
1.2 Workshop Oven-lew (Claudia Walters - ORD OSP) 2
2. Session I: Agency Experiences and Infrastructure Focus Areas 5
2.1 Agency Managers Panel 5
2.1.1 'HalZenick-ORD 5
2.1.2 EPA's Role in Smart Growth and Community Choices: Developing Tools
and Strategies for Communities
(Chuck Kent - Office of Policy and Reinvention) 5
2.1.3 Avis C. Robinson - Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of
Information. Analysis and Access 6
2.1.4 Bill Sanders - Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 6
2.1.5 Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Road to a Sustainable
Future (John Armstead - Region 3, Environmental Services Division) . 7
2.2 Plenary Discussion 8
3. Session II: Science: Technical and Policy Focus Areas 11
3.1 Contra Costa County. California Community Air Toxics Monitoring (Alan Huber
- ORD/NERL) 11
3.2 Charleston, SC CBEP Project (Cynthia Peurifoy - Region 4) 13
3.3 Camden, NJ: Environmental Load Profile (Daisy Tang - Region 2) 17
4. Session III: Education and Communication Product Focus Areas 23
4.1 New Hampshire Comparative Risk Assessment (Ken Jones. Green Mountain
Institute for Environmental Democracy) 23
4.2 The Changing Watershed: A 25-year History of Land Cover Change in the San
Pedro River (Bill Kepner - ORD) 25
4.3 Chester. PA Risk Assessment Project (Reggie Harris - Region 3) 27
5. Poster and Demonstration Session 33
6. Session IV: Community Assessment Workshop Products 35
6.1 Community Assessment Matrix (Claudia Walters - ORD OSP 35
6.2 Case Studies (Hank Topper - OPPT) 37
6.3 Decision-Making Framework (Lawrence Martin - ORD) 40
7. Wrap-Up 43
Paae i
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
List of Appendices
Appendix A. List of Participants
Appendix B. Agenda
Appendix C. Focus Areas
Appendix D. Case Study Materials
Appendix E. Breakout Group Flip Charts and Posters
Appendix F. Draft Community Assessment Matrix
Pase ii
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Preface
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is currently pursuing new approaches
to using science to address several topics of importance to the Agency. These topics represent
new directions for EPA in that they transcend the traditional media- or pollutant-based
boundaries and encompass a variety of disciplines and specialities. ORD wishes to link EPA staff
interested in these topics with the appropriate science staff in ORD to identify areas for
collaboration. To accomplish this goal, ORD's Office of Science Policy (OSP) is hosting a series
of New Directions workshops between March 1999 and Spring 2000. The workshops provide a
forum to present information and discuss current and future issues on new topics of interest.
There are four topic series being presented under the auspices of New Directions: Community
Assessment, Reinvention, Risk Management, and Regional Science. Each topic series consists of
three or four workshops designed to bring interested staff together to develop a set of action
items that will be completed over the course of the series.
To develop the agendas for each of the workshops, ORD has formed a cross-Agency
planning group1, which will continue to support the work of meeting participants throughout the
series. The planning group is comprised of staff and management from ORD and Program and
Regional offices. The tasks of the planning group are to design the workshop structure, find
interesting and relevant case studies, and identify presenters, panel members, and other workshop
participants.
The third workshop for the Community Assessment Series was held at the Washington
Marriott Hotel in Washington, DC on February 9-11, 2000. This workshop, entitled
STATUS OF THIS REPORT
The objective of this workshop (or workshop series) was to bring together EPA scientists from the
Regions, programs, and ORD labs and centers to discuss issues of common interest. The focus
of the meeting (or each meeting) was preliminary discussion among scientists and managers from
different parts of the Agency, each with their individual and office-specific information and
viewpoints.
As a result, it is important to understand that this report summarizes individual and program-
specific perspectives. References to pre-existing Agency information and policies should be
credited as such, but none of the individual workshop statements or summaries in this report
should be credited or cited as Agency information or policies. Rather, this report is developed
exclusively for internal EPA use and distribution as a record of the meeting for participants in each
meeting, and for EPA's use in planning future meetings and discussions. EPA staff will use
information from this report, as appropriate, to design and conduct workshops or other activities
for broader discussion both within EPA and with external participation, again as appropriate.
1 Staff Contact: Claudia Walters Nick Bomves (OPPT), Steven Hassur Rabi Kieber (R2), Debra Forman
(ORD) (OPPTS), Henry Topper (OPPTS). (R3), Carole Braverman (R5). Mario
Andrew Bond (ORD), Steven Knott Loren Hall (OCR), Lee Hofrnann Mangino (R5), Gerald Hiatt (R9)
(ORD), Vanessa Vu (ORD). Angela (OERR), Jeneva Craig (OAR),
Nusent (SAB) Rashmi Lai (OEI). Ronald Shafer
(OEI)
ae
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
"Community Assessment Workshop III: Focus Areas," was intended to enable practitioners and
scientists to collectively determine how science can support and be integrated into community-
driven, place-based environmental decision-making. Approximately 60 senior EPA staff,
representing EPA Program offices, ORD, and several EPA Regions, participated; Appendix A
provides a complete list of participants.
The two-and-one-half-day workshop was designed to maximize participant input and
collaboration; Appendix B provides a copy of the final agenda. It centered around issues
previously identified as focus areas. These focus areas were grouped into three categories:
Agency Experience and Infrastructure; Science: Technical and Policy Areas; and Education and
Communication Products. Discussions regarding these categories were intended to lead into the
fourth part of the workshop, focusing on Community" Assessment Workshop Products.
On the first day, Dorothy Patton, Director of OSP, provided an overview of the New
Directions initiative in general and the Community Assessment Series in particular. Claudia
Walters (ORD) outlined the goals and approach for this Community' Assessment Workshop. The
first plenary session convened a panel of Agency managers, who described the focus areas related
to Agency Experience and Infrastructure. Each discussed how their Office or Region has
addressed these focus areas through a project, program, policy, or activity. This panel included
Hal Zenick (ORD), Chuck Kent (Office of Policy and Reinvention), Avis Robinson (Office of
Environmental Information - OEI), Bill Sanders (Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances - OPPTS), and John Armstead (Region 3). Following presentations on six different
case studies, participants divided into discussion groups to examine one particular case in depth.
to address how each exemplified a specific focus area, and to evaluate the case based on a list of
specific criteria. Each discussion group then presented its conclusions by creating a poster;
participants were given an opportunity to review and comment on each group's work.
On the second day, following the presentation and discussion of the second set of case
studies, plenary presentations were made about the Community Assessment Products under
development. Claudia Walters presented the Community' Assessment Matrix. Hank Topper's
(Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics - OPPT) presentation focused on case study
prototypes. Lawrence Martin (OSP) discussed and demonstrated the Community- Assessment
Framework and related Risk Assessment Decision Tree. Breakout groups were then formed to
discuss the products in depth and to evaluate the products based on a list of specific criteria.
On the final day, Lawrence Martin demonstrated the Framework and Decision Tree
Model in greater detail. Hank Topper and Reggie Harris briefly discussed how this product might
have been useful in their study communities. A final plenary session discussion centered around
the following questions: Is EPA on the right track? Are the assessments in question constructive?
Are the decision points appropriate? Does the Community' Assessment Framework present a
viable strategy to incorporate other Agency tools? Which ones? The workshop concluded with
the development of a list of action items and the enlistment of volunteers to work on these items.
This report summarizes the information that was presented and exchanged during the
workshop. Key themes that emerged from the discussions are highlighted throughout the report.
The organization of the report follows the agenda of the workshop. The report concludes with
appendices containing a roster of attendees, the final workshop agenda, case materials distributed
Pase iv
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
to participants, transcripts of flip charts created during plenary and breakout sessions, and copies
of speaker presentations.
Page v
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
1. Introduction
1.1 Community Assessment Overview (Dorothy Patton - ORD OSP)
The New Directions initiative was introduced in a presentation by Dorothy Patton,
Director of the Office of Science Policy (OSP) within EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD). New Directions workshops are intended to bring EPA scientists, analysts.
and managers together to discuss how new approaches to environmental protection are being
addressed across the Agency. Workshop sponsors believe that these discussions will produce
cross-Agency linkages that will strengthen science at EPA by fostering collaboration and
coordination on scientific issues that cross traditional program and media boundaries.
Environmental protection is moving in new directions. As science has significantly
advanced our understanding of single-source environmental hazards to humans and the
environment, attention is now turning to the complexities and uncertainties associated with the
health and ecosystem impacts of exposure to multiple pollutants through multiple pathways.
Likewise, public discourse on how to protect the environment has evolved to reflect the complex
relationships between environmental and socioeconomic issues. Stakeholders have evolved from
observers and recipients of government-directed environmental protection into active participants
identifying problems, setting priorities, and devising solutions. Across EPA, Program and
Regional offices are addressing these changes by approaching in innovative ways their mission to
protect human health and safeguard the environment.
The New Directions workshops are designed to promote the identification and sharing of
science tools and strategies among EPA staff and management from across the Program and
Regional offices. As stated above, however, the most important result of the workshops will be
the linkages established between EPA Program offices, Regional offices, and ORD laboratories
and centers as a result of these discussions.
Using input from the national laboratories and research centers, as well as from Program
and Regional offices, OSP has identified Community Assessment, Regional Science,
Reinvention, and Risk Management as subject areas for the New Directions workshop series.
While these four areas may not cover all the new scientific directions that EPA is taking, they
encompass a wide range of cross-program and cross-media science issues that may serve as
potential workshop topics. Each series is comprised of three to four topic-specific workshops.
Each workshop within a series will follow an agenda designed to focus on how analysts across
the Agency approach the various topics, and how linkages can be formed between EPA
programs. Regions, laboratories, and centers to collaborate and coordinate on issues relating to
the topic area.
Community Assessment is a new approach for EPA. The goals of this discussion are to
promote networking between scientists and practitioners; develop a better understanding of the
science issues in community assessment; evaluate tools for community-based assessments and
decision-making; and, most importantly, establish a basis for enhancing the quality and utility- of
EPA community science tools. To date, the Community' Assessment Series has accomplished
several objectives. Relevant community assessment questions have been identified. Work is
Pase 1
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
ongoing to identify existing tools and data to address these questions. Several products are in the
development phase as well. During this workshop, participants will examine and discuss the
Community Assessment Matrix, Community Assessment Framework, and existing case studies.
These products will eventually provide support to the community, as well as links between
scientists and the community. In addition, participants will make contacts to work further on this
effort, and test the quality and utility' of these products. This workshop aims to:
Promote greater networking between scientists and practitioners;
Develop the understanding of the relation of science issues to community'
assessment ;
Evaluate the draft tools for community-based assessment/decision-making;
Establish the basis for enhancing the quality and utility- of EPA community'
science tools.
The basis for these products is a series of focus areas that have been identified in previous
meetings. These focus areas fall loosely into three categories: agency experience and
infrastructure; technical and policy aspects of science; and education and communication.
Discussions will culminate in Community' Assessment Workshop Products. These products are
the result of work achieved in previous meetings, such as identifying community' assessment
questions and existing data and tools. This workshop was intended to refine the products,
identify participants to do further work toward the overall goals, and to test the quality' and
utility of the products. It is hoped that by examining these focus areas more closely, this
workshop will produce stronger commitments to the products developed and a clearer vision of
what steps to take next. Participants were encouraged to keep in mind one question to answer
during the subsequent workshop discussions: what value do the community assessment products
(matrix, decision-tree, and case studies) add to EPA's commitment to community assessment?
The answers developed during the workshop should guide the next steps for the products.
1.2 Workshop Overview (Claudia Walters - ORD OSP)
The Community' Assessment Series brings together scientists, community' practitioners,
and risk assessors from across EPA to discuss community assessment issues in complex, multi-
source settings, such as urban environments. These workshops take a step-by-step approach to
improving EPA's ability' to support community assessments.
This third workshop is designed for practitioners and scientists to collectively determine
how science can support and be integrated into community-driven, place-based environmental
decision-making. The practitioners' role is to share their experiences working in communities,
determining what would be most productive in supporting community-based environmental
protection, and helping to identify and achieve the post-workshop activities. The scientists' role
is to share their scientific work applicable to various focus areas, advise and guide the
community- assessment activities for scientific credibility', evaluate the application of workshop
issues and recommendations for their research programs, and collaborate on accomplishing the
post-workshop activities.
This workshop is intended to refine the products, identify participants to do further work
toward the overall goals, and to test the quality7 and utility of the products. The workshop follows
Paae 2
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
a presentation and discussion format. A series of presentations with a common focus area will be
followed by breakout discussions to answer specific questions about the cases or topics
presented. A series of focus areas, broken down into three categories, provide the basis for
discussion for this workshop. These focus areas and related issues are as follows:
Category I: Agency Experience and Infrastructure
Related issues include:
The need for more experience.
The need to develop Federal and state and local government partnerships to work
in communities.
The need for more coordination and communication among Agency staff working
on community assessment.
The need for more training for EPA staff, so that they can learn from the
developing experiences.
Category II: Science: Technical and Policy Areas
Related issues include:
A better way to combine cancer and non-cancer effects in a cumulative
assessment.
More and better toxicity data, including an expedited way of obtaining data before
they are formally included in databases.
Guidance on cumulative risk assessment, including a discussion of "acceptable"
standards for cumulative risk.
Methods for handling peak releases and acute effects. For instance, are there
toxicity data on intermittent peak/episodic exposures which can be used to
describe the nature and magnitude of effects relative to those resulting from
continuous exposure?
A guide to databases that explains the quality of the data and how to use the data
for community assessment.
Guidance for community sampling in the development of a sampling design to
collect monitoring data or to validate the output from models.
Research for validation and refinement of models used in community'
assessments.
Page 3
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Methods for estimating releases from various area source categories such as
schools, dry cleaners, and land fills.
Category III: Education and Communication Products Areas
Related issues include:
A comprehensive inventory across the nation of environmental and health
exposures that may result in risks to communities. This inventory should provide
an overview of the conditions in a particular community.
A description of what community risk assessment can offer a community, the
limits, and the differences between various types of assessments that can be
performed.
A clear explanation of the connection between risk assessment information and
current incidences of disease in the community.
Research and experience to develop examples of effective ways to communicate
assessment results to communities.
Guidance to communicate the meaning of finding a contaminant level above a
reference dose.
The ultimate goal of the workshop series is to produce a set of Community Assessment
Workshop Products:
A Community- Assessment Matrix that attempts to match often-asked community
assessment questions with data and tools potentially useful in addressing each
question.
An improved Community Assessment Framework that provides communities
with a process to understand and assess potential health problems.
Case Study Prototypes that document Agency experiences in addressing specific
community' questions, explaining the process used, the questions being addressed,
the tools and data used, and the outcomes.
Paae 4
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
2. Session I: Agency Experiences and Infrastructure Focus Areas
2.1 Agency Managers Panel
This session included a series of presentations by senior EPA staff regarding the Agency
experience and infrastructure focus areas. Presentations were followed by an open discussion.
2.1.1 HalZenick-ORD
Because community science is such a broad issue, organizational and planning issues are
very important. Key to this is understanding and identifying existing and new science. The
Agency must improve direct technical support to the Regions and Program Offices. The Agency
must keep these objectives in mind when considering the focus areas related to Agency
experience and infrastructure. In order to get more experience in community assessment. EPA
must participate in more community-based programs. Great resources go untapped, including
various grants. However, there is no way to tap this information; no central point exists to access
such information. Perhaps one way to create a central information point about community-
projects would be to have grantees prepare fact sheets on their projects. This might allow for a
search mechanism, so that others can find information on similar types of projects. This would be
useful to scientists because they could identify what products and tools communities use most
often. Determining how to proceed to create such a central repository is one of the issues for this
workshop and requires answering the following questions: Is this even a valid concept? How
does senior management become engaged? Where should the home for this central repository be?
2.1.2 EPA's Role in Smart Growth and Community Choices: Developing Tools and
Strategies for Communities (Chuck Kent - Office of Policy and Reinvention)
Current development patterns have large impacts on the environment. The Smart Growth
program promotes choices and alternatives through a variety of transportation options, housing
opportunities, mixed land uses, the preservation of open space, and the direction of development
in existing communities. EPA provides both information and analytical tools to help
communities explore development choices. EPA's Development, Community, and Environment
Division has been developing several activities to achieve these goals. One of the major activities
has been information sharing through the Smart Growth Network, created three years ago. This
network includes national, regional and local partners. It encourages members to explore
environmentally-, fiscally-, and socially-smart metropolitan development.
The main tool for this work is the Smart Growth Index (SGI). SGI is a community sketch
planning analytic tool that enhances local decision-making and planning for cleaner air and
water, wetlands protection, brownfields restoration, protection of open spaces, and better
transportation planning. SGI can be applied in any community7 with Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) capabilities, and it is quick and easy to apply once installed. The products that SGI
can generate are useful to technical and non-technical users. SGI can operate in two different
modes: forecast and snapshot. Forecast mode allows users to project environmental impacts from
future growth patterns. Snapshot mode enables users to calculate environmental impacts at one
moment in time. SGI indicators include: population density, land use mix, housing transit
PaseS
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
proximity, employment transit proximity, vehicle miles traveled per day per capita, air pollution,
climate change, energy consumption, and park space availability and access.
SGI is valuable to communities in many ways. It models and displays impacts that may
not otherwise be highlighted in traditional models. SGI provides a more sophisticated tool for
communities without the access or resources to run more advanced models. It has a variety of
uses, including the development of master plans, transit station plans, environmental reviews,
and brownfield and greenfield comparisons. SGI is also a valuable tool for public involvement,
because it provides a clear visualization of trade-offs. SGI is now in the process of seeking test
projects. Such projects should demonstrate the potential for better environmental, economic, and
community outcomes through the use of SGI; the potential for SGI to facilitate win-win
development outcomes; the ability to create environmental benefits through smart growth
approaches; and adequate technical, data, and staffing requirements to run the model.
2.1.3 Avis C. Robinson - Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of
Information, Analysis and Access
EPA's traditional information flow has been to receive/share information and to manage
and use information. There is a new element to this process, which is to provide access to
information. This new objective is the realm of OEI's Information Analysis and Access branch.
EPA conducted a national telephone survey to get a better sense of what information people
\vant, what they currently have access to, and how they have access to it. Nearly 5,000 people
were interviewed between February and May 1999. The survey found that the primary7 source of
environmental information for most people is either television or newspapers. The majority of
respondents preferred to receive their information this way. Interestingly, the number of people
who prefer to use the Internet was almost double the number of people who actually do use the
Internet to obtain environmental information.
Several topics wrere of great interest to those surveyed. Drinking water safety topped the
list. It was followed by water pollution, hazardous waste, and outdoor industrial air pollution.
Indoor air pollution, wetlands losses, run-off and animal waste disposal, and radon wTere on the
bottom of the list.
It is hoped that the EPA website will soon be offering one-stop information access. The
site already provides access to regulatory information (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/mles.html);
the toxic release inventory (http://www.epa.gov/tri); an environmental data warehouse and
associated applications, (Envirofacts) (http:/Avww.epa.gov/enviro); environmental quality
information (http://www.epa.gov/ceis); and a mapping tool that lets users select the
environmental features they wish to map (http://www.epa.gov).
2.1.4 Bill Sanders - Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
OPPT provides a variety of information on chemicals, including the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) chemicals, a variety of public outreach documents, and information on
regulatory and voluntary efforts. OPPT makes this information available through a number of
tools, such as models, databases, and methods manuals. OPPT takes a tiered, multi-media
approach to providing information and tools, and has found that pilot programs are the key to
Paae 6
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
learning and gaining experience. To further pilot efforts, multiple funding resources should be
available. Headquarters should provide support teams to work with regional place-based
assessment teams. Work should also be done on the format of case studies to ensure that they
adequately capture the lessons learned.
OPPT has learned that it is crucial to work with the community through partnerships so
that they do not become disappointed with the process. However, partnerships require different
approaches and new ways of thinking. As always, senior management support to these
partnerships is crucial. In terms of coordination, EPA needs to admit to the community that the
Agency does not always have answers. The Agency also must acknowledge that basic community
questions must be answered in an assessment. A better plan for the division of labor is also
necessary.
Multimedia community' assessment training is a crucial but missing element. To address
this, there must be a combination of Agency efforts, a pooling of resources, and a sharing of
expertise and experience. Training should be organized by and for the Regions, because they do
the most community work. Approach outreach and educational materials should be developed as
part of this effort.
2.1.5 Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Road to a Sustainable Future
(John Armstead - Region 3, Environmental Services Division)
Region 3 has had a good deal of experience with community assessment projects, due
largely to its strategic planning process. This process has identified five areas which require
greater emphasis to improve environmental and human health: acidification, estuaries, climate
change, ozone, and urban livability. This latter issue, urban livability, has particular relevance to
any discussion of community assessment. Region 3's urban livability goal is to enable people to
become connected \\ith their natural environment in a positive way. The challenge is to decrease
environmental risks, correct and remove environmental degradation from cities, raise awareness
of environmental problems and their connections to socio-economic issues, and seek out
opportunities to improve urban livability. The Region's Green Communities Program is an
invaluable tool in achieving these goals. The Green Communities Program helps communities to
map a course for environmental, health, and socio-economic concerns.
The first step in doing so is to profile the present situation in a particular community. This
includes an inventor)' and assessment of current conditions, assets, and liabilities. The Green
communities are committed to complying with environmental regulations, practicing pollution
prevention, conserving natural resources, promoting better housing and economic equity, and
involving local decision-makers. Once these inventories are completed, communities can use
them to visualize trends and evaluate ecological impacts. The community must then decide its
goals for the future. This vision reflects the community's values and identifies and uses
sustainable indicators. The Program helps communities to develop action plans for sustainability
that incorporate the community vision. The last step in this process is implementing the action
plan and monitoring indicators of success. The Green Communities approach has been
successfully applied in York. Pennsylvania and King and Queen County, Virginia.
The boldest element of the Green Communities program so far is the Global Action Plan
(GAP). Put into place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and five other cities, this initiative involves
Pase 7
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/3Q/QO
bringing together neighbors in eco-teams to conserve municipal resources at the household level.
The eco-team approach is simple and strategic. Five to six households meet over a four month
period with guidance from GAP. The team members support each other to reduce waste, use less
water and energy, and buy eco-wise products. In the six cities participating in this sustainable
lifestyle campaign, participating households have drastically reduced waste, water use, energy
use, and auto emissions. They have also saved money.
2.2 Plenary Discussion
This panel session began with each panel member making a few brief remarks about his
or her vision of Agency priorities. Chuck Kent noted that for any community assessment
mechanism to work well, it should not rely on the Agency for sustenance. It also should not limit
the exchange between EPA and non-EPA groups. This communication element has been
missing in the past. It would be helpful to have communities summarize what techniques have
worked well and make this information available throughout the Agency. Bill Sanders observed
that it is crucial to present EPA as an equal partner in the process. In that same vein, EPA should
recognize the value of the expertise that the community' brings to the table. John Armstead said
that the Chester case should serve as an example that greater emphasis should be placed on
communicating technical material to groups lacking a science background. It is important for
communities to be able to use available tools. Avis Robinson observed that it is important to put
raw data through a cleaning process to make it easier to understand and simpler to use.
The plenary discussion between participants and panelists began by considering how the
Baltimore air study, mentioned at previous meetings, might apply to other communities and
media, and what lessons were learned. Some thought that such projects are a good mechanism for
communication, if they do not rely too heavily on sustenance from EPA. Communities involved
in such projects should summarize what worked and make this information available to EPA and
to other communities.
Several felt that it was very important that EPA be present in the community7 as an equal
partner. EPA must recognize the expertise that exists in the community. It is important to build
trust and to appreciate that, in a particular community, the scientists are the amateurs. The
community is trying to address the problem, but conversations need to be two-way. In the
example from Chester, Pennsylvania (see below), emphasis was placed on communicating with
people without science backgrounds. It was suggested that a process for interpreting data in
simpler terms for the community be established. There is also an issue of building trust as part of
the process through two-way communication.
The conversation then turned to whether case studies in general are helpful. A strong
consensus existed that case studies are useful because they help to share lessons learned and the
avoidable mistakes. T\vo important questions must be considered. How do you carry out a good
case study? How and where can case studies be compiled for easy access? The group again
suggested the development of case study fact sheets. Participants felt that the assessment and
analysis of case studies must to be improved as well. Others voiced concern for a community
follow-up. What organizational and institutional mechanisms can do this? Many agreed that the
approach to developing case studies needs to be multimedia. However, this is hard to achieve
because the Agency is media-focused. Nevertheless, many community7 problems transcend media
boundaries and require a multimedia approach. The attention and support of upper-level
PaaeS
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
management should be focused on making a more multimedia-oriented process a priority within
the Agency. A central rallying point, such as the Science Policy Council, should be established
for this effort. It was noted that the enforcement branch of EPA has the ability to go beyond a
specific violation when developing environmental settlements. This may be one supplemental
avenue for a cross-media approach.
The group felt that there was a need for a general community-based assessment fact sheet
similar to the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned.
These fact sheets would address how to do community assessments and would be related to
place-based assessment. Training is a related issue that drew many suggestions and comments.
Training is needed on performing community assessments, what tools exist, and how to take a
multimedia approach. Interactive technologies were recognized as good training tools. The group
discussed the need for tools to collect and disseminate community assessment information.
Lastly the group considered next steps. Some felt that information management should be
a deciding factor. Others believed that it was important for the Agency to continue gaining
experience and developing Community Assessment Products. By the end of the discussion, most
felt that the process should continue on two parallel tracks: organization of the information
gained and continuation of the momentum of adding to the Agency's knowledge base. The
session resulted in several useful ideas that are summarized below.
EPA should remember that it is important to build trust within the community'.
Communication should be two-way. EPA needs to do a better job communicating
information to the community and using expertise within the community.
The approach to community-based assessment needs to be multimedia in nature.
This will be hard to achieve given current Agency structures.
Regions have created cross-media teams with senior managers on board to lend
support. Perhaps this approach could be taken Agency-wide.
A fact sheet geared toward community-based efforts (how to and success stories)
would be useful.
Training on how to do community assessment, how to use tools, and how to take a
multimedia approach is needed in the regions.
There is a great need to centralize community assessment information and tools.
It is crucial to get a commitment from the upper level of EPA management that
cross-media community assessment is a priority.
Paae9
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
3. Session II: Science: Technical and Policy Focus Areas
Three case studies were presented that addressed specific issues within this focus area.
After the presentations, the meeting participants broke out into smaller groups to discuss each
case in greater detail and to address the following questions: (1) What were the project strengths?
(2) What were the project's shortcomings? (3) Were there alternative or supplemental
approaches? and (4) Are there readily transferable products and ongoing efforts being developed?
3.1 Contra Costa County, California Community Air Toxics Monitoring (Alan Huber -
ORD/NERL)
This case study focused on the issue of developing guidance for community sampling.
The Scenario
Region 9 is conducting an ongoing EMPACT project in Contra Costa County, California
in which citizens take part in air toxics monitoring in their community. Concerned about
potential toxic air releases from nearby refineries, communities have formed groups called
Bucket Brigades. Trained residents collect air samples when a visible industrial release is
observed or when residents notice unusual odors. These samples are sent to a private laboratory
for analysis. This effort puts information collection and dissemination into the hands of the
public. A variety of methods and media are used to communicate the results of sampling and to
explain how community health is impacted by the release of environmental pollutants.
The county performs remote sensing and monitoring using a specially outfitted
monitoring air toxics van. ORD provides scientific assistance to both solve technical problems
and to provide analytical support to the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Division.
Specifically, this project is assisting the county in developing real-time air measurement capacity
in its technical support van and in developing an integrated database and modeling networked
system to support real-time measurements. Essentially, this has involved outfitting a county' van
with instruments to monitor a wide variety of target compounds, along with carbon monoxide
monitors, PAH monitors, and other data equipment. The data are linked to ORD scientists in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina for use in modeling.
The van is used to complement the monitoring efforts of the community7 Bucket Brigades.
The modeling and measurement tools developed in this project will be critical to the county' in
more completely characterizing community' air exposures to air toxics. The project enhances
community-wide ambient air toxics monitoring, incident response, and response-planning
capabilities by fitting an existing county' van with instruments necessary to support real-time
measurements and modeling. This allows for more refined temporal and spatial patterns of
community ambient air toxic exposures both during routine days and emergency episodes. With
its potential for expansion in Contra Costa County and use in other EMPACT cities, this project
could be invaluable to ORD research on human exposure to air toxics. The resulting databases
can also be used to enhance ORD's ability' to develop and evaluate urban air toxics exposure
models.
Paee 10
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Break-Out Group Discussion
This discussion session began first with a question and answer period in which Alan
Huber clarified several project details. These specifics included reasons for the project, costs of
the project, what conditions or problems trigger monitoring, and how to transfer this type of
project to other communities. The EMPACT project in Contra Costa County grew out of
community mistrust of industry reports of chemical releases. The cost of the project was
approximately $100,000 for hardware equipment for the van and $100,000 for technical support.
In addition, approximately t\vo full-time staff are required to support the van. This type of
information (i.e. staffing, costs, equipment) is important to promote such a project to interested
communities. Conditions that trigger monitoring include abnormal smells detected by the
community and industry reports of releases. The program is certainly transferrable to other
communities. The lessons learned from this project would enhance the process for future
projects. However, the specifics of the community would have to be configured into the models.
The long-term hope is that the models can eventually be used with high confidence.
The group then turned to evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, and supplemental or
alternative activities to enhance the project. The strengths of the project identified were: (1) the
results can be used as baseline data for modeling toxics; (2) it represents good community
response to a release problem; (3) known sources are used to model events; (4) the equipment
can be tailored easily to monitor other compounds; and (5) the van monitoring can be used to
validate the results of the Bucket Brigades. The group also found several shortcomings of the
project. These include: (1) problems exist with the spatial and temporal representativeness of the
data gathered from volunteers, who initiate sampling when they sense a problem; and (2) the van
can only validate model-predicted hotspots. Industry reports releases, but may not necessarily
identify other areas of potential concern.
The group created a "wish list," which enumerated supplemental approaches that would
enhance the monitoring van's capabilities. These included having a second van: county
scheduling of regular sampling; improvement of the industrial source complex (ISC); evaluation
of the models and van sampling against a monitoring station; and the development of consistent
data standards and monitoring processes across EMPACT projects. The model will continue to
be updated.
In summary, several useful ideas came out of this session, including the strengths of such
a project and suggested improvements/alternatives. These are listed below.
Strengths:
This effort provides baseline data for modeling toxics.
It provides a response to specific requests from the community.
Improvements:
Improvement of ISC.
Consistent data standards and monitoring across EMPACT.
Bucket Brigade data may not necessarily be a representative sample.
Paae 11
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
The van tests model results but may not necessarily identify other areas.
Alternative/Supplemental Approaches:
The use of multiple vans would add to this effort.
3.2 Charleston, SC CBEP Project (Cynthia Peurifoy - Region 4)
This case study focused on the development of a guide to databases that explains the
quality of the data and how to use the data for community assessment.
The Scenario
The Charleston/N. Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Project
(CBEP) targets an area that includes the neck area of the Charleston, South Carolina peninsula.
The area, bordered by two rivers, is home to 40,000 people. Roughly 73 percent of this
population are minority and 40 percent have poverty-level status. The area has been heavily
industrialized since the 1800s. This industrialization has led to a complex combination of
environmental problems, including contamination from hazardous waste releases. The industrial
sectors of the area are located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and many tidal
creeks, marshes, and rivers.
The vast array of environmental concerns cutting across all media affects the quality of
life for Charleston citizens. The overall objective of the CBEP project is to improve the quality
of land, air, water, and living resources to help ensure long-term human health, ecological, social,
and economic benefits. This goal cannot be successfully completed without the meaningful
involvement of citizens, industry, conservation groups, and other stakeholders. CBEP, a
cooperative effort between EPA Region 4 and various stakeholders in the community', initially
sought to identify and prioritize issues of concern in the area. Some of the more prominent issues
included: industry perceptions and environmental impact; promoting environmentally sensitive
economic growth; lead contamination; drainage and flooding; and compliance issues.
Community involvement in the project developed with the official formation of a
Community Advisory Group (CAG) in November 1997. Selected through a process of self-
nomination, the group is made up of representatives from several neighborhoods, business and
industry, and local environmental and social advisory- groups. The CAG gathered concerns from
CBEP neighborhoods, with plans to inform each community as to how their concerns have been
included in the CAG's action plan.
The CBEP project took on four initiatives, including an Environmental Data Compilation
Initiative, a Radon Initiative, a Compliance Assistance Initiative, and a Former Phosphate/
Fertilizer Initiative. The Environmental Data Compilation Initiative was implemented in order to
gather and assemble data about regulated industrial facilities, chemical releases, and other
environmental concerns. This information w:ould provide a "snapshot" of the environment in the
CBEP area, while making the data available to the community. The 1997 data collection period
produced what is considered baseline data for the CBEP project. In July 1999, a draft summary
Paee 12
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
of the collected information was released and evaluated by the CAG. They made significant
comments, as well as recommendations for the next phase of the effort. The anticipated follow-
up steps include: using the data to assess environmental conditions; establishing appropriate
environmental indicators; making comparisons with more recent data; and developing of a user-
friendly system for the community to access the data. The Radon Initiative was implemented
based on limited testing and past phosphate mining in the area, which suggested elevated radium
levels in the area's soil. The effort includes distributing radon test kits and training on mitigation
techniques.
The Compliance Assistance Initiative addresses compliance assurance issues under a
partnership formed between EPA Region 4 and the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. The partnership focuses on small businesses not fully aware of their
compliance obligations. Compliance assistance is being offered to the auto repair and paint and
body shop sectors, both of which represent the greatest potential for concern. Compliance
assistance in the CBEP area will continue to be evaluated, with specific efforts on the
measurement of behavioral change, compliance indicators, and environmental and human health
improvements. Finally, the Former Phosphate/Fertilizer Initiative aims to evaluate the nature and
extent of contamination present at nine former phosphate/fertilizer facilities. Adequate site
management strategies will be implemented at locations where unacceptable risks are noted.
Community Assessment questions and concerns are as follows:
What environmental risks and concerns exist in homes and schools?
What environmental information is available to the local community?
How does one get an inventor,- of sources of the environmental impact?
What is the relationship between toxic pollutants and disease clusters?
Should we share more than environmental stress in the community?
What is the overall picture of environmental impact?
How do we track progress?
The data utilized in this case study were derived from numerous sources, including EPA
Superfund data, State data, and military data. The multiple databases included information
concerning discharges, releases, and regulator}' issues. Multiple sources of data surfaced, but
time and money constraints made data collection and usage a frustrating experience. The
project's original attempt was to look at Charleston's environmental conditions at one specific
time. This proved to be impossible due to the fact that the baseline data were collected at
different times. In addition, the use of locational data posed problems, since each source
generated unique locational data.
It was also noted that the CAG wanted to see the data firsthand in order to understand
"what exactly the EPA was doing." Because much of the information was State-oriented, many
individuals were reluctant to share the data with the community for fear of negative reactions.
However, once the package was compiled, community members reviewed it and made
recommendations on improvement. The final project was considered useful and beneficial to
both the community- and project partners.
Pase 13
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/50/00
Data quality and usage could be improved by keeping the data simple, practicing patience
with community needs and concerns, offering immediate public access of data, and providing
someone who can specialize in GIS and master the database.
Break-Out Group Discussion
The project had many strengths, including strong, genuine involvement of the
community, thus emphasizing the breadth of the partnership. The involvement of skilled
personnel also proved to be beneficial. This latter strength should be transferred through a
capacity-building process so that local governments can consult skilled, dedicated community'
members when necessary. The case study also represents a good example of how a case study
should be conducted, further emphasizing the value of these studies. The Charleston project
portrays the value and importance of the human element in keeping the community' involved
encompassing a solid process of assessment.
The remainder of the strengths identified centered around the issue of data collection and
usage. The first strength involved the EPA (OIE) funding standard for State-compiled data. Also
valued was the use of standard protocols for data collection, data usage, and for quality- assurance
and quality' control. In this project, the Medical University' of South Carolina lent its expertise for
quality' assurance and quality' control. As part of this discussion, it was noted that medical studies
and data collection conducted without immediate action or known plans of action cause
communities to lose trust, which creates obstacles that delay the assessment process. The CBEP
merged diverse data into a common language and utilized existing data rather than collecting
new data. Both of these helped lessen the financial burden of data collection. Finally, the project
attempted to obtain comprehensive data from EPA and non-EPA sources, such as the Department
of Defense.
The breakout group also identified several limitations of the project. The data process was
found to incorporate bad or "bogus" data, lack standards for data, and lack funding for data
collection and organization. County- Health Department databases were difficult to use, as they
are encumbered by issues of confidentiality. Such instances occur with cancer cases and lead to
frustrating situations for community' members who have access to the outcome, but not the
original data. Other limitations, such as personnel and organizational issues, the EPA's inability'
to take a leadership role, and the use of a process too burdensome on the community', also
affected the assessment.
Several alternative or supplemental approaches to the assessment were identified, such as
the awareness and need for setting priorities. It was suggested that data be stored within a
common platform, the location of which is known to all stakeholders. Quality assurance and
quality control practices should be performed prior to data collection. Previous "model" case
studies, such as the New York City Model, should be reviewed prior to and during current
projects. These "model" case studies can provide good, overlying data that can be useful to
multiple case studies. Standards utilized in these "model" case studies should also be used. GIS
capabilities should be increased and fully utilized. Hazard and risk site data should be
incorporated, while making it available to all stakeholders. All data should be made available to
all stakeholders.
In addition to these approaches, several readily available products utilized or developed
during the project were identified. A database of databases, quality' assurance and quality' control
Paae 14
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
guidelines, and known data applications were mentioned. Comprehensive, common platforms,
such as the one used by the Environmental Watch Program in Greenpoint, New York, also
proved to be beneficial. Decision Tree Software (see the discussion on the proposed
"framework" product in Section 6.3) used in the Green Communities Project, training materials
such as the Superfund video on risk assessment, and Region 5's CD-Rom and website on
community assessment were also made available. The Superfund video defines risk assessment
and its components, while the Region 5 CD-Rom discusses how to deal with communities,
answer their questions, and handle their reactions. Tools and success stories from the CBEP,
EPA, and other non-Agency sources should be used.
The CBEP was initially a frustrating, time-consuming assessment taking approximately
two years. Once the entire assessment package was compiled, community members, including
the CAG, were able to make recommendations on how the process could be improved. Despite
the obstacles, everyone involved, including the EPA, benefitted from this learning experience
and contributed to the final product.
In summary, several useful ideas came out of this session, including the strengths and
limitations of such a project, suggested alternatives/supplements, and readily available
tools/products. These are listed below.
Strengths:
Limitations
Tried to make data as comprehensive as possible.
Involved community.
Provides a very good "case study" for how to do these types of projects.
Merged diverse data.
Used a common language to collect and compile data.
Used other Agency data, when available.
Incorporated the human element.
Encountered bad data.
Encountered organizational problems.
Lacked standards for data.
Lacked money for data collection and organization.
EPA did not provide a leadership role.
The process was too burdensome to the community".
Alternative/Supplemental Approaches:
Put the data in one location, where people can find it.
Do the quality assurance/control up front.
Review existing case studies for good models.
Use standards now available.
Utilize GIS.
Page 15
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Include hazard risk and release data.
Set clear priorities.
Readilv Available Products/Activities:
QA/QC guidelines.
Decision tree software.
Training material (green communities, Region 5 CD on communities Superfund
course on RA).
Tools from CBEP.
Lessons learned from the Agency and beyond.
3.3 Camden, NJ: Environmental Load Profile (Daisy Tang - Region 2)
This case study focused on the development of a GIS application to evaluate
environmental burden.
The Scenario
The City of Camden New Jersey (population 87,500) is the fifth largest city' in New-
Jersey. Across from Philadelphia, it is a post-industrial city and is considered an economically
depressed area, having a predominantly minority population, a high unemployment rate (36
percent), and a one in three poverty rate. More than 75 percent of the residents rely on some form
of public assistance. Manufacturing and related land use account for one third of Camden's nine
square miles, and brownfields constitute more than half of all industrial sites in the city. South
Camden is home to a thorium Superfund site. Abandoned industrial sites contain chemicals,
transformers, and other contaminants that pose significant threats to human health.
Contamination of soil and groundwater is suspected at many of these sites. Air pollution and
poor drinking water are also problems. A lack of information about site conditions and potential
liabilities at abandoned facilities has stifled reinvestment, resulting in a decreased tax base,
increased blight, depressed community morale, and diminished employment opportunities. For
example, the housing stock of Camden is in serious need of improvement, but the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will not begin the project because of the
existence of the Superfund site.
The people of Camden identified a number of problems beyond the Superfund site that
they wanted EPA to resolve. Relevant Program offices at EPA and at the State level were aware
of some of Camden's problems, but no one had a complete picture of the situation. The
Environmental Load Profile tool was used to determine problem areas and data gaps.
The Environmental Load Profile Tool developed by Region 2 staff is a GIS-based tool
that evaluates a number of multimedia, multisource elements that relate to the environmental
load of a particular community'. The salient elements serve as indicators of environmental burden
and can provide a consistent basis for comparison between two or more communities. The
indicators are constructed using TRI data, EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI), facility' and population density7 data, land use data derived from the Multi-Resolution
Land Use Characteristics (MRLC) satellite data, ambient air quality data from air monitoring
Pase 16
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
stations, and enforcement and compliance information from the Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis (IDEA) system database. Using the Environmental Load Profile tool, a matrix of
environmental indicators for a particular community can be developed. This tool provides data
and a consistent methodology that can be applied to all areas in the Region.
The tool evaluates indicators for air, water, environmental quality, and health. For air, the
tool uses the RSEI model and TRI emissions data to calculate risk based on exposure for each
census block, compares a community's results to the Regional average, and ranks the results. It
also applies ambient air quality results for particulates, ozone, and carbon monoxide from
Regional air monitoring stations to a GIS program. Air toxics from mobile, point, and area
sources, based on the Cumulative Exposure Project completed in the 1990s, are also included.
The facility- density, population density, and land use indicators are combined to evaluate
environmental quality'. The indicators for water have not yet been selected. Health indicators
have proven difficult to obtain, as they are generally available only on a county level rather than
on a community basis. In addition, health data indicate total risk, including non-environmental
factors.
After all indicators have been determined, a statistical analysis is conducted to determine
the environmental load profile. The result is essentially a cumulative relative-risk determination
based on a simplified, limited screening-level exposure assessment.
Break-Out Group Discussion
At the beginning of the discussion, the group decided that it would be more appropriate
to consider the case from an aggregate rather than a cumulative perspective. The group also
qualified the case as a risk-related impact assessment rather than a quantitative, cumulative risk
assessment. The group chose not to discuss standards of cumulative risk.
The project had many strengths. The use of GIS allowed the integration of information
through the ability to overlay data. Rather than simply providing load levels for the community in
question, the tool allows the user to compare and contrast the situation in the problem community
with the situation in other communities. The ability' to compare a local situation with others in
the Region, or with a Regional average, helps practitioners to know if they are really
encountering an unusual situation. While the tool was developed for use in Region 2, data are
available for the entire country. Other Regions are already working on similar projects. For
example, the group felt that Region 5's Cumulative Risk Studies would benefit from using the
tool. The tool is user-friendly and can be used by community members, as well as EPA scientists.
The information provided is not simply emission data, but relates to risk, making it more useful
for evaluating the extent of problems.
The group also identified the limitations of the tool. Some participants were not
convinced that all information provided by the tool was related to risk, because some of the
indicators were simply emissions estimates. In addition, not all pathways of exposure were
considered. The group noted that it is important to understand that what is meant by "risk," in
this case, is more a "population toxicity-based exposure assessment based at a screening level."
similar to the Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators. Another limitation is that some of the
data is not necessarily comparable, since it represents different parameters, such as varying time
periods, county' vs. community data, or State vs. Regional data. While data can be adjusted, it
Paae 17
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
makes it more difficult for a user. In addition, the tool needs to build in an uncertainty analysis
for the purpose of making interpretations. Sensitivity is also an important issue in attempting to
determine the causes for the differences in indicators between communities. This is important in
selecting approaches. Indicators that are selected should be weighted to show the effect from
different sources. For example, particulates and ozone are more hazardous to the general
population than air toxics. Finally, there may be other sources outside of the indicators or data
sources chosen that may have an impact, but that are either not included or not adjusted for in the
analysis. For example, the thorium Superfund site data had not yet been included in the databases
used to drive the indicators and was therefore not considered in the analysis.
To supplement the use of the tool, the group suggested that cultural profiling be used.
Additional data, such as that from the Superfund site, and additional pathways of exposure,
besides exposure to ambient air, could be included in the analysis. Follow-up on the areas
identified through screening should be automatic and include cooperation with the applicable
state personnel and communities. EPA should notify the appropriate agencies, such as HUD, of
problems outside of EPA's jurisdiction. The tool should be, and is intended to be. improved in
future versions by making it GIS-based to produce multi-source layers of exposure and risk for a
single pathway. Inclusion of multiple pathways must also occur. Future versions of the tool will
play a role in examining trends over time and identifying possible sources or contributors of the
pollutants, toxins, or other stressors of concern. The group considered the tool, and cumulative
risk analysis, to be state-of-the-art and important for EPA management to fund and support.
In addition to this tool, which can be applied to any area of the country, there are a
number of other readily transferable products and ongoing activities in other EPA offices for
performing similar studies. Regions 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10, as well as individual Program offices, are
undertaking similar cumulative risk activities. These include: environmental justice modeling
tools (OCR); groundwater modeling; TRIM.expo exposure models for air program activities;
Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model; Region 10 RAINS model; and ICRT,
ISCLT, and ISCST air models. Several air and water models are being combined together into a
multimedia modeling tool called the Graphic Exposure Modeling System (GEMS), which will be
accessible through the Internet. Deb Forman is working on a framework document for
cumulative risk assessment. Steve Gilrein and Jeff Yurk in Region 6 are working on a different
model, based on computerized RCRA guidance, to assess the Region for places to initiate
environmental projects. An additional model is under development by Gerald Carney of Region
6. OPPT is developing a combined census data multimedia modeling tool. ORD also has a
number of products and repositories of data, including EIMS, 3rd Base (with exposure and census
information), and the Comprehensive Human Activity Database.
The Camden case study is unique and its lessons can be applied to other cumulative risk
projects. A relatively small population was examined for risk-related indicators, not simply
hazard as in many studies. The Camden case, the first for the Urban Initiative Program in Region
2, is groundbreaking in that it goes beyond traditional methodologies.
In summary, several useful ideas came out of this session, including the strengths,
limitations, and alternative approaches, readily transferable products, and ongoing activities.
These are listed below.
Page 18
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Strengths
UseofGIS.
Ability to overlay data.
Ability to compare and contrast data.
Information was available nationally.
Ability to make regional versus local comparisons.
Easy to take to the community.
The tool is risk-related.
Limitations:
Population toxicity exposure is based at a screening level.
Data aren't all at the same level, so it is harder to compare.
Not all of data are reported in the same time period.
Needs uncertainty analysis.
Data sensitivity questions.
Different methodologies were used (example: air toxics vs other pollutants).
Lack of data from other sources that might have an impact.
Alternate Approaches:
Cultural profiling could be used as a supplemental approach (culture and
economics).
Follow-up with cooperation with states and communities.
Pull in all of the appropriate agencies (HUD, etc.).
Add more GIS to produce layers and make it multimedia; look at trends/possible
contributors.
Include other pathways of exposure.
Readily Transferable Products
This model can be applied to any area.
Regions 2. 3, 5, 6 are doing similar activities.
Region 6 is using a different model but a similar approach.
OPPT multimedia modeling tool (combined census data).
Groundwater, air, and water models (ISC, GEMS).
Ongoing Activities:
Environmental justice modeling (OCR).
Office of Air Exposure Model.
Regions 2, 3, 5, 6, are doing similar activities.
Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model.
Risk Assessment Forum.
ELMS (ORD).
3rd Base (ORD).
CHAD (Comprehensive Human Activity Database) (ORD).
Paae 19
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
4. Session III: Education and Communication Product Focus Areas
Three case studies were presented that addressed specific issues within this focus area.
After the presentations, meeting participants group broke out into smaller groups to discuss each
case in greater detail and to address the following questions: (1) What were the project strengths?
(2) What were the project's shortcomings? (3) Were there alternative or supplemental
approaches? and (4) Are there readily transferable products and ongoing efforts being developed?
4.1 New Hampshire Comparative Risk Assessment (Ken Jones, Green Mountain
Institute for Environmental Democracy)
This case study focused on the need to develop a comprehensive inventory of
environmental and health risks that may face communities across the nation.
The Scenario
Forty stakeholders analyzing 53 environmental problems determined a ranking of relative
risks in the State of New Hampshire. This project, one of several comparative risk assessments
supported by EPA during the 1990s, focused on producing an assessment and report for
communicating results with the general public about risk in New Hampshire. The assessment
was intended to build the participants' capacity for policy deliberations and initiate collaborative
solutions, while at the same time maximizing community involvement in the decision-making
process. This "general assessment" evaluated a broad range of outcomes and causes, rather than
being "issue-specific."
The New Hampshire Project's first significant assessment decision was the development
of a problem list and required three one-day meetings during the first three to four months of a
two-year project. The resulting problem list was the compilation of 53 "problems'" and stressors
organized by media. While the actual assessments wTere accomplished by public health.
ecological, and economic experts, the New Hampshire project actively involved 40 differently
skilled individuals in its structuring. In this way. the results for the assessment were readily
accepted as the starting point for the ranking exercise. The participation of the stakeholders in
structuring the analysis required their gaining a general knowledge about risk assessment.
As with other comparative risk exercises, the assessments ranged from traditional health
assessments, such as cancer risks, to broader-based ecological assessments to even more broadly
based economic assessments, such as social welfare. The economic assessments for the New
Hampshire Project were excellent, but difficult to characterize.
All assessments, particularly ecological and economic assessments, require value
judgements. Stakeholders participating in the New Hampshire project made explicit some of the
value decisions in the assessment structure and incorporated additional value decisions during the
ranking exercise. Stakeholder participation in the ranking process required an understanding of
the data and served to reinforce the importance of value choices. The risk-ranking process, which
took seven day-long meetings to complete, was discussion-based rather than formula-based. It
was not a priority-setting exercise. A description of the risk-ranking process and results provided
Paae 20
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
the background for a widely distributed report communicating risks and risk reduction to the
New Hampshire public. Most of the follow-up activities are focused at the community level
because of the recognized need for priority setting to include risk management information that
was not included in the assessment.
In generally, assessment can be used to support already existing policy positions.
Environmental agencies can use assessments to build public support for agency actions. The
New Hampshire project was designed to encourage participation in decision-making and initiate
public dialogue. The assessment was also used as a foundation for a document, entitled A Guide
for Caring for New Hampshire's Environment. It was noted that the success of the assessment
depends on having a clear set of objectives and ensuring that the assessment and points are
relevant to what the audience values and what they can do to reduce risk.
Break-Out Group Discussion
The focus area assigned to the group originally advocated producing an inventory of
assessments for a nationally relevant list of issues that present increased risk. These assessments
could be across communities. A national inventory of ecological and health exposures that may
result in risk to communities would provide an overview of community conditions, including
baseline information; compare conditions across and or within communities; provide insight into
urban concerns for development and revitalization; and provide insight into solutions and
mechanisms that respond to risk.
The breakout group changed its direction and started discussing the focus area, and wiiat
this "comprehensive inventory" would contain and how it would be used. After a lengthy
discussion, a final description of the focus area was drafted:
The need for and development of a national framework/inventory/list that
communities and EPA staff can use to identify environmental stressors, which
could result in risks to human health and the environment.
The group agreed that the framework/inventory/list would be useful and the discussion
continued by addressing how the New Hampshire case study parallels this assumption. The group
also decided that the detailed list/inventory/framework should act as an educational tool/problem
list capable of explaining problems and stressors. projects in the communities, the assessment
itself, and events leading to action.
The case study used a general, comprehensive tool or framework to educate the
community about risk. A framework can be used for other locations but is not a necessity. The
tool gives the overall "big picture" addressing both EPA and non-EPA issues. The tool should be
used independently by communities as a short-term means of addressing community concerns.
Tools, such as Green Communities, should educate communities about the environment. Rather
than being quantitative and tailored for even' community, the tool should take on a qualitative
approach. The tool provides information to the community to make them aware of the situation.
This counteracts the tendency of community members to focus on individual issues.
The idea of utilizing national averages in a cross-comparative community assessment
approach was mentioned. The inclusion of ecological risks was considered. Creating useful
Paae21
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
national averages becomes a difficult, if not impossible, task due to the fact that communities can
vary ecologically in so many ways. For example, not all communities have the habitat in which
freshwater mussels can live. These comparative assessments across cities may be invalid. Issues
such as indoor air and ecological concerns are not necessarily universal across every community.
Although communities cannot be characterized by ecological comparisons, one can make risk
comparisons by using epidemiological hot spots across the United States.
Although the process of developing a problem list only takes three to six months, its use
is initially delayed. Community members immediately want to know where their issue falls on
the list. It is difficult to get community members to understand that it is okay that "their" issue is
not on the list. For example, the condition of a community's drinking water may be a concern to
them, but may not be on the list. This example illustrates the use of an educational tool to expand
community members knowledge of other problems that may exist. There are documents that list
accumulation of problems, such as the EPA's Guide to Comparative Risk. Because a lot of
community members want to take action, having them develop the "problem list" is beneficial
and important. Exercises to lead community' members to understand change are also necessary to
make collaborative change and vision both valuable outcomes. The need for a starting point (a
stressor list/process) exists. The process used in New Hampshire can provide useful lessons for
community' assessments undertaken elsewhere and can act as a "model" case study. The tool
should act as an educational piece, not an assessment tool, that can be used prior to EPA
involvement. The New Hampshire project shows that accomplishing technical validity' with
significant stakeholder involvement is not only possible, but yields an assessment that can serve
as a strong foundation for risk-reduction activities.
Participants concluded that:
There is a need for the development of a inventory/frame work that a community
and EPA can use to identify, and explain through example, environmental
stressors that could result in risk to human health and the environment.
EPA should create detailed list/inventory/framework that explains and links
problems/stressors with projects in community, leading to assessment and finally
action.
4.2 The Changing Watershed: A 25-year History of Land Cover Change in the San
Pedro River (Bill Kepner - ORD)
This case study focused on developing examples of effective ways to communicate
assessment results to communities.
The Scenario
Space-based technologies (remote sensing, spatial statistics, process modeling, and GIS)
are being used to measure change over large areas, and to determine trends in ecological and
hydrological conditions in the Upper San Pedro Watershed. These technologies are providing the
basis for developing landscape composition and pattern indicators as sensitive measures of large-
scale environmental change. These may also provide an effective and economical method for
Page 22
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
evaluating watershed conditions related to disturbance from human and natural stresses. Land
cover has been derived from a satellite imagery database which incorporates Landsat Multi-
Spectral Scanner (MSS) imagery from the early 1970s, mid 1980s, and early 1990s, and Landsat
Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery from 1997.
To communicate both the data and the analysis of the data in human and ecological terms,
the Landscape Ecology Branch of the EPA has assembled a biophysical database for the San
Pedro River Watershed. The data have been gathered by many different agencies, and represent
landscape patterns and biological and physical processes which occur within the San Pedro River
Watershed. Currently, work is being done to link landscape assessment methods with water
quality data. EPA believes that this landscape level of watershed assessment will help
communities make wiser decisions about land use practices, which will help protect and improve
the environment. The San Pedro data browser provides spatial data in a user-friendly, online
format to researchers, public agencies, resource managers, non-governmental organizations.
decision-makers, and other user groups. The browser allows for easy data download. Metadata is
available as well. In addition, the browser allows for long-term record keeping.
Other examples of communication products for this project were included in the
demonstration session for participants to view at their leisure. These included fact sheets on
landscape analysis and assessment,.the San Pedro Watershed Database, the San Pedro River
project, analytical tools for landscape assessments (AttlLA), and a publication about the
ecological assessment of the Louisiana Tensas River Basin performed using landscape analysis.
Break-Out Group Discussion
This presentation and discussion attempted to enumerate the different methods for
communicating the San Pedro River Watershed research to different groups. This proved
challenging because an international element was involved. Also, the research needed to reach
both scientific and non-scientific communities. While the group identified many strengths behind
this project and its communication methods, weaknesses primarily focused on EPA's need to
further develop this type of effort. The list of areas for development also represents alternative or
supplemental actions that could improve the usefulness of this tool. These supplemental actions
include the need to link to other science disciplines for a more holistic approach to assessment. In
this way, common data might be used to link human health and ecological considerations, or to
link exposures, effects, and assessments, or finally to integrate regional assessment paradigms to
complete assessments. To do this, the Regions and other organizations have to recognize EPA's
media-driven structure and work around it.
The following strategies were identified:
A "push-pull" atmosphere for sharing data.
The process had an outcome suitable to transfer to other projects.
The data can be manipulated.
The data browser served as a central site for data (one-stop shopping).
The visual presentation has been well-received.
Socio-economic data can potentially be incorporated.
Planning agencies could use this tool effectively for future scenarios.
The 30-year dataset allows users to look at the project over time.
Page 23
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
As mentioned above, several weaknesses were identified:
The Agency has very little experience sharing data.
There is a need to train others to use these types of tools. Alternately, there is a
need to develop tools requiring less training.
Ecological values are hard to define. There is a need for thresholds for indicators
and ways in which to measure human socio-economic values.
There is a need to link socio-economic elements to make this tool more useful to
communities.
There is a need to find the appropriate market within EPA for tools such as this
and to develop the mechanisms to advertise these tools to that internal audience.
There is a need for incentives for training and follow-through.
4.3 Chester, PA Risk Assessment Project (Reggie Harris - Region 3)
This case study focused on the need for a clear explanation of the connection bet\veen
risk information from an assessment and current incidences of disease in the community.
The Scenario
The City of Chester is located in Pennsylvania approximately 15 miles southwest of
Philadelphia along the Delaware River. This project also examined the surrounding communities
of Eddystone, Trainer, Marcus Hook, and Linwood. Chester was a manufacturing town until the
1950s when many industries left. Without jobs, other problems in the city grew, including local
government corruption. Chester is known for having the highest concentration of industrial
facilities in the State, including two oil refineries, a large infectious medical waste facility, and a
number of waste processing plants, which treat at least 85 percent of the raw sewage and
associated sludge for the area. Interstate 95 runs through Chester. Concerned with the health
effects of living and working amid toxic substances, residents have complained of frequent
illness. Chester has the highest infant mortality rate, but the lowest birth rate in the State, as well
as the highest death rate due to malignant tumors. At 75 percent, it has the highest percentage of
African-Americans of any municipality in the State and is considered the poorest community- in
Delaware County'. As a Democratic city in the middle of a Republican county, there is a lack of
political support for Chester. These conditions raise concern for the health and well-being of the
community, as w-ell as issues of environmental justice.
The Chester Risk Assessment Project was part of an initiative by EPA Region 3 and
agencies of the Commomvealth of Pennsylvania to study environmental risks, health, and
regulatory issues in the Chester area. Although the intent of the study was to provide a complete
Superfund-style cumulative risk study, utilizing exposure data for all environmental media and
exposure pathways, the actual report is more of an aggregated risk study due to the largely
unknown nature of the interrelated exposures. In addition, EPA tried to address the specific
health complaints brought by the citizens of Chester, although they were not necessarily related
Page 24
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
to environmental causes. (The general public sees EPA not necessarily as an environmental
agency, but as the Federal government and as an advocate for their interests. Citizens tend to
come to EPA with problems and expect the Agency to solve them.)
Chemical data were gathered from existing sources, but the scope of this project did not
include collection of new data specifically designed for a Chester risk assessment. Instead, the
workgroup performed an examination of available data, including health-outcome data provided
by the State health department and blood-level lead data provided by the lead poisoning
prevention program in Chester. Examination of the data yielded the following observations:
The data had been collected for different programs and different agencies. These
data were not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assessment of the
Chester area.
The databases were of varying quality, and certain chemicals and media had not
been tested. However, even with the limited data, many data sets were available to
be used to generate estimated risks.
Modeling of air data from point sources was performed prior to the air risk
assessment. Therefore, point source air risks are based on projected data rather
than data actually collected in the field. The lead data, area sources of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
site information, and Toxic Release Inventory data did not involve the types of
environmental data conducive to quantitative risk assessment.
The workgroup found that:
Blood lead levels in Chester children are unacceptably high (over 60 percent of
children's blood samples are above the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
recommended maximum level of lOug/dl). Lead exposure appeared to come from
lead paint in the homes of the children rather than industrial sources.
Both cancer and non-cancer risks from pollution sources within the city of Chester
exceed levels which EPA believes are acceptable. Air emissions from facilities in
and around Chester provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer risk
to the citizens of Chester.
Cancer mortality- rates for all cancers except colorectal cancer are significantly
higher for males in Chester than males in the rest of the county- or State. Similar
but less pronounced results were found for women. Significantly, breast cancer
incidence was lower in Chester, but the mortality rate for breast cancer was
highest, pointing to a lack of health care sen-ices.
The health risk from eating contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the
Delaware River is unacceptably high.
Paae 25
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities throughout the
country. Slight, long-term (20 year) risks may be expected due to the residuals of
water treatment processes.
In response to these findings. Region 3 recommended that:
The lead paint education and abatement program in the City of Chester should be
aggressively enhanced.
Sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high
risk should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement
action.
A voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain additional
emissions reductions from facilities which provide the most emissions in the areas
of highest risk.
Enhanced public education programs regarding the reasons behind the existing
State-mandated fishing ban should be implemented.
In addition, while fugitive dust emissions have not been shown to be a significant
component of risk in the city, a program to minimize fugitive emissions from dirt piles and
streets should be instituted to alleviate this nuisance. Noise and odor levels were also not shown
to be a significant component of traditionally identified environmental risk in the city. However,
a noise and odor monitoring program should be instituted in areas most likely to suffer from
these nuisances. If significant levels are found, a noise and/or odor reduction program should be
implemented in those areas.
In general, however, the environmental data analysis did not point to anything unexpected
that could explain the poor health indicators of Chester. Adequate information was not available
to point to any particular environmental or industrial source. On the other hand, EPA's work in
the community enabled the Agency to see first hand the other types of problems in Chester, such
as the lack of access to health care, lack of quality education, lack of support from the health
department, and inexperienced staff for some public health programs. While not a public health
agency, EPA was in the position to bring issues to light, initiate conversations, and facilitate
activity. Going beyond traditional EPA functions, the Agency communicated these non-
environmental problems to the community and to the city', county, and State governments. The
governments responded with money for programs and the community created citizens groups to
address some of the problems. A new health officer who received funding from the Centers for
Disease Control was hired to perform health monitoring and increase awareness and capability of
the citizens to deal with problems.
EPA also took some measures itself to improve the situation in Chester. While facilities
were generally in compliance with their existing permits, the burden of industry on Chester was
great. EPA kept this in mind when issuing new permits by building in additional protections,
such as limiting operating hours and truck traffic.
Pase 26
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Break-Out Group Discussion
The group began by discussing the extent to which the risk information obtained in the
Chester study actually related to health. For example, risk from emissions to air can be
calculated, but it is difficult to tie it to health effects in a significant way. Existing statistical
methods and data cannot show that a particular facility contributes a specific amount of risk
which translates to a specific number of cancers, for example. In addition, it is difficult to
differentiate from other contributing sources of risk and exposure and, therefore,
epidemiologically impossible, in most cases, to explain a particular health complaint with a
particular exposure. EPA's Superfund-type assessment, which is a limited assessment of each
pathway of concern, found significant risk in most pathways, but those risks could not be linked
significantly to the health outcomes identified by the community and State health department
data. Better assessment and risk evaluation tools are needed to identify sources and establish
these relationships.
The group also clarified the study's data-gathering methodology. Risk calculations were
prepared from an RTF model based on facility- data for all facilities in the area. Later in the study,
monitoring was performed by the State for selected toxins, although not necessarily all toxins of
concern. The monitoring station was set up to document odors and release incidents, and was not
ideally located for the purposes of EPA's assessment.
The group identified many strengths that were evident in the Chester case study.
Particularly evident was EPA's responsiveness to community concerns. The Agency
acknowledged from the start of the project that they would have to go beyond EPA's traditional
role to address the community-'s problems. Management support was crucial for the success of
the Chester assessment. It was pointed out that often the interests and activity level of the
Regional Administrator (RA) determine how much support such a project will receive. In the
Chester case, the RA initiated the project within EPA. It was important that the project identified
and recognized actual, specific health problems, giving a focus to the work. In addition, while the
community may have initially been looking for EPA to find an industry scapegoat for their
problems, EPA was careful not to go beyond what the data indicated and worked to bring in the
appropriate agencies to address the actual problems. In addition, the effort led to increased
awareness of and responsiveness to community concerns in the areas that EPA could control,
such as future permits. Finally, it was important to have the community involved early, and
throughout the process.
The study was limited by a lack of time (only six months to complete the project),
resources, and data. Financial constraints precluded collecting new data. While mobile and point
sources were modeled, and the model outcomes matched closely to monitoring data, sufficient
data were not collected to match in all cases. Compounds that had been monitored according to
existing protocols were not necessarily those that are source identifiers. Diseases, such as cancer,
can in most cases be caused by a number of different factors. Even if a chemical could be
identified, there are many sources of the same chemical, making it difficult to pinpoint one
source. There is a lack of a methodology to link health outcomes to stressors. In the case of adult
cancers, the latency period between exposure and disease also presents a problem, because
monitoring data from the present cannot be extrapolated back to estimate exposure fort}- years
ago. Since the Agency had to rely on existing data sources, the analysis was dependent on the
quality of reporting from a health care system that was known to be poor. This raised the
Paae 27
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
question of the accuracy of the pathology and therefore the diagnoses on which the health
outcomes data were based.
Alternative and supplemental approaches could have improved the assessment, but would
have required a longer time period and more resources to implement. Following the NERL and
NHEERL Boise Study, air monitors could be placed at strategic locations based on modeling
results. Personal monitoring could be conducted both indoors and outdoors to identify sources
and apportion biological activity by source. If baseline information were available, random blood
samples could be taken to identify bioindicators that might point to sources. The Agency should
also consider the cumulative effect of facilities, rather than simply look for noncompliance by
one facility with a permit. As was done with future facility permits in Chester, EPA permitting
should be changed to take all environmental factors into account, such as the effects of a cluster
of facilities and safety7, emissions, and nuisance factors from trucks associated with the facilities.
In the case of Chester, these factors were more important than the effects of the facility' itself.
The Chester assessment was conducted using standard Agency models and other
products. Future assessments of a similar nature should be sure to involve the state government
from the beginning of the project. In particular, state involvement can make it easier to obtain
data and save Agency resources. Grants can be given to states to provide and collect data. In
addition, it may be easier to access existing state data by going through contacts at public health
schools at local universities. The Agency should prepare a fact sheet on the use of health data,
including suggestions on how to obtain it and how to use it.
The Agency is also involved in ongoing activities that would apply. Risk factors for
health problems and diseases should be identified and compiled into fact sheets. The fact sheets
should be distributed to communities to help them understand the possible causes of their
problems and help them know from what angle to address them. Continued monitoring of
communities after an assessment is important; the State of Pennsylvania continues monitoring in
Chester with a mobile van for the purposes of inspection and troubleshooting. A bucket brigade
approach could involve citizens in ongoing monitoring. VISTA volunteers can also be used for
this purpose.
In summary, several useful ideas came out of this session, including the strengths
and limitations of such a project, suggested alternatives/supplements, and readily available
tools/products. These are listed below.
Strenaths
Was responsive to the community'.
Had management support.
Identified and recognized the actual health problems.
Was careful to not go beyond what the data indicated.
Led to increased awareness, responsiveness, and a change in behavior.
Involved early community' input.
Pase 28
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Limitations
Data limitations.
Money limitations.
Modeling of information didn't match existing data (modeled mobile and point
sources).
Don't look for compounds that are source identifiers.
Lack the methodology to link health outcome to stressors.
Can't correlate the cancer relationship and population data in adults.
Looked at existing data only.
Because the health care is poor, the pathology is not as accurate.
Poor reporting.
Alternative and Supplemental Approaches:
As with the NERL and NHEERL Boise Study, place air monitors throughout
(modeled before), use personal monitoring, and identify the sources (need baseline
data).
Readily Transferrable Products:
Use of health data (possibly a fact sheet about how it can be used).
Use of public health schools within universities to get data.
Use or involvement of state government.
Ongoing Activities:
Conveying what the risk factors for the diseases identified are (fact sheets).
State mobile van monitoring.
Paae 29
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
5. Poster and Demonstration Session
During the workshop, posters about various information tools were on display for
participants to view at their leisure. At the end of the first day, several of these technologies were
demonstrated. Participants also had the opportunity to obtain hands-on experience with these
new tools and ask questions.
Tom Brennan, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Economics. Exposure
and Technology Division, presented a demonstration of several tools developed or under
development. One of these tools is the Geographical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS), which
brings together all of EPA's fate and transport models and some environmental data needed to
run these. It models ambient air, surface water, soil, and groundwater. The Exposure, Fate
Assessment Screening Tool (E-FAST) provides screening-level estimates of the concentrations
of chemicals released to air, surface water, landfills, and from consumer products. It estimates
potential inhalation and ingestion dose rates resulting from these releases. Modeled estimates of
concentrations and doses are designed to reasonably overestimate exposures, for use in screening
level assessment. Both of these tools are useful as priority-setting tools, for screening, and for
evaluation.
EPA Region 5's Office of Information Services exhibited a Northeast Ohio EMPACT
Urban Sprawl Tool. This software is used to show a possible land use development pattern for
the year 2020 in NE Ohio. It is part of the Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and
Community Tracking (EMPACT) web site being developed for Northeast Ohio.
Steven Hassur, OPPT's Economics. Exposure and Technology Division, exhibited and
demonstrated the Risk-ScreeningEnvironmental Indicators model, a publicly-available,
screening-level tool that presents risk-related and hazard-based perspectives of trends in
environmental well-being as a function of chronic human health for the general population in the
United States. The RSEI model can be used to rank and prioritize chemicals and facilities for
strategic planning, to conduct risk-related targeting for enforcement and compliance purposes, to
perform disparate impact evaluation, and to support community-based environmental protection
projects.
Bill Kepner, ORD's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Landscape Ecology
Branch, exhibited several posters and demonstrated computer applications related to the San
Pedro Watershed case study. The posters were entitled The Changing Watershed: A 25-year
History of Land Cover Change in the San Pedro River and A Landscape Approach to Monitoring
and Assessing Environmental Conditions in the Upper San Pedro River Basin. A data browser
for the San Pedro River Watershed and Arc View were also demonstrated.
The ORD National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) exhibited a variety
of existing products in different media (print, CD, etc), including products under development, as
well as regional place-based project involvement.
Daisy Tang, Region 2's Office of Policy and Management (OPM) Policy Planning and
Evaluation Branch, was on-hand to demonstrate the Environmental Load Profile, used in
conjunction with the Camden, New Jersey profile.
Pase 30
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
The OPPT Community Assistance Technical Team exhibited and demonstrated a
computer model and poster.
Alan Huber, NERL, exhibited and demonstrated "Real Time" Monitoring and Modeling,
a tool used in the Contra Costa County, California air toxics monitoring effort.
Kent Thomas, ORD's NERL Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division,
exhibited a poster entitled The Agricultural Health Study: Pesticide Exposure Study. This is an
overview of a planned study for examining applicator exposures to applied pesticides for
applicators and family members in the epidemiological cohort of the National Cancer Institute
(NCI), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the EPA
Agricultural Health Study.
Paae 31
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
6. Session IV: Community Assessment Workshop Products
Session IV focused on the three Community Assessment Workshop Products: the
Community Assessment Matrix, the Community Assessment Framework, and the case studies.
Claudia Walters (ORD), Lawrence Martin (ORD), and Hank Topper (OPPT) presented these
products. After the presentations, the meeting participants broke into smaller groups to discuss
each case in greater detail and to address the following questions: (1) What is the value of the
product? (2) Who is the potential audience for the product? (3) What is the most useful
information to include? (4) What is the best format to present the information? (5) How should
the product be distributed? (6) What are the next steps?
Lawrence Martin returned on the final day to do a walk-through demonstration of the
framework and related community assessment decision tree. A summary of this demonstration is
included in Section 6.2 below.
6.1 Community Assessment Matrix (Claudia Walters - ORD OSP)
The community assessment working group has developed three products that work in
tandem to facilitate the community assessment process: the Community Assessment Matrix, the
decision-making framework, and the case studies. These products should be used in tandem to
guide users through the community assessment process. In considering the products, the breakout
groups should consider several questions: What are the values of the product? Who are the
intended users? Does the organization work for both scientific and community audiences? What
should the scope of the product be? Can the product readily incorporate other available tools?
The Community Assessment Matrix has several purposes. It helps to identify useful tools
for community assessment. The matrix also links scientific tools to specific community
assessment questions. Finally, it distinguishes between screening and risk-assessment processes.
The matrix consists of general community questions that are broken down into more specific
questions. Tools for stressors, exposures, receptors, effects, and outcomes are identified for each
question wherever possible. In this way, users can ask a specific question and find the right tool
based on the type of assessment that interests the community.
Break-Out Group Discussion
This breakout group intended to discuss how to: (1) integrate information and tools from
previously discussed focus areas into the matrix; (2) improve or augment the matrix based on
experience in working with communities; and (3) determine how to include other readily
transferable products into the matrix. The group decided to focus its discussion on three other
topics related to the matrix: (1) intended users, (2) matrix organization, and (3) value of the
project. A draft of the matrix created for discussion purposes is included as Appendix F.
The group first discussed the intended users of the Community' Assessment Matrix. After
some debate, the group agreed that the users of the matrix would be community members
inclusive of EPA. The matrix must then be written and presented at a common, everyday level
Paae 32
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
that can be understood by both scientists and non-scientists. It was noted that some of the tools
listed cannot be operated by the average community member, such as the Air Dispersion Model.
With the matrix, however, the user's knowledge of the subject matter increases, and EPA staff
and community members can work together.
Organization of the matrix sparked the most lengthy, involved discussion of the breakout
session. It was decided that the matrix should be organized in a simple fashion, taking care not to
overwhelm the user. It should act as the backbone for the Decision Tree. Choices made from the
Decision Tree should lead to cells in the matrix. Prevention and Intervention Matrices should
shadow the main Question/Risk Matrix. The matrix should be transformed into an Internet
version. The Internet version can act as an information management system for posting data,
contact people, tool use and information, and case study data.
The rows of the matrix should be laid out to represent questions and concerns, while the
scientific risks should appear vertically in the columns. The user should go directly to the row
which addresses their specific issue or concern. Questions and concerns such as "Is the water
from my well safe to drink?" and ';Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?" are
examples of row headings. Scientific indicators, such as stressors, exposures, receptors, effects,
and outcomes, can be found heading the columns. Once the question/concern is selected, the
appropriate tool(s), data, and case studies should be accessible. To avoid losing the user's
interest, the matrix should be laid out in a fashion so that answers can be obtained \\ithin five
pages/steps.
Problem definition should be the first step in using the matrix. Then appropriate tools can
be identified. The tool's limitations and strengths based on the data available to the user should
be evident. Providing the tool's limitations and strengths up front will allow the user to eliminate
it as a viable tool, prevent misuse, and move on to one that may be more helpful.
Model case studies should include a discussion of the effectiveness of the tools and
approaches used. Updated information and case study questions and answers concerning the use
of the tool should be posted as it becomes available. Query building techniques, which allow the
user to query appropriate locations, specific information, and interests, should accompany the
matrix. Once a specific tool is accessed, a bulletin board addressing various questions and
answers, reflections, feedback, and reviews should also be available. The option to post "new"
tools should exist, keeping in mind that a process of quality assurance and quality control and/or
peer review^ should be implemented. This will ensure that new tools and data posted are relevant
to users.
The last topic of discussion was the value of the matrix. The matrix is intended to be a
product capable of distilling complex information. For example, information about the
community' assessment process is distilled into a form from which maximum learning is possible.
It helps the user answer questions by accessing related tools and previous "model" case studies.
Another value is its ability' to link community concerns and questions with EPA tools. It provides
a means of identifying the common elements of the community-assessment process. It provides
an organized platform from which one can access current and new information, including
feedback on the use of various tools. The value of the matrix would increase if it indicated the
level of effort necessary to answer the question. Several valuable ideas were generated about the
value of the matrix and how to organize it better. These are summarized below.
Paae 33
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Matrix Value:
It distills down complex information.
It helps the user figure out how to answer questions with tools and information
about what others have done.
It links the community questions with EPA tools.
It identifies the common elements of the community assessment process.
It provides an organized platform with which to get feedback on the use of
different tools.
Indicating the level of effort to answer a question would be very valuable.
Organization:
Keep it simple.
Add missing elements, including what are you trying to achieve (intended
outcome).
Possibly add the tool's limitations and strengths.
Have case studies and tools work together.
For data, have the full metadata record available.
6.2 Case Studies (Hank Topper - OPPT)
Case studies describe Agency experience with community assessment and provide a very
useful tool for others interested in doing similar projects. The Baltimore air monitoring project
provides some good insight into developing a successful case study. The intended audience for
this case study was other communities doing similar projects. The most significant lesson learned
in terms of preparing a case study was the value of good record keeping from the very start. This
should include the process, as well as the data. A good case study should include some history
and background, scientific information, information about the partnership and communication
process, questions that were asked by the community and answered, what methods/data/tools
were used, what communication efforts were made, what the results were, and what lessons were
learned.
Break-Out Group Discussion
One of the products proposed as an outcome of the workshop is a series of case studies
that were presented during the plenary sessions of all three Community Assessment Workshops.
The Case Study breakout group was tasked with discussing how to document the case studies,
including identifying what attributes should be documented, describing the scientific peer review
process, and outlining how to organize the case studies. Specifically, the group attempted to
determine the value of the case study product, the audience for the product, the most useful
Paae 34
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
information to include, the best format for the product, how to distribute the product, and the
next steps for its development.
The group decided that two products would provide high value for community
assessment: (1) a compendium of existing case studies that were presented during the
Community Assessment Workshops and (2) guidance on how to develop a useful case study.
A case study compendium could be used as a vehicle for sharing experiences and
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of community assessment projects. A guidance
document on preparing case studies, on the other hand, would strive to improve the quality of
case studies and provide ideas on projects to cover in a case study. The guidance document
should avoid becoming a document on how to perform a community assessment, which is the
function of the decision tree/framework product. The case studies themselves should be designed
to be descriptions, rather than models of a perfect assessment.
The audience for the case study compendium was identified as: (1) EPA staff; (2) the
engaged community; and (3) other organizations and partners, including schools, other Federal
agencies, government, and industry. The inclusion of the engaged community in the audience for
the compendium was a matter of contention. Some group members felt that it was important to
define "the engaged community" as those in the community who were involved in the project or
its results. This would allow EPA to obtain all points of view on the worth and lessons learned of
the project. Others were concerned that a different level of writing and technical detail would be
necessary for members of the general public, "engaged community" members, technical partners.
and EPA scientists. They felt that one document could not satisfy everyone. They suggested that
the case studies be written so that they would be useful for EPA scientists and so that
participating community members could understand them. Others felt that anyone must be able to
read and understand the case study, because those from the community who participate in the
project will most likely change over time. Similar points wrere raised regarding the potential
audience for a guidance document on how to prepare an effective case study.
Group members debated over the format of a case study product. While a set format
would be useful to readers and would ensure that the same information was included in each
study, the realities of creating such a format and having all project teams agree to it and use it
were daunting. The group instead suggested that a, sample case study could be provided, along
with a list of items to cover, giving each project team more flexibility in the preparation of the
case study. It was also suggested that each case study be accompanied by a two-page, stand-alone
summarv fact sheet, aaain either in a set format and/or with a list of points to cover. The fact
.- w -*
sheets would provide lessons learned, partners, a summary of the process, and information on
funding. Those who were interested in obtaining more information after reading the fact sheet
could read the complete case study.
The case study compendium and fact sheet book should both be indexed to facilitate the
selection of applicable studies by the user. Several indices should be included, such as subject or
community assessment problem, tools used, depth of analysis/cost, and other parameters.
An important component to include in the case studies is the lessons learned from the
assessment. These lessons should include those from EPA scientists, EPA managers, and the
community, as \vell as those of other involved entities. Lessons learned that are of a technical
Page 35
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
nature should be described in lay terms and should refer to a separate source of information for
those interested in more technical detail. Ripple effects resulting indirectly from project
activities, most likely identified by the community, should be documented. Lessons learned
should identify both positive and negative aspects of the case studies; the case studies are to be
descriptions of assessments, not model assessments. Descriptions of lessons learned should strive
to avoid placing blame on those involved in the assessment, but should pull together the different
perspectives on the project of all those involved.
In order to move the development of the case study compendium product forward, it is
necessary to first identify a leader or champion for the project. Members of the group who have
been involved in the Community Assessment Workshops can volunteer to form a subcommittee
to work on the compendium. Project teams who presented case studies at the workshops must be
contacted and their commitment obtained to prepare a formal case study, including specified
information, for the compendium. Management must provide resources to facilitate the
production, edit the draft compendium, and publish it. A mechanism and purpose for peer
review, whether to review the processes described or scientific tools used in each case study,
must be determined. ORD can provide some resources for the product, particularly if the case
studies focus on solving "science problems," but will not be involved in writing the actual case
studies. If a process is established to compile and review case studies, Program offices can
prepare and submit case studies in the future according to the protocols used for the initial
compendium.
Group members discussed the incentives for Program offices and project teams to support
the case study product and provide case studies for the compendium. It should be promoted as a
good vehicle to increase awareness of their work and influence future programs. The fact that
senior managers would review the report, including Dorothy Patton, Director of the ORD Office
of Science Policy, would also be an incentive. Emphasis should be placed on the usefulness of
the compendium and future case studies for the design of future projects by EPA, as well as the
utility of the product for communities. Promoting the idea among senior managers would help
supervisors to budget time and resources for staff to work on the project. Several next steps were
suggested for the case studies. These are summarized below.
Next Steps:
Identify leaders for the overall project.
Get a commitment from the case study leads and others to write these
studies/summaries and possibly facts sheets.
Budget more money for editing the product.
Plan a rigorous peer review.
6.3 Decision-Making Framework (Lawrence Martin - ORD)
There is a basic need for the communities to understand the right questions to ask when
considering community assessment. This decision-making framework grew out of this need. It
Pase 36
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
represents a response to the increasing demand for community-based research and provides a tool
to build stakeholder capacity. The framework is also a guide to community-based assistance. It
was initiated by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA), and EPA. EPA serves as a common
resource for all stakeholders and scientists. Substantial stakeholder involvement is envisioned to
ensure that the framework has wide utility' across disciplines, includes an educational dimension,
and provides a tool for community decision-making. It is important to stress that the framework
presented represents a conceptual work in progress. Eventually, it is hoped that the framework
will be used by stakeholders to organize information and the decision-making process; integrate
human health and ecological assessment tools with socioeconomic data; and provide a
mechanism for building partnerships with other interested agencies. The framework is a broad
tool that will eventually be comprised of smaller, more concise tools, such as the risk-assessment
decision tree also presented.
The framework organizes information and management options using a variety' of
formats. Users are asked to consider several factors: the type of assessment; the management
decision desired by the community'; the level of effort intended; the intended audience; and the
level of confidence considered adequate. Upon considering these questions, the framework
provides several options: health data survey, health risk assessment, opinion survey, and
comparative risk assessment. The framework will have layers of information embedded within it,
so that those needing more detail can access it. The framework builds on the decision points of
case studies to deliver a Community Assessment Product that is right for the communities'
concerns, goals, and limitations. These principal decision points guide users through the matrix.
Some of the points already identified include: stakeholder participation issues; background and
scoping; problem definition; and the development of assessment questions. With each successive
decision, the user is guided deeper into the matrix until the correct tool is identified.
Break-Out Group Discussion
The group felt that communities need guidance to understand assessment options, limits,
and feasibility. They want a better sense of options. The framework is intended to provide this.
The group agreed that the user needs to be well defined. Designers need to understand what the
people using the tool need to know. No one product can serve all purposes for all users. Knowing
the user is crucial, because the framework design depends on end-users.
The group agreed that the framework needs to be simple. The current approach may be
too complex. It was suggested that a preferable near-term strategy may be to describe what tools
and information currently exist and how these can be used. To this end, case studies may be a
desirable component of the tools offered in the framework. It was suggested that the project
should begin with the framework before developing components within it, such as the risk-
assessment decision tree. The assessment components should be broken into modules to improve
the project's manageability'.
Several asked that there be a person available, perhaps through a hotline feature, to
provide assistance to users. Also, information embedded in the framework, but not featured, may
enable users of varying skill levels to use the framework productively by virtue of hypertext links
to resources. Lastly, there was concern for the abuse of the framework by contractors and
manufacturers. It should be made available in a way that would prevent its abuse.
Pase 37
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Several key resources were identified both as tools for developing the framework and as
tools to include within the framework.
Region 3 Green Communities Program
Nature Conservancy Center for Comprehensive Economic Development
Community-Based Environmental Protection Guidebook
Comparative Risk Guidebook
Community Profiling Guide
Region 10 Studies (Idaho and Oregon) on Community Risk Assessments
Region 8 "Greenbook" Process Studies in South Dakota Communities
Rock}' Mountain Institute's Framework for Environmental Analysis
Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern University
Region 5 CD-Roms produced with Purdue University
Exposure Factors Handbook
In summary, the group expressed the need to define end-users in order to produce a useful
product. EPA should begin the design of a community assessment project within the framework.
Assessment components should be broken into modules to improve the projects manageability.
The group identified several useful ideas. These are summarized below.
Communities need guidance to understand assessment options, limits and
feasibility.
The user needs to be well defined.
Framework design depends on end users.
It is important to understand what the people using the tool need to know.
The tool needs sufficient imbedded information to prevent its misuse; it should be
presented/made available in a way that would prevent this.
The current approach may go too far and represent information as more thorough
and complete than it is; it may just be too complex. A preferable near term
strategy may be to describe what tools and information exist and how they can be
used.
Case studies may be desirable as a component of the tools offered in the
framework.
The project should begin with the framework before developing the components
in it.
It is important to consider whether there is someone to provide assistance; this
may be essential for most users.
An appropriate audience may be community' groups \\ithout an environmental
focus, but which are agents of active change.
Paae 38
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Information embedded in the framework, but not featured, may enable several
skill levels of user to use the framework productively by virtue of hypertext links
to resources.
Paae 39
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
7. Wrap-Up
Steve Lingle and David Klauder led the wrap-up session. Steve Lingle began by
reiterating that the goals of this workshop were to refine the products, identify participants to do
further work toward the overall goals, and to test the quality and utility' of the products. He also
re-emphasized Dorothy Patton's charge to consider the value of these products to this community'
assessment initiative. To start the wrap-up discussion, David Klauder (ORD) provided a few
observations about the workshop and emphasized the fact that, while ORD OSP has sponsored
the workshops, concrete products must be developed by workshop participants in order to
continue the work. Discussion during the wrap-up focused on three areas: the Agency managers'
group, the proposed workshop products, and the focus areas.
The discussion regarding the Agency managers' group repeatedly led back to the issue of
integrating community assessment within the current EPA infrastructure and experience. In order
to sustain the effort, a home or focal point for community' assessment should be found. For
example, which office would be able to serve as a central repository of community assessment
information? How can the exchange of information regarding community assessment be
institutionalized? Discussion then led into the idea that what was needed was more than just
finding a good home for information. Work needs to be done to pull out some of the more useful
information that could be exchanged. This goes along with the need to identify science gaps
completely and determine how to organize tools once they are developed.
Many in the group believed that it was important to get EPA senior management involved
with and committed to community' assessment. Those on the managers panel, as well as within
the Office of Water and the RAC should convene to discuss RAC oversight for CBEP and the
involvement of Headquarters, the Regions, and the regional science councils. Office of
Environmental Information, OPEI, and CBEP are seen as key groups for championing
community' assessment. Several felt that it was important to develop a clear and strong statement
about why community assessment is a priority. Tying this initiative to GPRA goals would be
helpful in proving its importance to senior management. Although the involvement of many
offices and manager is necessary, a lead office, such as ORD OSP, is also necessary. In addition,
there should be involvement on the assistant administrator and regional administration levels.
The group turned to the issue of how to divide the work for the effort of developing the
products (the matrix, framework, and case studies). Many felt that EPA Headquarters should
work with the Regions to divide these tasks, possibly using the Science and Regional Advisory
Groups. Again, most agreed that since community' assessment crosses media, there is a need for a
strong message from senior EPA management about why this effort is important. There was a
concern that without such support, the effort would dissipate.
While the intention of the workshop was to outline the next steps for the community
assessment projects and to enlist volunteers for these products, the group had several reservations
concerning the products themselves and the support of management for those working on the
products. Many felt that the products were not well enough defined at this point to commit to
working on them. They felt that the workshop had only just begun flushing out the possibilities
and too many basic questions about the products were still unresolved, such as their purpose,
Paae 40
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
intended users, and general format. In addition, although the three products had been related to
one another conceptually, the details of how the products would relate to one another in practice
had not been determined. Participants were reluctant to sign up until these issues were resolved.
They wanted more feedback from potential users on whether the products would be useful to
them. They also requested a better idea of the timeframe for producing these products as well as
clearer parameters for measuring the "success" of a workgroup in developing the product.
Participants were hesitant to invest time in a project with an uncertain outcome. One suggestion
was to send out a survey on the usefulness of the proposed tools. Another was to send out an
informational piece to potential users and to ask for feedback. Finally, the measures of success
and a timeframe for developing the products should be proposed.
Many expressed an interest in being part of the effort, but felt over-burdened already by
existing commitments. They feared that the effort would not be a success without the specific
commitment of resources by senior management, particularly since ORE) is unable to serve as the
sole "champion" of the effort. The Environmental Justice office might fill such a role. In
addition, there might be other EPA staff interested in this effort who were not aware of it. One
suggestion was to develop a letter to go out to national program managers and regional program
managers to enlist additional volunteers to further work on the products. However, some argued
that letters of this type do not always work. Instead it was a better idea to go back to all of those
involved in any of the community' assessment meetings to ask for volunteers. Senior
management responsible for the workshops should draft and send out a letter to Regional and
Program management to help free up some resources to support this community assessment
effort. This would send a clear message that community assessment is a priority within the
Agency.
The group concluded with two action items. First, senior management would draft an
Agency-wide memorandum requesting workgroup representatives and time for these
representatives to work on this effort. Those who were interested in participating were urged to
contact their supervisors about participating on the workgroups. Several members of the group
volunteered to participate in a Steering Committee to begin implementing the initial steps of
product development. Volunteers included: Hank Topper, Rabi Kieber. Walter Brodtman, Bruce
Engelbert, Jerry Blancato, Claudia Walters, and Jenny Craig.
The Steering Committee would focus on evaluating the usefulness of the proposed
products to the communities, possibly through the Office of Environmental Justice, CBEP staff.
SDCG, Brownfields, and Livability programs. NEJAC members have already been asked to
comment, and it was suggested that the ideas be presented to the communities themselves as
well. Based on this feedback, the purpose, users, and formats of the products would be
determined Once this is done, workgroups for each product will be formed. It will be important
to coordinate the work of these groups, however, because the products are related and not entirely
independent of one another. In the meantime, OPPT will continue to w:ork on redefining and
refining the Framework. The key ideas for the group to consider are coordinating the overall
design of products with the end-users in mind, developing objectives and parameters for the
products, deciding on a timeframe and measures of success, and determining how these tools will
fit into programs.
Paae41
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
In the remaining minutes of the discussion, participants noted that the focus areas
identified seemed appropriate. However, while several focus areas received a lot of discussion
during the workshop, others did not and would need to be addressed outside the workshop series.
A future workshop could be convened to complete the discussion on the focus areas.
The final discussion points described above can be summarized as follows:
I. Agency Infrastructure and Experience
How7 can we maintain/sustain this effort (possibly through a home or focal point)?
1) Have senior managers convene, particularly the panel members, the Office
of Water, and RAC and discuss RAC oversight for CBEP, roles of
Headquarters and the Regions, and the role of regional scientist groups.
2) Work with OEI, OPEI and CBEP as key groups.
3) Develop ways to exchange good information efficiently.
4) Connect community assessment to GPRA goals.
5) Identify a lead, such as Dorothy Patton of ORD OSP.
6) Involve the assistant administrators and regional administrators.
1) Develop a statement to emphasize why community assessment is a high
priority'.
What are the science needs, gaps, and priorities?
II. Products
Develop a letter to senior managers in program offices and Regions explaining the
importance of the proposed products and requesting support for volunteers.
Specifically identify those currently participating and ask for others to volunteer.
Identify "champions," including Environmental Justice and CBEP coordinators,
NEJAC. ORD scientists can support but cannot take on full responsibility'.
Develop mechanism for creating possible "products," using the current three
products as a starting point. Address them in conjunction with one another.
Can't discussAvork on 3 products separately OR work on them in parallel
Before developing products, ensure that they are most useful to
communities by asking for comment from EJ, CBEP, SDCG. BE.
Livability staff as well as NEJAC and the communities themselves. Is this
the most important activities - product useful to communities.
Page 42
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Then develop a work group for each product.
OPPT will continue to work on Framework.
Convene the steering committee to look at the end user, overall design, and
objective of the products. Develop a timeframe and measures of success for
product development.
Consider other focus area activities in a future workshop.
Pase 43
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Appendix A. List of Participants
February 9-11,2000
Melissa Anley
EPA Office of Environmental Information
EMPACT Program
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2831)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-5179
fax: 202-565-1966
anley.melissa@epa.gov
John Armstead (speaker)
EPA Region 3
Environmental Services Division
1650 Arch Street (3ESOO)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
tel: 215-814-3127
fax:
armstead.john@epa.gov
Andy Avel
EPA ORD/NRMRL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
MS-235
Cincinnati, OH 45268
tel: 513-569-7951
fax: 513-569-7680
avel.andy@epa.gov
Ed Bender
EPA ORD/OSP/RSLS
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8103R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202"-564-6483
fax: 202-565-2925
bender.ed@epa.gov
Jerry Blancato
EPA ORD/NERL
Human Exposure Research Division
P.O. Box 93478 (HERB)
Las Vegas, NV 89128
tel: 702-798-2456
fax: 702-798-2532
blancato.jerry@epa.gov
Tom Brennan
EPA OPPTS/OPPT/EETD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^-260-3920
fax: 202-260-0981
brennan.thomas@epa.gov
Walter Brodtman
EPA OECA
Office of Compliance
Agriculture and Ecosystem Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2225A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-4181
fax: 202-564-0085
brodtman.walter@epa.gov
Tom Brody
EPA Region 5
Office of Information Services
77 W. Jackson Blvd (MG-9J)
Chicago, IL 60604
tel: 312-353-8340
fax:312-353-4755
brody.tom@epa.gov
Damon A. Brown
EPA OPPT Exposure Assessment Branch
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202"-260-2278
fax: 202-260-0981
brown.damon@epa.gov
Mike Callahan
EPA ORD/NCEA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623D)
Washington. DC 20460
tel: 202~-564-3201
fax:
callahan.michael@epa.gov
A-l
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Larry Claxton
EPAORD
Environmental Carcinogenesis Division
MD-68
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel: 919-541-2329
fax: 919-541-3966
claxton.larry@epa.gov
Charlotte Cottrill
EPAORD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2831)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-6771
fax: 202-565-2917
cottrill.charlotte@epa.gov
Jenny Craig
EPA OAR
Office of Policy Analysis and Review
Ariel Rios North Room 5442
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6103A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-1677
fax: 202-564-1557
craig .j eneva@ep a. go v
Bridget Crawford
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
Water Quality Planning and Assessment
Branch
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
tel: 404-562-9275
fax: 404-562-9224
crawford.bridget@epa.gov
Stan Durkee
EPA ORD/OSP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-6784
fax: 202-565-2915
durkee.stan@epa.gov
Bruce Engelbert
EPA OSWER/OERR
Community Involvement
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5204-G)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 703^603-8711
fax: 703-603-9100
englebert.bruce@epa.gov
Kathleen L. Fenton
EPA Region 7
Community Based Environmental Protection
Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division
901 North 5th Street (WWPD/CBEP)
Kansas City, KS 66101
tel: 913-551-7874
fax: 913-551-7765
fenton.kathleen@epa.gov
Debra L. Forman
EPA Region 3
Waste and Chemicals Management Division
1650 Arch Street (3WCOO) "
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
tel: 215-814-2073
fax: 215-814-3114
forman.debra@epa.gov
Rhonda Golder
EPA Office of Compliance/EPTDD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2222A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-5088
fax:202-501-0411
golder.rhonda@epa.gov
Marty Halper
EPA OECA/OEJ
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^564-2601
fax: 202-501-0740
halper.rnarry@epa.gov
A-2
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Reginald Harris (speaker)
EPA Region 3
Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and
Environmental Justice
1650 Arch Street (3ECOO)
Philadelphia, PA 19106
tel: 215-814-2988
fax: 215-814-2905
harris.reggie@epa.gov
Steven Hassur
EPA OPPT
Economics. Exposure and Technology
Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-260-1735
fax: 202-260-0981
hassur.steven@epa.gov
Roland Hemmett
EPA Region 2
Division of Environmental Science and
Assessment
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS 100)
Building 10
Edison. NJ 08837
tel: 732-321-6754
fax:732-321-4381
hemmert.roland@epa.gov
Carol Hetfield
EPA OPPT
Design for the Environment (F-309)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7406)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 2of-260-1745
fax: 202-260-0981
hetfield.carol@epa.gov
Lee Hofmann
EPA Superfund
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (5202G)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 703"-603-8874
fax: 703-603-9133
hofmann.lee@epa.gov
Alan Huber (speaker)
EPA ORD NERL (MD-56)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel: 919-541-1338
fax: 919-541-0905
huber.alan@epa.gov
Ken Jones (speaker)
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental
Democracy
104 East State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
tel: 802-229-6070
fax: 202-229-6076
kjones@gmied.org
Rochele Kadish
EPA Office of Regional Operations
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1108A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-3106
fax: 202-501-0062
kadish.rochele@epa.gov
Chuck Kent (speaker)
EPA OPEI
Office of Business and Community
Innovative Strategies
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1803)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-260-2462
fax:
kent.chuck@epa.gov
Bill Kepner (speaker)
EPA ORD/NERL
Landscape Ecology Branch
P.O. Box 93478 ~
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
tel: 702-798-2193
fax: 702-798-2692
kepner.william@epa.gov
A-3
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Rabi Kieber
EPA Region 2
Office of Policy and Management
Policy Planning and Evaluation Branch
290 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10007
tel: 212-637-4448
fax: 212-637-5045
kieber.rabi@epa.gov
David Klauder
EPA ORD/OSP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8103R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^564-6496
fax: 202-565-2927
klauder.david@epa.gov
Steven M. Knort
EPA ORD Risk Assessment Forum
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (860ID)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-3359
fax: 202-565-0062
knott.steven@epa.gov
Jim Kreissl
EPA ORD NRMRL
26 W. MX. King Drive (G-75)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
tel: 513-569-7611
fax: 513-569-7585
kreissl.james@epa.gov
Rashmi Lai
EPA Office of Environmental Information
Office of Information Analysis and Access
Environmental Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2842)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-260-3007
fax: 202-260-0275
lal.rashmi@epa.gov
Deborah Lebow
EPA Region 8
Ecosystems Protection
999 18th Street (EPR-EP)
Denver, CO 80202
tel: 303-312-6223
fax:303-312-6897
lebow.deborah@epa.gov
Charles Lee
EPA OECA/Office of Environmental Justice
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2201 A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-2597
fax: 202-501-0740
lee.charles@epa.gov
Steve Lingle
EPA ORD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8722R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^564-6820
fax: 202-565-2446
lingle.stephen@epa.gov
Lawrence Martin (speaker)
EPA ORD OSP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8103R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202064-6497
fax: 202-565-2926
martin. lawrence@epa. go v
Deirdre Murphy
EPA OAR/OAQPS
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel: 919-541-0729
fax: 919-541-0237
murphy.deirdre@epa.gov
A-4
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Frank Neumann
EPA OPPT/EAD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7408)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-260-1772
fax:202-260-2219
neumann.frank@epa.gov
Angela Nugent
EPA Office of the Administrator
Science Advisory Board
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1400A)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-4562
fax: 202-501-0323
nugent.angela@epa.gov
Pasky Pascual
EPA'ORD/OSP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-564-2259
fax: 202-565-2917
pascual.pasky@epa.gov
Dorothy Patton (speaker)
EPA ORD/OSP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 2oi"-564-6705
fax: 202-565-2911
patton.dorothy@epa.gov
Heidi Paulsen
EPA OPPTS
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7506C)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 703"-305-5251
fax: 703-308-3259
paulsen.heidi@epa.gov
Dan Petersen
EPA ORD NRMRL
26 W. M.L. King Drive (G-75)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
tel: 513-569-7831
fax: 513-569-7578
petersen.dan@epa.gov
Cynthia Peurifoy (speaker)
EPA Region 4
Environmental Accountability Division
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
tel: 404-562-9649
fax: 404-562-9663
peurifoy.cynthia@epa.gov
Solomon Pollard
EPA Region 4
Office of Policy Management
Planning and Analysis Branch
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
tel: 404-562-8293
fax: 404-562-8269
pollard.solomon@epa.gov
Avis Robinson (speaker)
EPA OEI
Office of Information, Analysis, and Access
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2841)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^-260-6670
fax: 202-401-0454
robinson.avis@epa.gov
Bill Sanders (speaker)
EPA OPPT/OPPTS
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7401)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202~-260-3810
fax: 202-260-0575
sanders.william@epa.gov
Mary Kay Santore
EPA Office of Business and Community
Innovations
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2127)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-260-8745
fax:
santore.marykay@epa.gov
A-5
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Vic Serveiss
EPA ORD/NCEA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623D)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 2of-564-3251
fax:
serveiss.victor@epa.gov
Ronald Shafer
EPA Office of Environmental Information
Environmental Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2842)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^260-6966
fax: 202-260-4698
shafer.ronald@epa.gov
Mary Shaffran
EPAORD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202"-564-6668
fax: 202-565-2431
shaffran.mary@epa.gov
Daisy Tang
EPA Region 2
Office of Policy and Management
Policy Planning and Evaluation Branch
290 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10007
tel: 212-637-3592
fax: 212-637-5045
tang.sukyee@epa.gov
Kent Thomas
EPA ORD NERL
Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences
Division
79 T.W. Alexander Dr.
ERC/Annex (MD-56)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel: 919-541-7939
fax: 919-541-0905
thomas.kent@epa.gov
Hank Topper (speaker)
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics
Community Assistance Technical Team
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (7046)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202-260-6750
fax: 202-260-2219
topper, henry @epa. go v
Vanessa Vu
EPA ORD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8601R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202~-564-3282
fax:
vu.vanessa@epa.gov
Claudia Walters (speaker)
EPA ORD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202^-564-6762
fax: 202-565-2917
waiters.claudia@epa.gov
Suzanne Wells
EPA OSWER/OERR
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (5204G)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 703-603-8863
fax: 703-603-9100
wells.suzanne@epa.gov
Hal Zenick (speaker)
EPAORD
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 202~564-6620
fax: 202-565-2431
zemck-hq.hal@eDa.aov
A-6
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Appendix B. Agenda
Community Assessment Workshop III: Focus Areas
February 9, 10, & 11, 2000
Washington, DC
Agenda-At-A-Gla nee
DAY1: February 9J|
Welcome & Opening Remarks Dorothy Patton, ORD OSP
Session I: Agency Experience and Infrastructure Focus Areas
Agency Managers Panel
Plenary Discussion
Lunch
Session II: Science: Technical and Policy Focus Areas
Case Studies Presentation:
Contra Costa County, CA Community Air Monitoring Alan Huber, ORD NERL
Charleston, SC CBEP Project Cynthia Peurifoy, Region 4
Camden, NJ: Environmental Load Profile Daisy Tang, Region 2
Break-out Group: Case Studies
Plenary Discussion: Case Studies & other Focus Areas
Poster and Demonstration Session: Community Science Tools
DAY2: February 10 |
Session HI: Education and Communication Product Focus Areas
Case Studies Presentation:
New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project Ken Jones, Green Mountain Institute
San Pedro River, Communicating Eco-Risk Assess. Bill Kepner, ORD NERL
Chester, PA Risk Assessment Project Reggie Harris, Region 3
Break-out Group: Case Studies
Plenary Discussion: Case Studies & other Focus Areas
Lunch
Session IV: Community Assessment Workshop Products
Plenary Presentations:
» Community Assessment Matrix
" Decision- making Framework
Case Studies
Break-out Group: Products
Plenary Discussion and Wrap-up Day's activities
DAY3: February 11 g
Session IV:Env Decision Making Process for Communities-based efforts
Demonstration of Framework and Decision Tree Model
Plenarv Discussion
B-l
-------
Community Assessment Workshop III:
Future Focus Areas
February 9, 10, & 11, 2000
Washington Marriot
1221 22nd Street, NW
Washington, DC
Final Agenda
DAY1: February 9
8:00 - 8:30 Registration
8:30 - 8:45 Welcome & Opening Remarks Dorothy Patton, OSP Director, ORD
8:45 - 9:00 Workshop Goals & Approach Claudia Walters, ORD CBEP Coord.
Session I: Agency Experience and Infrastructure Focus Areas
9:00 - 10:40 Agency Managers Panel (20 minutes each)
Hal Zenick, DAA for Science (Act.), ORD
Chuck Kent, DD, Office of Business and Community Innovative Strategies, OPEI
Avis C. Robinson, DD (Act.), Office of Information, Analysis & Access, OEI
Bill Sanders, OD, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, OPPTS
John Armstead, DD, Environmental Services Division, Region 3
Senior Managers will describe the focus areas listed in the Agency Experience and
Infrastructure category of greatest importance to their Office/Region and share an
example of how the Office/Region has addressed the focus area their a project, program,
policy, or activity.
10:40 - 11:40 Plenary Discussion
Participants will have an opportunity to discuss issues with panel members and offer
suggestions for addressing the Agency Experience and Infrastructure focus areas.
11:40 - 12:40 Lunch & Exhibit Hall Walk
Participants can browse the posters and displays in the Exhibit Hall on their own.
Session II: Science: Technical and Policy Focus Areas
12:40 - 2:10 Case Studies Presentations (20 min. presentation & 10 min. Q&A)
Each presentation will illustrate one of the Technical and Policy Science focus areas.
Contra Costa County, CA Alan Huber, ORD NERL
Community Air Toxics Monitoring
B-2
-------
The case study will address focus area #6: Protocols for community sampling: either the
establishment of a sampling design to collect monitoring data or to validate the output
from models.
Charleston, SC CBEP Project Cynthia Peurifoy, Reg 4
The case study will address focus area #5: A guide to data bases that explains the quality
of the data and how to use the data for community assessment.
Camden, NJ: Environ. Load Profile Daisy Tang, Reg 2
The case study will address focus area #3: Guidance on cumulative risk assessment
including a discussion of "acceptable" standards for cumulative risk.
2:10 - 2:30 Break
2:30 - 3:30 Break-out Groups - Case Studies (3)
The break-out group for each case study will evaluate the utility of the case study in
addressing the identified focus area (#6, #5 or #3). Practitioners will share experiences as
to the types of information needed by communities to address the focus area. Scientists will
share their knowledge on scientific tools that could potentially address these information
needs. The break-out groups will identify (1) readily transferable products and (2) on-going
efforts across the Agency to address the science (e.g., forums, workgroups, research
programs).
3:30 - 5:15 Plenary Discussion - Focus Areas
* Each Break-out group will present the highlights from their case study discussion.
» Participants will have an opportunity to discuss the other focus areas and identify other
transferable products and on-going efforts.
5:15 - 6:30 Poster and Demonstration Session: Community Science Tools
Regions and Programs will have an opportunity to highlight their scientific activities and
products. Posters and demonstrations of community science activities and products, such as
inventories, web sites, case studies, tools, and databases will be exhibited. Presenters will
be available to answer questions.
DAY2: February 10 |
Session HI: Education and Communication Product Focus Areas
8:00 - 9:30 Case Studies Presentations (20 min. presentation & 10 min. Q&A)
Each presentation will illustrate one of the Education and Communication Product focus
areas and share how the focus area was addressed for the respective project.
New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project Ken Jones, Green Mountain
Institute for Env. Democracy
The case study will address focus area#l: A comprehensive inventory of environmental
and health risks that may face communities across the nation to give an overview of their
conditions and how they compare to those in other communities.
» San Pedro River, Communicating Ecological Bill Kepner, ORD NERL
Risk Assessment Using A Landscape Approach
The case study will address focus area #4: Research and experiences to develop examples of
effective ways to communicate assessment results to communities.
" Chester, PA, Risk Assessment Project Reggie Harris, Region 3
B-3
-------
The case study will address focus area #3: Clear explanation of the connection between risk
information from an assessment and current incidences of disease in the community.
9:30 - 10:30 Break-out Groups - Case Studies (3)
The break-out group for each case study will evaluate the utility of the case study in
addressing the identified focus area (#1, #4 or #3). Practitioners will share experiences as to
the types of information needed by communities to address the focus area. Scientists will
share their knowledge on scientific tools that could potentially address these information
needs. The break-out groups will identify (1) readily transferable products and (2) on-going
efforts across the Agency to address the science (e.g., forums, workgroups, research
programs).
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - 12:30 Plenary Discussion
* Each Break-out group will present the highlights from their case study discussion.
> Participants will have an opportunity to discuss the other focus areas and identify other
transferable products and on-going efforts.
12:30 - 1:30 Lunch & Exhibit Hall Walk
Participants can browse the posters and displays in the Exhibit Hall on their own.
Session IV: Community Assessment Workshop Products
1:30 - 2:15 Plenary - Presentations
Introduction and Community Assessment Matrix Claudia Walters
Decision-making Framework Lawrence Martin
* Case Studies Claudia Walters
2:15 - 3:15 Break-out Groups - Community Assessment Products (3)
A break-out group will be formed for each of the Community Assessment products.
> The Community Assessment Matrix group will discuss how to: (1) integrate
information and tools from the previous discussion on focus areas into the Matrix, (2)
make suggestions to improve or augment the matrix based on experience working with
communities, and (3) determine how to include other readily transferable products into
the matrix.
+ The Framework group will discuss how to integrate information and tools from the
previous discussion on focus areas into the Framework.
> The Case Study group will discuss how to document the case studies, including: (1) what
attributes should be documented, (2) the scientific peer review process, and (3) how to
organize the case studies.
3:15-3:30 Break
3:30 - 4:30 Plenary Discussion
» Each Break out group will share their highlights.
> Workshop participants will identify next steps for the Framework and Case Studies.
4:30 - 4:45 Wrap-up Day's activities & Follow-up Actions
B-4
-------
DAYS: February 11 |
8:30 - 8:45 Review Day's Activities & Goals
Session V: Environmental Decision Making Process for
Communities-based efforts
8:45 - 9:30 Demonstration of Framework Lawrence Martin, ORD
and Decision Tree Model
9:30 - 10:00 Respondents discuss how the Framework might have Hank Topper, OPPTS;
been employed in 2 study communities . Reggie Harris, Region 3
10:00 - 10:30 Plenary Discussion (guided by the following questions)
(1) Are we on the right track? Are the assessment questions constructive? Are the
decision points appropriate?
(2) Does the Framework present a viable strategy to incorporate other Agency tools?
Which ones?
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - 11:30 Workshop Wrap-up and Next Steps Hal Zenick
B-5
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Appendix C. Focus Areas
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Focus Areas
The first two Community Assessment Workshops identified a number of areas where our ability to provide
science to support community-based assessments could be improved. The areas ranged from specific
improvements in an individual tool or database to global scale improvements in areas where tools and databases
are limited. These areas have been svnthesized and organized into the three categories: Agency Infrastructure and
* o c? *>
Experience; Science: Technical and Policy; and Education and Communication.
Category I: Agency Experience and Infrastructure Areas
1) We need more experience: At this point in our work, we need to try to participate in more community-
assessment projects and pilots. We do not yet have enough experience with multi-media community
assessments to answer many questions, such as which tool to use. so we need to focus on getting more
experience and learning from that experience. The need is for more pilots, more and varied projects
working in different kinds of communities, and more case studies that summarize and share the
experience. More experience is probably our key need at this point.
2) We need to develop Federal, state and local government partnerships to work in communities: Since
environmental issues are only a part of the larger set of concerns facing communities, we need to work
with other agencies to provide more comprehensive assistance and to learn how to fit environmental
concerns into the broader picture.
3) We need more coordination and communication among Agency staff working on community assessment:
Since we are in a learning phase, communication among practitioners is key.
4) We need training for EPA staff so that thev can learn from the developing experiences: This training,
which may be more like sharing of experiences since we do not have enough experience for a leading
center at this point, should focus on the Regions, since they will be called on to lead the community
assessment work.
What actions will workshop participants undertake (e.g., newsletter, cross-Agency team, assessment training
workshop, training group)?
Category II: Science: Technical and Policy Areas
1) A better way to combine cancer and non-cancer effects in a cumulative assessment.
2) More and better toxicity data, including an expedited way of getting data before formal inclusion in
databases.
3) Guidance on cumulative risk assessment, including a discussion of "acceptable" standards for cumulative
risk
4) Methods for handling peak releases and acute effects. Are there toxicity data on intermittent
peak/episodic exposures which can be used to describe the nature and magnitude of effects relative to
those resulting from continuous exposure?
C-2
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
5) A guide to data bases that explains the quality' of the data and how to use the data for community'
assessment.
6) Guidance for community' sampling in the development of a sampling design (1) to collect monitoring data
or (2) to validate the output from models.
7) Research for validation and refinement of models used in community assessments.
8) Methods for estimating releases from various area source categories such as schools, dry cleaners, and
landfills.
Category III: Education and Communication Product Areas
1) A comprehensive inventory across the nation of environmental and health exposures that may result in
risks to communities that provides an overview of the conditions in a particular community'. In addition,
one community- can use this information to compare their conditions to conditions in other communities.
Provide the most up to date information on the basic conditions and on the typical level of risk that a
particular area may present, including baseline levels of chemicals or other parameters, and frequency and
magnitude of exposure. (The inventory and other information products should be sensitive to urban
concerns for redevelopment and revitalization. Solutions or mechanisms to address potential risks should
be presented along with risks.)
2) An overview that describes what community risk assessment can offer a community', the limits, and the
differences between various types of assessments that can be performed, e.g., screening, comparative,
relative, and comprehensive risk assessment.
3) Clear explanation of the connection between risk assessment information and current incidences of
disease in the community'. For example, communities observe numerous occurrences of cancer, asthma,
or illnesses in children, and expect scientists to conduct studies which will identify the specific causes of
these illnesses.
4) Research and experience to develop examples of effective ways to communicate assessment results to
communities. Communities are eager to hear about scientific environmental studies conducted in their
communities. Guidance is needed to help communicate results to the community: determine what
information from the study should be communicated, how soon the information should be distributed,
and the best mechanism to communicate.
5) Guidance to communicate the meaning of a contaminant level found above a reference dose.
Outcomes:
1) A Community Assessment Matrix that attempts to match often-asked community' assessment questions
with data and tools potentially useful in addressing each question. The Matrix would describe what tools
would be most useful in addressing specific questions, e.g., the intended purpose, the skill level, and
applicability.
C-3
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
2) An improved Community Assessment Framework that provides communities with a process to
understand and assess potential health problems. The Framework will outline, in a step by step fashion,
all the factors and decisions required to understand and address environmental issues.
3) Case Study Prototypes that document Agency experiences in addressing specific community questions
explains the process used, the questions being addressed, the tools and data used, and the outcomes.
C-4
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Appendix D. Case Study Materials
Contra Costa County, California Community Air Monitoring
Charleston, South Carolina CBEP Project
Camden, New Jersey: Environmental Load Profile
New Hampshire Comparative Risk Project
San Pedro River: Communicating Eco-Risk Assessment
Chester. Pennsylvania Risk Assessment Project
D-l
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Contra Costa County, CA
Community Assessment EMPACT Projects
(San Francisco Bay Area)
EPA Region 9 EMPACT Project: Bucket Brigade
The objective of this EMPACT project is to empower the public to collect samples of air toxics
releases from industries in Contra Costa County. This project enables citizens to conduct air
toxics monitoring in their community and to better inform themselves about potential health
effects of reported pollution levels. The communities involved in this project have formed groups
called "Bucket Brigades". The Bucket Brigade earned its unusual title because the members
converted common buckets into effective air sampling devices. Following a visible industrial
release or when community members notice unusual odors, trained residents collect air samples
that are sent to a private analytical laboratory for analysis. The EPA Region 9 laboratory is
performing simultaneous analysis of some samples for quality assurance.
Community air toxics monitoring via citizen "Bucket Brigades" puts information collection and
dissemination into the hands of the public. By utilizing a wide range of both community-based
and larger media resources, community members can better understand how their health is
impacted by the release of environmental pollutants. The results are being communicated through
the local media, community meetings, and a newsletter. The project is in the process of
establishing a publicly- accessible database of results. With this information, both the general
public and local governments can make more informed decisions. This project has the potential
to serve as a template for innovative community-based monitoring in areas that are affected by
industrial pollution throughout the United States.
In work funded in FY99, citizens will receive a more complete picture of the air toxics risks in
their communities on a real-time basis. The Tosco remote sensing equipment marks the first time
that optical technologies have been combined and integrated into a single system, and the first
ever commercial installations of either UV or laser-type gas monitors in North America. But the
technological advances of the system have far outpaced the community's ability to effectively
deal with the enormous quantity of data being generated. The information is not available in a
format the public can use or understand. This project will assess the technology and translate the
raw data into useful and accessible public information. Combined with information from the
Bucket Brigade and from EPA-ORD's Technical Assistance Project, the community will have a
fuller understanding of the air toxics risks, hazards and exposures.
Project Contact: Patty Monahan, CMD, EPA Region 9, 415/744-1109 or
monahan.patty @epa. gov
http://www.bucketbrigade.org (project web site)
D-2
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
ORD EMPACT Research Project:
Technical Assistance to Contra Costa County, CA
Community Air Toxics Monitoring
Overview
This project provides important scientific assistance to both solve technical problems and
provide analytical support for the ongoing community air toxics monitoring to the Contra Costa
County Hazardous Materials Division (HazMat). Under the present Bucket Brigade project, the
county is supporting an effort by community groups to take air samples when they perceive an air
toxics incident. The county HazMat program also supports county wide risk management and
incident response programs. The county' recognizes the need for real-time measurement of
community air toxics concentrations both to establish baseline values and provide support during
incidents.
The county has several incident response vehicles equipped with some sampling instruments.
One of these vehicles has been upgraded and outfitted as a technical support van for this project.
In addition, the county' has several meteorological towers and is developing field operations and
networking capability' to be able to provide more comprehensive real-time monitoring support in
response to an incident. This project is assisting the county' in developing real-time air
measurement capacity' in its technical support van and in developing an integrated database and
modeling networked system to support real-time measurements. The science tools (modeling and
measurements) developed in this project will be critical to the county in more completely
characterizing community exposures to air toxics. This project will enhance community' wide
ambient air toxics monitoring, incident response, and response-planning capabilities by
instrumenting a county mobile van to support real-time measurements and modeling. These
additional capabilities can provide refined temporal and spatial patterns of community- ambient
air toxic exposures both during routine days and during emergency episodes in support of
EMPACT program goals. This project supplements the already ongoing fixed site and fenceline
monitoring in Contra Costa County'.
Status
The following instruments have been installed in the van:
1. Two portable gas chromatographs (GC) capable of analyzing a wide variety' of target
compounds in the 10 PPB (parts per billion) concentration range even' 10-30 minutes.
2. Two portable continuous Carbon Monoxide (CO) monitors.
3. A portable continuous PAH monitor.
4. A Global Positioning System (GPS).
5. A datalogger.
6. A continuous wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature monitor
A real-time air dispersion model has been installed on a laptop computer in the van to support the
monitoring. This van includes real-time communications (cell phone voice and data) between the
van and any Internet connected computer to support the acquisition of information required to
apply the model and in the future retrieve advanced modeling output not available from the
D-3
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
laptop PC in the van. A Geographical Information System (GIS) based on ArcView is being
developed to support the integration of measurement and modeling data into a community
assessment system. The Army Research Laboratory=s micrometeorological, High Resolution
Wind model (HRW) at a 100 m resolution is being used to estimate the wind transport pathways
of air pollutants from nearby source locations downwind through neighborhoods whose air
quality may be adversely impacted. The initial focus area of the project is the neighborhoods
around a major petrochemical refinery.
Future
There is a need for ORD's follow up support for what was initially set up in Contra Costa County'
to help ensure that the project is successfully applied. While everything has been delivered and
set up as planned it is critical that the ORD team be able to follow up with some additional
training, enhance the models, assist in ensuring that everything is routinely operational, and assist
in establishing protocols for routine instrument/model applications. There are some bugs and
wrinkles to be worked out. There is a need for ORD over the next 6 months to assist in preparing
a report demonstrating the success of this pilot study. If successful, this project could be both
enhanced and expanded in Contra Costa County as wrell as also implemented in other EMPACT
Cities where there are community concerns for human exposures to air toxics. At the same time
this project could be invaluable to ORD research on human exposure to urban air toxics.
Resulting databases can be used to enhance ORD's ability to develop and evaluate urban air
toxics exposure models. This project's concept of an integrated real-time modeling and mobile
van measurement system is a cost effective research tool for supporting urban air toxics studies.
Urban air toxics air concentrations have great spatial and temporal variation within urban areas
unlike fine PM or O3. The challenges of developing reliable community assessments of human
exposure to urban air toxics requires the development of the science tools that are being
developed and demonstrated by this project. The tools applied in this pilot project may all be
greatly improved in future applications as the supporting science is advanced.
Project Contacts: Alan Huber, project coordination and modeling NERL [ORD], 919/541-1338
or huber.alan@epa.gov
James Braddock, measurement NERL [ORD]. 919/541-3881 orbraddock.james@epa.gov
Wienke Tax, EMPACT program coordination, EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA,
415/744-1223 or tax.wienke@epa.gov
James Gallagher, Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Program, Martinez, CA
925/646-2286 or igallagh@hsd.co.contra-costa.ca.us
D-4
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Charleston/North Charleston
Community-Based Environmental Protection Project
I. Size, Location, and Boundaries:
The Charleston/N. Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Project (CBEP) is
focused on the neck area of the Charleston, SC peninsula and includes the Charleston Naval
Base, and more than 20 neighborhoods in the City of Charleston, the City- of North Charleston.
SC and Charleston County. The approximately seven square mile area is bordered on the west by
the Ashley River and on the east by the Cooper River. There are more than 40,000 people that
live in the area. The vast majority are minority' (roughly 73%) and a significant portion (almost
40%) live at or below the poverty- level.
Much of the Charleston/N. Charleston CBEP area has been heavily industrialized since the
1800's resulting in a complex combination of environmental problems. The area has both active
industry as well as contamination resulting from historical hazardous waste releases and practices
that were not environmentally protective. The area is characterized by the close proximity of the
industrial corridor to both human residential populations as well as abundant tidal creeks.
marshes, and rivers in the area. The environmental concerns in the area cut across all media (air,
surface water, groundwater, sediments, and soil).
II. Issues of Concern:
The initial objective of the CBEP was to characterize and prioritize issues of concern to the
residents and other stakeholders in the area. Some initial issues that were identified included:
* Perceptions about industry and its impact on the environment
> Promoting economic growth that is environmentally sensitive
* Lead contamination
*- Drainage and flooding
> Compliance with environmental laws and regulations
> Children's health and links to environment (i.e., lead, relationship between pollution and
hyperactivity, need for safe playgrounds and areas for children to play)
> Contaminants in soil, ditches, and other areas near residences
III. Mission
The overall objective of the Charleston/N. Charleston CBEP is to improve the quality of the land.
air, water, and living resources in the targeted CBEP area to help ensure long-term human health,
ecological, social, and economic benefits. This effort will be guided and developed with the
meaningful involvement of citizens, industry, conservation groups and other stakeholders.
IV. Project Activities
Environmental Data Compilation Initiative:
The data compilation initiative was undertaken in order to gather and assemble data about
reaulated industrial facilities, chemical releases, and other environmental concerns that would
D-5
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
provide a snapshot of the quality of the environment in the CBEP area, and make the information
available to the CBEP community. To assist hi this effort, resources were leveraged from the U.
S. Geological Survey, National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Benefits Program, to purchase
a Geographical Information System that would be housed at the Medical University of South
Carolina (MUSC) and would be dedicated to the CBEP Project. MUSC and the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control contributed major resources to this effort. The
compiled environmental data are those that were available during the 1997 data collection period.
These data can be considered as baseline data for the CBEP Project.
In July 1999, the Draft ''Summary of Environmental Information Collected for the Charleston/
North Charleston Community-Based Environmental Protection Project" was released. The
Community Advisory Group has provided significant comments on the document as well as
recommendations for the next phase of the data effort. Next steps currently anticipated include
using the data to assess environmental conditions, establishing appropriate environmental
indicators, comparisons with more recent data, development of a user-friendly system for the
community to access the data, etc.
Radon Initiative:
Based on limited testing, and because of past phosphate mining in Charleston County (suggesting
elevated radium levels in the soil), the State of South Carolina and EPA Region 4 consider the
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP target area to have high potential for elevated indoor radon
levels. This winter (1999) we will initiate a widespread radon testing survey, including training,
education and outreach and mitigation, where needed. Currently, 2,400 test kits are available for
use in the area. The Southern Regional Radon Training Center will train a local coordinator as
well as provide training on mitigation techniques. The South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, through its State Indoor Radon Grant, will provide technical expertise
and will assist with training and outreach. The local entity, the Palmetto Community' Hope
Foundation is providing local coordination, and administers the local Youth Build Program
which will deploy and retrieve canisters, then mitigate homes with elevated levels. Mitigation
materials will be donated by Home Depot and Lowes.
Compliance Assistance Initiative:
EPA Region IV and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
formed a partnership to address compliance assurance issues. The partnership is focusing on
small businesses that traditionally have not been fully aware of their compliance obligations.
Compliance assistance is being offered to the two sectors that appear to represent the greatest
potential for concern: auto repair and paint and body shops. EPA and the State of South Carolina
will continue to measure compliance assistance in the CBEP target area. Specifically, we will
measure behavioral change, compliance indicators and environmental and human health
improvements through its compliance assistance efforts to the Auto Repair and Paint and Body
Shop sectors.
Former Phosphate/Fertilizer Initiative:
D-6
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
The goal of this initiative is to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination present at nine
former phosphate/fertilizer facilities. Where unacceptable risk are identified, an adequately
protection site management strategy will be implemented.
Results to date include a removal action at one site, a remedial investigation underway at another,
and a State voluntary cleanup efforts on others.
V. Stakeholders Involved in the Project
In November 1997, a Community Advisor}7 Group was officially formed. The charter CAG was
made up of representatives from eight neighborhoods, business and industry, and local
environmental and social advocacy groups. These representatives completed a self-nomination
process, which included listing community/environmental sendee involvement and activities as
well as environmental concerns. The CAG named itself the Charleston/North Charleston
Community Based Environmental Protection CAG.
The Community Advisor}7 Group gathered concerns from neighborhoods from within the CBEP
target area. The CAG elected officers to serve two-year terms and established additional
subcommittees to solidity its operation. The CAG plans to respond to each community and show-
how their concerns have been included in the CAG's action plan.
The Community Advisor}7 Group developed the following Mission Statement:
"The mission of the Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Community Advisor}7 Group is to
address environmental quality programs and concerns as they relate to the community''s
well-being and that of the environment. It exists to increase environmental aw7areness through
education and effective collaboration with diverse groups and to promote and cultivate
cooperation with industry and government fores. Finally, the group exists to empower, create.
and sustain a healthy and livable community that will positively impact residents' quality
of life."
The Community' Advisor}7 Group developed the following Vision Statement:
"The vision of the Charleston/North Charleston CBEP Community Advisor}7 Group is to work
together harmoniously to be a strong voice for community well-being; to advocate clear
understanding and better communication between different facets of the community- concerning
environmental protection and positive economic development; and to bring forth a safe and
healthy environment for all, especially children, while expanding the economic structure and
ultimately improving the quality of life in the community."
The Community7 Advisor}- Group has two ongoing initiatives, the Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program and the Environmentally Friendly Small Business - Pollution Prevention Initiative.
These initiatives are highlighted in an article entitled "Improving the Quality of Life for the
Charleston/North Charleston Community7,"
in the EPA 1998 Regional Geographic Initiative Highlights, April 1999. Please use the link
below to view the article in its entirety.
D-7
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Stakeholders:
Accabee Neighborhood
Albright & Wilson
AKA Parenting Center
American Civil Libert}' Union, Charleston Chapter
Bayside Neighborhood
Charleston Area League of Women Voters
Charleston County
Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce
Charleston Naval Shipyard
City of Charleston
City of North Charleston
College of Charleston
Congressman James Clyburn's Office
East Bay Cleaners
East Cooper NAACP
Enterprise Community
Four-Mile Hibernian Neighborhood
Macalloy
Medical University of South Carolina
National Employee Trades of America
Sierra Club, Lunz Chapter
Silver Hill Neighborhood Association
South Carolina Aquarium
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
Restoration Advisory Board
Rosemont Neighborhood
Union Heights Neighborhood
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Westside Neighborhood Association
Westvaco
Contacts:
U.S. EPA:
Cynthia Peurifoy
Charleston CBEP Project Coordinator
Phone: (404) 562-9649
Email: Peurifoy.Cynthia@epa.gov
Community Advisory Group:
Charleston/North Charleston CBEP,
701 East Bay Street,
PCC Box 1400,
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: 843-792-1669
D-8
SCDHEC:
Daphne Neel, CCBEP Coordinator
Phone: 803-935-6592
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Working in Camden:
The Region 2 Environmental Load Profile Tool
Background:
The City of Camden New Jersey (population 87,500) is the fifth largest city in New Jersey. It is a
post-industrial city and is considered an economically depressed area, having a predominantly
minority population, a high unemployment rate (36 percent), and a one in three poverty rate.
Manufacturing and related land uses account for one third of Camden's nine square miles, and
brownfields constitute more than half of all industrial sites in the City. Abandoned industrial sites
contain chemicals, transformers, and other contaminants that pose significant threats to human
health. Contamination of soil and groundwater is suspected at many of these sites. A lack of
information about site conditions and potential liabilities at abandoned facilities has stifled
reinvestment, resulting in a decreased tax base, increased blight, depressed community morale.
and diminished employment opportunities.
The Region has been actively working in Camden since the early 1990's on a number of different
activities which including lead and asthma outreach and education, the remediation of two
Superfund sites, and Brownfields redevelopment.
Description of the Load Profile Tool:
The Load Profile Tool developed by Region 2 staff is a Geographic Information System(GIS)
based tool that evaluates a number of salient elements (e.g. TRI and mobile source emissions)
that relate to the environmental load of a particular community'. The salient elements serve as
indicators of environmental burden and can provide a consistent basis for comparison between
two or more communities. The indicators are constructed using TRI data, the Office of Pollution.
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Environmental Indicator model, facility and population density
data, land use data derived from the Multi-Resolution Land use Characteristics (MRLC) satellite
data, ambient air quality data from air monitoring stations, enforcement and compliance
information from the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system database. Using
the Environmental Load Profile tool, the user can develop a matrix of environmental indicators
for a particular community. This tool provides data and a consistent methodology that can be
applied to all areas in the region.
The Region views this tool as having an application to a wide variety of activities and programs
including inspection targeting, strategic planning, community assessments. Environmental
Justice, and Community-Based Environmental Protection effort.
Camden has been used as a case study in the development of this tool because it is the first city-
targeted in the Region's Urban Initiative and because of its social and economic conditions, and
environmental contamination.
D-9
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
New Hampshire Comparative Risk Assessment
presented by Ken Jones, Ph.D.
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy
Forty stakeholders analyzing 40 environmental problems determined a ranking of relative risks in
the state of New Hampshire. This project is one of several comparative risk assessments
supported by US EPA during the 1990s. This presentation will focus on the assessment and the
report used to communicate results with the general public about risk in New Hampshire.
The actual assessments were accomplished by public health, ecological, and economic experts,
but the New Hampshire project actively involved the collaboration of 40 differently skilled
individuals to structure the assessment. In this way. the results for the assessment were readily
accepted as the starting point for the ranking exercise.
The early participation of stakeholders in structuring the analysis required their gaining a general
knowledge about risk assessment. As with other comparative risk exercises, the assessments
ranged from classic cancer risk assessments to broader based ecological assessments to much
more wide ranging assessments of social welfare. All assessments, but particularly ecological and
social welfare assessments require value judgements. Stakeholder participation in the New
Hampshire project determined some of the value decisions in the assessment structure and others
in the ranking exercise.
As with other comparative risk assessments, stakeholder participation in the ranking process
requires a comprehension of the data and reinforces the importance of value choices. The results
of the ranking served as one piece of the project's identification of strategies to pursue for risk
reduction. In addition, a description of the risk ranking process and results provided a
background in a widely distributed report communicating risks and risk reduction to the New
Hampshire public. Most of the follow up activities are focused on the community scale.
The process used in New Hampshire can provide useful lessons for community assessments
undertaken elsewhere. The New Hampshire project shows that accomplishing technical validity
with significant stakeholder involvement is not only possible but yields an assessment that can
serve as a strong foundation for risk reduction activities.
D-10
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
The Changing Watershed: A 25-year History of Land Cover Change
in the San Pedro River
William G. Kepner1, Christopher J. Watts2, Curtis M. Edmonds1, John K. Maingi3,
Stuart E. Marsh3, Beaumont C. McClure4, and Jesse J. Juen5
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193
institute del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora, Reyes &
Aguacalientes Esq., Col. San Benito, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico 83190
3University of Arizona, Arizona Remote Sensing Center, 1955 E. 6th Street, Tucson, AZ 85719
4 U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 222 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
85004
5 U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Tucson Field Office. 12661 E. Broadway Blvd., Tucson. AZ
85748
Vegetation change in the American West has been a subject of concern throughout this
century. Although many of the changes have been recorded qualitatively through the use of
comparative photography and historical reports, little quantitative information has been available
on the regional or watershed scale. It is currently possible to measure change over large areas and
determine trends in ecological and hydrological condition using advanced space-based
technologies. Specifically, this is being tested in the Upper San Pedro Watershed using a system
of landscape pattern measurements derived from satellite remote sensing, spatial statistics,
process modeling, and geographic information systems technology. These technologies provide
the basis for developing landscape composition and pattern indicators as sensitive measures of
large-scale environmental change and thus, may provide an effective and economical method for
evaluating watershed condition related to disturbance from human and natural stresses.
Land managers in the Southwest have traditionally been interested in status and trend in
environmental conditions. The principal degradation processes that have occurred throughout the
western rangelands involves 1) changes of vegetative cover which result in the introduction of
exotic annual species or woody shrubs and trees, and 2) acceleration of water and wind erosion
processes which result in soil loss and decrease water infiltration and storage potential.
Historically, these have been linked to livestock grazing and short-terrn drought. However, rapid
urbanization in the arid and semi-arid Southwest within the last 25 years has become an
important anthropogenic factor in altering land cover composition and pattern.
Land cover has been derived from a multi-date satellite imagery database which incorporates
Landsat Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS) imagery from the early 1970s, mid 1980s, and early
1990s and Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery from 1997. The MSS imagery has been
remapped and projected to Universal Transverse Mercator ground coordinates at 60 meter
resolution; the 30 meter TM imagery has been resampled and mapped at 60 meter resolution for
comparison. The land cover has been generated in a 10-class system using a modification of the
Brown, Lo\ve, and Pase (BLP) hierarchical vegetation classification nomenclature. All vegetation
has been classed to the BLP Formation level and an urban cover class has been added. The four
D-ll
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
land cover images represent a quarter of century of change across the watershed (5 June 1973, 10
June 1986, 2 June 1992, and 8 June 1997). The painted relief map was developed from 30 meter
digital elevation model data and depicts the dramatic differences in topographical relief present
in the watershed. Elevations vary from 900 to 2,900 meters and annual rainfall ranges from 300
to 750 mm. The total area of the upper watershed encompasses nearly 7,600 km2 (5,800 km2 in
Arizona and 1,800 km2 in Sonora) and represents one of the most ecologically diverse areas in
the United States and northern Mexico.
Landsat observations have evolved from an experimental system in the 1970s to a required
capability to ensure our ability to explore, characterize, monitor, manage, and understand
changes in the Earth's land surface. Landscape ecology is a relatively new science which helps
place the changes and pattern of land cover into perspective relative to their impact on important
ecological and hydrological processes.
D-12
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
A Landscape Approach to Monitoring and Assessing Environmental
Condition in the Upper San Pedro River Basin
William Kepner1, Christopher Watts2, Curtis Edmonds1, Holly Richter3, William Childress4,
Barbara Alberti5,
Robert Blanchard6, Sheridan Stone7, Jose Guerra8, Rick Koehler9, and Gonzalo Luna2
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. P.O. Box 93478.
Las Vegas, NV 89193
2 Institute del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora, Reyes &
Aguacalientes Esq., Col. San Benito, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico 83190
3 The Nature Conservancy. Upper San Pedro Ecosystem Program, 4774 E. Green Oak Lane.
Hereford, AZ 85615
4U.S. Bureau of Land Management, San Pedro Project Office, 1763 Paseo San Luis, Sierra Vista,
AZ 85635
'U.S. National Park Service, Coronado National Memorial, 4101 E. Montezuma Canyon Road,
Hereford, AZ 85615
6 City of Sierra Vista, 1011 N. Coronado Drive, Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
7U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613
8 Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, Edificio Correo Centre, Esquina
Bolevard Resales y Aquiles Serdan, Hermosillo, Sonora, CP 83000, Mexico
9Cochise County, Highway and Floodplain Department, 1415 W. Melody Lane, Bldg. B, Bisbee,
AZ 85603
This paper presents the perspectives of resource managers regarding the potential use of
landscape scale metrics to help facilitate conservation decision-making processes within the
Upper San Pedro River Basin. A diverse array of resource managers have come together to offer
their perspectives on this subject through the elaboration of two timely issues. These issues
include: What open space areas remain most intact from an ecological perspective, and might
serve as the best candidates for corridors to connect existing high quality conservation areas?
Corridors are thought to be important for animal movement between high quality' habitats, and
they can also be designed to preserve high quality native plant communities. Corridors can serve
other important purposes such as providing hydrologic connectivity- by protecting critical
groundwater recharge areas and by preserving important scenic and cultural resources. The
second issue to be discussed is: Can the abundance of riparian cover along the river be measured
to assess the overall integrity of the riparian forest over time? This may be an important metric
for monitoring purposes as a diverse array of conservation strategies are implemented in the
coming years to conserve the hydrologic processes that sustain the river.
D-13
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
The landscape metrics that are now available to resource managers to answer these complex
questions will be discussed. Historically, landscape change was described primarily through
ground-based repeat photography. While repeat photography can clearly document significant
differences that have occurred over time at specific sites, the application of this methodology is
usually restricted to only limited geographic areas. During the past two decades, important
advances in the integration of remote imagery, computer processing, and spatial analysis
technologies can be used to better understand the distribution of natural communities and
ecosystems, and the ecological processes that affect these patterns. These technologies provide
the basis for developing landscape measurements that can document large-scale, long-term
ecological change.
This project utilizes a strategy which generates land cover maps from a multi-date satellite
imagery database which incorporates Landsat Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS) imagery from the
early 1970s, mid 1980s, and early 1990s and Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery from
1997. The MSS imagery has been remapped and projected to Universal Transverse Mercator
ground coordinates at 60 meter resolution; the 30 meter TM imagery has been re-sampled and
mapped at 60 meter resolution for comparison. The land cover has been generated in a 10-class
system using a modification of the Brown, Lowe, and Pas (BLP) hierarchical vegetation
classification nomenclature. All vegetation has been classed to the BLP Formation level and an
urban cover class has been added. The four land cover images represent a quarter of century of
change across the watershed (5 June 1973, 10 June 1986, 2 June 1992, and 8 June 1997).
D-14
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
A Data Browser for the San Pedro River Watershed
William G. Kepner, Daniel T. Heggem, Curtis M. Edmonds. Edward J. Evanson and Lee A. Bice
The way we communicate is rapidly changing. Print, radio, television, and computers have a
great impact on the speed, volume and substance of what we can comprehend. The Internet joins
all of these types of communication and adds something more to form the basis of a very
powerful communication tool. People can use the Internet to receive news, weather, sports,
market products, and talk to other people around the world. The additional benefit of Internet
communication is the ability to readily organize and distribute what you need to say for a
changing audience. Scientists use this tool to exchange ideas, share results and distribute data
with other scientists. The flexibility of the Internet permits scientists to also inform people of
recent scientific findings which other wise might not be communicated or available to the public.
The Landscape Ecology Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assembled a
biophysical data base for the San Pedro River Watershed. This effort started as a result of a
recommendation from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's report Ribbon of Life.
1999, which states, "A San Pedro watershed database should be developed to unite and organize
available data for the public and experts". This data, gathered from many different agencies, is
unique in that it represents landscape patterns and biological and physical processes with occur
within the San Pedro River Watershed or catchment area. Waters which flow through the
catchment area will be affected by these processes. For example, if soils are nutrient rich, rain
waters will carry some of those nutrients through and eventually out of the San Pedro River
Basin. Progress is being made to link landscape assessment methods with water quality data. We
believe that landscape level assessments of watersheds will help the public see their home from a
different perspective. With this perspective, \\ise decisions can be made on land use practices to
help protect and improve our environment.
The San Pedro Data Browser provides spatial data in a user-friendly and accessible on-line
format to other researchers, public agencies, resource managers, non-governmental organizations,
decision-makers, and user groups. The Data Browser features easy data download and includes
the data documentation (metadata) to assure data usability. This product provides for long term
record keeping (archiving) and easy access to an exceptional assemblage of spatial data for this
internationally significant watershed.
D-15
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Introduction to the Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape
Assessments (ATtlLA) Arc View Extension
An example in the San Pedro River Basin
Donald W. Ebert'
Timothy G. Wade1
James E. Harrison2
Dennis H. Yankee3
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/NERL/ESD/LEB, Las Vegas, NV
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA
J Tennessee Valley Authority, Environmental Research Center, Morris. TN
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have become a powerful tool in the field of landscape
ecology. A common application of GIS is the generation of landscape indicators, which are
quantitative measurements of the status or potential health of an area (e.g. ecological region.
watershed or county). The generation of these indicators can be a complex, lengthy undertaking,
requiring substantial GIS expertise. The Landscape Ecology Branch in cooperation with U.S.
EPA Region 4 and TVA are developing a user friendly interface to facilitate this process.
ATtlLA is an easy to use ArcView extension that calculates many commonly used landscape
indicators. By providing an intuitive interface, the extension provides the ability to generate
landscape indicators to a wide range of users, regardless of their GIS knowledge level.
Four groups of indicators are included in the extension: landscape characteristics, human
stresses, physical characteristics, and riparian characteristics. Each group has a dialog to accept
user input on which indicators to calculate and what input data to use. Once indicator values have
been created, the extension has three types of output display available. The first displays areas
ranked by individual indicator values, the second ranks areas by an index made up of two or
more indicators, and the third displays a bar chart of selected areas and indicators. Output from
ATtlLA is suitable for creation of landscape atlas products.
This demonstration will use spatial data from the San Pedro River Basin developed as part of
a web-based data browser.
Notice: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development (ORD), funded this research and approved this abstract as a basis for a
demonstration. The actual presentation has not been peer reviewed by EPA. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by EPA for
use.
D-16
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Chester, Pennsylvania
Environmental Risk Study
Background:
The City of Chester, PA is known for having the highest concentration of industrial facilities
in the state including two oil refineries, a large infectious medical waste facility, among a number
of waste processing plants in the proximity, not to mention that at least 85% of raw sewage and
associated sludge is treated there. Residents have not only been concerned with the health effects
of living and working amid toxic substances, but residents have actually complained of frequent
illness. The fact that Chester has the state's highest infant mortality- rate coupled with the lowest
birth rate in the state, the highest death rate due to malignant tumors, the highest percentage of
African-Americans of any municipality- in the state, and that Chester is considered the poorest
community in Delaware County raised concern for the health and well-being of the community-.
Appropriated issues of environmental justice and community protection have been raised.
The Chester Risk Assessment Project was part of an initiative by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III and agencies of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to study environmental risks, health, and regulatory issues in the Chester.
Pennsylvania area. Although the intent of the study was to provide a complete "cumulative risk
study", utilizing exposure data for all environmental media and exposure pathways, the actual
report is more of an Aggregated Risk study due to the largely unknown nature of
the interrelated exposures.
The City of Chester is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia along the
Delaware River. Surrounding communities also examined in development of this report include
Eddystone, Trainer, Marcus Hook, and Linwood.
Chemical data were gathered from existing sources, but the scope of this project did not
include collection of new data specifically designed for a Chester risk assessment. Instead the
workgroup performed an examination of available data which yielded the following
observations:
The data had been collected for different programs and different agencies. These data
w-ere not originally designed to support a quantitative risk assessment of the Chester area.
The databases were of van-ing quality, and certain chemicals and media had not been
tested. However, even with the limited data, many data sets were available to be used to
generate estimated risks.
Modeling of air data from point sources was performed prior to the air risk assessment.
Therefore, point source air risks are based on projected data rather than data actually
collected in the field. The lead (Pb) data, area sources of volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) site information,
and Toxic Release Inventor.- (TRI) data did not involve the types of environmental data
conducive to quantitative risk assessment.
The findings of the report are:
Blood lead in Chester children is unacceptably high (over 60% of children's blood
samples are above the Center for Disease Control(CDC) recommended maximum level of
lOug/dl).
D-17
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Both cancer and non-cancer risks from the pollution sources at locations in the city of
Chester exceed levels which EPA believes are acceptable. Air emissions from facilities in
and around Chester provide a large component of the cancer and non-cancer risk to the
citizens of Chester.
The health risk from eating contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the Delaware
River is unacceptably high.
Drinking water in Chester is typical of supplies in other cities through out the country.
Slight long term (20 year) risks may be expected due to the residuals of water treatment
processes.
In response to these findings, the USEPA Region III recommends that:
The lead paint education and abatement program in the City' of Chester should be
aggressively enhanced,
Sources of air emissions which impact the areas of the city with unacceptably high risk
should be targeted for compliance inspections and any necessary enforcement action,
A voluntary emission reduction program should be instituted to obtain additional
emissions reductions from facilities which provide the most emissions in the areas of
highest risk.
Enhanced public education programs regarding the reasons behind the existing state
mandated fishing ban should be implemented.
In addition, while fugitive dust emissions have not shown to be a significant component of
risk in the City, a program to minimize fugitive emissions from dirt piles and streets should be
instituted to alleviate this nuisance.
While noise and odor levels were not shown to be a significant component of traditionally
identified environmental risk in the City, a noise and odor monitoring program should be
instituted in areas most likely to suffer from these nuisances. If significant levels are found, a
noise and/or odor reduction program should be implemented in those areas.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) conducted an epidemiological assessment
on Chester and found that Age Adjusted Cancer Incidence rates for males in Chester, for several
types of cancer, were significantly above statewide rates as well as those for selective cities and
counties around the state.
CONTACT: Reginald Harris (215) 814-2988
D-18
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Appendix E. Breakout Group Flip Charts and Posters
Day 1 Panel Discussion
What can we learn from our community-based experiences?
Need for compendium of all we already know
How do we do community assessments better?
Communication from communities on success (back to Hill, upper management)
Keep eye on addressing community problems not just assessment
Case studies present opportunities for learning
1. (Fact sheets but need to do more to capture what worked and what doesn't)
Publicize and communicate
"Ripple effect" in communities
Behavior changes
2. Analyze case studies - may work in another com.
Experiences
Watershed Top 10 Lessons Learned
CBEP document (Vic Serveiss)
Need to analyze community-based assessments (NCEA)
How can we promote government/community partnerships?
How to sustain partnerships after EPA leaves...networks.
Partnerships take LOTS of resources
Communities talking among themselves and informing the Hill about the good work
(lessons learned SDCG).
Appreciation of community expertise
Consider supplemental environmental projects from settlements (OECA)
e.g. R7 used funds in Kansas City, MO
Jump start assessments by communities
How can we promote coordination and communication among Agency staff?
Where is home for community-based work (riddle of decentralized agency)
Baltimore project needs to be tailored to other cities and sharing what's learned - how
process changed
How to institutionalize? Problem is we're still media based.
Biggest challenge - is there a will (or mechanism)?
- This needs to be a priority (i.e., "Top 10")
- Get attention at AA level
Career staff stay in jobs too long . ,.. .--,,
120" "~ -: -::- '-" '" ' E-l
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Coordination
e.g., Science Policy Council - senior board advisors
- High level decision-making body, career - that will stay
OWOW (Bob Wayland's group) discussing similar issues. Also where OSEC/OBEP HQ
went.
"Knowledge management" technologies (OEI)
Design a system to help us accomplish some of our goals/issues
*New Office of Environmental Information must be engaged in communicating
community assessment work - value of information - separate from
infrastructure/leadership ->drive Agency
Will OEI help Regions give guidance and communities gather info? to change!
GPRA - goal for community (4, 7, 8)
construct an argument - set priorities
Behavior change - don't have a good way to measure and feed back into GPRA
Need behavioral change (outside Agency) to get changes within Agency. Currently, not
there
What training is needed for staff?
Training needed in methodology* of community assessment (EPA and community)
What can and can't do
Better info -^knowledge
How to use tools in Regions by cross-Agency
Education of both sides (Ag. and com.)
Need to communicate and listen in community - talk differently (we are experienced in
scientific language and EPA-ese)
Model plan for participation (NEJAC)
Interactive process (two way)
- Build trust
How do we integrate assessment tools?
E-2
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 1 Breakout Group Objectives:
1. Discuss strengths and limitations (10)
2. ID alternative and supplemental approaches (10)
3. ID readily and
a) transferable products
b) ongoing activities
(15-20)
E-3
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 1 Breakout Group: Contra Costa
Questions:
What was the cost of the program? $90,000-100,000 for hardware and software; $100,000 for
technical support (the county already owned the van).
What are incidents that trigger monitoring?
Do GCs offer the flexibility to measure HAPS not currently measured?
Once the model is calibrated, is the van superfluous? It's not realistic to say that the model will
be perfectly calibrated. In addition the model is not replicable for other cities without "tweaking"
according to site-specific attributes but it is hoped that models can be used with confidence
eventually.
Do episodic releases affect the baseline sufficiently as to merit attention?
Strengths:
This effort provides baseline data for modeling toxics.
It provides a response to specific requests from the community.
Improvements:
Improvement of ISC.
Consistent data standards and monitoring across EMPACT.
Bucket Brigade data may not necessarily be a representative sample.
Van tests model results but may not necessarily identify other areas.
Alternative/Supplemental Approaches:
Multiple Vans
E-4
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 1 Breakout Group: Charleston
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths
EPA (OIE) is funding std. for st. data?
Tried to get comprehensive data
Involved community - breadth of partnership
Very good "case study" for how to do these
Merging diverse data
Common language for collect/compile, QA/QC
Use other Agency data
Need a strong leader - but the "process" must support itself
Human element
Limitations
Bad data - "bogus data"
Personal (organizational) "issues"
Lack of "standards" for data
Money for collection/data organ.
EPA not in leadership role
Process too burdensome on community
Alternative/Supplemental Approaches
Put data in one or a location(s) or where people know (common platform)
Do OA/OC up front
Review of existing case studies for good models
Use standards now available
Exploit GIS proliferation
Include hazard risk and release data
Need to set priorities
Readily Available Products/Activities
A database of databases
Known application of data
New York? has a model of one platform env. watch - Greenpoint NY
E-5
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
QA/QC guidelines
Decision tree software (LM)
Training material - green communities, Region 5 CD on communities Superfund course
onRA
Tools from CBEP and stories from Agency and outside
E-6
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 1 Breakout Group: Camden
Focus Area #3:
Guidance on cumulative aggregate risk risk-related impact assessment including discussion of
"acceptable" (didn't get to) standards of cumulative risk. Risk-related, maybe not as complete
as cumulative.
Strengths
GIS
Ability to overlay
Compare and contrast
Info available nationally
Regional vs. local comparisons
Can be brought to community (the way it's set up)
It's risk-related
Like R5 Cum Risk Studies
Limitations
Not convinced that it's risk-related (discussion about how it is)
Population toxicity exposure based at a screening level
Data isn't all at same level - harder to compare
Not all of data is reported in the same time period
Some elements don't get to risk-related (example NTI, emissions estimates nationwide)
Needs uncertainty analysis
Sensitivity - what's causing the differences
Looking at combined/magnitude of risk
Different methodologies - air toxics vs other pollutants
How you compare other sources that you're concerned with
Lack of data of other sources that might impact
Alternate Approaches
Theresa Trainer's cultural profiling - use as supplemental approach (culture and
economics)
Follow-up - what's next; cooperation with states and communities
Pull in all the appropriate agencies (HUD, etc.)
Next version more GIS - produce layers and will be multimedia; look at trends/possible
contributors (next version of RSEI model will do that)
Other pathways of exposure; follow-up, next steps
E-7
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Readily Transferable Products
This model can be applied to any area
Regions 2, 3, 5. 6 similar activities
R6 work - different model, similar approach - assessment of Region (looking at smaller
area now) Steve Gilrein R6, Jeff Yurk. Gerald Carney - R6 another
OPPT multimedia modeling tool - combined census data
Groundwater model, air and water models, ISC, GEMS available in March
Ongoing Activities
Environmental justice modeling (OCR)
Air Ofc Exposure Model - recommend use
Regions 2, 3, 5, 6, similar activities (TRIM.expo)
OPPTS - Version 2.0 RSEI model development
Risk Assessment Forum; framework doc on cum risk - what we know and don't know
EIMS - ORD
3rd Base - ORD (exposure info)
CHAD - ORD (Comprehensive Human Activity Database)
E-8
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 AM Breakout Group Questions
1. Strengths and limitations
2. Alternative and supplemental approaches
3. a) Readily transferable products
b) Ongoing activities for focus area
E-9
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 Breakout Group: New Hampshire
Focus Area: Development of a Framework/Inventory that comm/EP A can use as a baseline to ID
possible sources of ecological and env. stressors affecting that could result in risk to human
health and env. in a comm.
Create this as an education tool
' - Not tailored for every comm.
Not qualitative
Possibly create a nat'l list of stressors? Interesting but not viable.
Concern about creating the framework before we talk to the comm.
We need to start somewhere have something to use as a starting point.
A starting stressor list '"process" does not exist.
"We" (Baltimore) needed an ed tool to help the dialogue.
Case Study was presented: Based on the need to have (EPA nor the comm have such a tool
NOW) a tool to explain to the comm. a general comprehensive risk BIG picture! (not just EPA
issues)
Are we including ecological risk?
If so. it is difficult to create national averages?
Not nee. valid to compare risks across communities (they need to do this work
themselves!) (e.g. indoor air, ecological/too difficult to compare these across
communities)
This tool helps give info to the comm. to "open their eyes to an overview" (because folks
tend to focus on individual issues)
Collaborative ex. - get folks involved and you need them. Some folks don't want to do this.
Getting them to ask the right questions -* Assessment -> Goal -4 Act
Short Term
Ed Tool -* Detailed List (used w/out EPA when we are not there)
"Problem List" Ex. Problems/Stressors-4Assessment/Project-»Action
Ed tool that explains problem
NC. RMI. Green Comm/Tools/Lynch pin to explain "env" to our communities
E-10
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
The list process takes 3-6 months. It is difficult to get folks to understand that "their" issue is not
on the list (e.g. drinking water).
Problems-^Structure of problems-*Assessment
All problems are represented on this structured list.
There are documents of accumulation of "problems".
Folks want to do something, truly having them do "the problem list" is important.
Exercises "to get folks to understand change." Collaborative change is important; vision.
Focus Area: Final Survey Discussion
Need for the: development of a inventory/framework that a community and EPA can use to
identify (explain through example) env. stressors that could result in risk to human health and the
env.
Create detailed list/inventory/framework that explains problems/stressors * projects in
community -> assessment -faction (good thing)
E-ll
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 Breakout Group: San Pedro
Assessment Approach Strengths:
Provides push-pull atmosphere for sharing data.
Can manipulate data (though this may be uncomfortable for some).
Provides one-stop shopping.
The process is transferable to other areas/applications.
There is a market (other planning agencies).
Assessment Approach Areas to Develop:
EPA has little experience sharing data with the public.
There is a need to train end-users (but this is a big resource issue).
Ecological threshold indicators are hard to define.
There is a need to involve the social sciences in the assessment process (e.g. community
profiling).
There is a need to link to human aspects of assessments.
There is a need fo an EPA market and marketer (OEI?).
There is a question about historic data and its use.
Alternative/Supplemental Approaches
Link to other science disciplines to ensure holistic assessment.
Within ORD, integrate the regional assessment paradigm to do complete assessment.
Better integrate with Agency community assessment offices, Program Offices and
regional applications.
Existing Agency Products or Activities to Assist:
EMIS
Models 3
Geo Initiatives
- OEI
- CBEP Program
E-12
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 Breakout Group: Chester
Focus Area #3:
Clear explanation of the connection relationship between risk information from an assessment
and current incidences of disease in the community.
Strengths
Responsive to community
Management support
ID and recognized actual health problems
Careful to not go beyond what the data told them
Led to increased awareness and responsiveness - change in behavior
Early community input
Limitations
Data
Money
Modeling info didn't match data (modeled mobile and point sources)
We don't look for compounds that are source identifiers (resource prob)
Lack of methodology to link health outcome to stressors
Can't correlate cancer relationship and population data in adults (over time, ex. 40 years)
Looked at existing data only
Health care poor, so pathology not as accurate
Poor reporting
Alternative and Supplemental Approaches
(assuming more than 6 months for total project)
Supplemental: NERL and NHEERL Boise Study: place air monitors throughout
(modeled before), personal monitoring, ID sources - biological activity- by source
(compare blood levels and sources - but don't have baseline data)
Readilv Transferrable Products
Use of health data
Fact sheet - how it can be used
Use of public health schools within universities to get data (knowing who to talk to and
how to ask)
Use or involvement of state government (need to do)
E-13
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Ongoing Activities
What are risk factors for diseases identified
Health orgs' fact sheets on diseases (product is available and was used)
State is still monitoring (mobile van)
E-14
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 PM Breakout Group Questions
1. What is value?
2. What is the audience?
3. Most useful info to include?
4. Best format(s)?
5. How to distribute?
6. Next steps?
E-15
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report _ FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 PM Breakout Group: Matrix
What is the value of this project?
1 . Distills down complex info
2. Helps user figure out how to answer q's - tools, what other has done
3. Links community q's w/ EPA tools
4. Identifies the common elements of community ass't process
5. Provides organized platform to get feedback on the use of different tools
6. If matrix indicated level of effort to answer q - valuable
Users?
iGidcrs m community
T7T» <
1^1 f\
Community inclusive of EPA
Relationship to Decision Tree
Matrix the backbone. Choices in decision tree lead to cells in matrix.
Prevention Prevention Categories
Intervention Intervention Categories
Ass't Risk/Sci Categories
Qi
Q Tools-CS concise* CS expanded
Q2 Tools
*Post updated info on tool as it becomes available. Facility to add case studies. Facility to post
Qs and As.
How should matrix be organized?
Keep it simple - don't overwhelm
Add missing elements: what are you trying to achieve (intended outcome)
OR Add tool's limitations and strengths
Have case studies and tools build/work together (what has been achieved w/tool)
For data - have full meta data record
Q categories * Data -
-» Tools -* Tl
E-16
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
-»T2
-*T3 -» FS't website
-* Trend - BB
-» Case Studies -» Chicago -» Tl
-> Chester -* T2 * BB Q & As, Profile of use. reflections, feedback, reviews
Need process to vet QA/QC peer review
Query user's location and interest in location-specific information
E-17
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 2 PM Breakout Group: Framework
What is the value of the project (reality check)?
How can the framework best be organized to deliver EPA products & coordinate with
products from other sources.
What are the priority areas for development?
General Discussion
Communities need guidance to understand assessment options, limits & feasibility.
The customer needs to be well defined.
Framework design depends on end users.
We need to understand what the people who will be using the tool need to know.
The tool needs sufficient imbedded information to prevent its misuse - it should be
presented/made available in a way that would prevent its abuse.
The current approach may go too far and represent our information as more thorough and
complete than it is - it may just be too complex. A preferable near term strategy may be
to describe what we tools and information we have how they can be used.
Case studies may be desirable as a component of the tools offered in the framework.
The project should begin with the framework before developing components in it.
Is there a person "attached" to provide assistance? That may be essential for most users.
An appropriate audience may be community groups that may not have environmental
focus, but are active change agents.
Information embedded in the framework, but not featured, may enable several skill levels
of user to use the framework productively by virtue of hypertext links to resources.
Resource Suggestions
R-3 Green Communities
Nature Conservancy Center
CBEP Guidebook
Comparative risk guidebook
Profiling Guide
R-l 0 guidance on community risk assessments
"Greenbook" process in S. Dakota communities
Rocky Mnt. Inst. Framework for Env. Analysis
Inst. for Learning Sciences at N.Western University
Summary
We had a lot of good discussion.
There is much potential for this product.
Defining the end users is necessary in order to produce a useful product.
We should begin design with the framework, and break the assessment components up
into modules to improve the project's manageability.
Day 2 PM Breakout Group: Case Studies
E-18
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
1 . Value of
2. Audience
3. Format
4. Objs
Compendium of Existing Studies
High
(a) engaged community members (not
settled)
(b) EPA staff
(c) Other org (gov't, schools, assoc.)
partners
Index by subject, $...
by assess problems
other ways for audience
Intro/summaries of
Lessons learned (get multiple perceptions -
ask community; those involved; ask authors
of studies)
Include fact sheet (see next column)
Vehicle for sharing experiences
Increase efficiency and effectiveness
How to do good case study
High
Same
'F.at-i-ii-.l -i + A r^nt ^x»i 1 1 raT-t
i cmpiate - put on \\sr>
p-. t _1 - t f -,---( H- 1-1,11 finf
1 tiL/l J511CL.I -HJlllidl ~ L_> pt *J1 iliHJ?
linn. tr> r!n
juu v> lu UU
i) idLt siieet - loiniat on suuj
irrfb; min version of case study,
example
2) list of suggested subjects to
cover e.g. lessons learned in
case study
3) process, susaest how to do
Provide guidance to improve
quality'...
Next Steps -
Leaders/champions for overall project
Commitment from the case study leads and others to write studies/summaries...facts
sheets...
Extra S for editing product
Peer review
E-19
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report
FINAL 3/30/00
Case Studies Plenary Report
Compendium of
How to Do Case Studies Guidance
1. Value
Hiah
Hieh
Audience
a. EPA staff
b. Engaged community (still
unsettled)
c. Other organizations and partners
(schools, Agencies, gov't, industry...)
Same
2. Objectives
Vehicle for sharing experiences
Increase efficiency and effectiveness
Provide guidance to improve quality
How to do assessment -4DT
4. Format
Content
Indexed by subjects, e.g.
- assessment problems
- economics
- ex of monitoring/modeling
Fact sheet
- incl. how to use tools
(per audience input
- community
- study authors)
Lessons learned
Fact Sheet plus example (include
items in column at left)
List of suggested subjects to cover
How to (process/suggestions)
5. Next Steps
ID leaders of project
Get commitment from case study
authors to do the work
$ to edit and publish
peer review
E-20
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 3 Summary Points
Session I: Agency Exp and Infra.
Focus Area #1: What can we learn from C-B experiences
Compendium of all we already know (case studies) and use for learning
- Fact sheets and more
- Analyze case studies
Communicate success from community work to "Hill," upper management.
Focus Area #2: How can we promote govn/com. partnerships?
Sustain partnerships after EPA leaves...networks (determine how)
Focus Area #3: How do we promote coordination and communication among Agency staff?
Get support for community based efforts at AA level
E-21
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Day 3 Breakout Points
CA Workshop Products
Should we conceptualize Framework first or work on the pieces simultaneously?
How do (e.g.) SEPS integrate into Framework?
Resources in SF for communities
Interactive message board? Cross-talk
Senior
Boundaries of Framework - scope?
- Health
- Assessment
Concerns/not clear - objective...don't have a connection with what "customer" wants.
- What does it do?
Who is the audience? next first step
Framework is not the starting point. Organizing, other activities happen prior.
Many entry points (EJ - one, others).
Bring more scientific credibility in community activities
Grand - how to do a community project (can't do)
Core question (EJ) -1 perceive a problem...don't how to address (who, steps, nature)
Framework - simple tool. Begin to do this (bullet above) but questions and activities
complicated.
E-22
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Wrap Up
Recommendations/Action Items
3) Agency Infrastructure and Experience
How can we maintain/sustain this effort (possibly a home or focal point)?
- Senior managers convene (panel and O\V and RAC) discuss how we can do this eg
SPC
RAC oversight for CBEP
HQs and Regions
Regional Scientist groups/people
- OEI and OPEI and CBEP key people/groups
- Exchange information - synergy - on good information - need to get "more"
- Connection of GPRA goals (3)
- Who lead? Dorothy
- CC AA & RA
Make a statement for why this is a (higher) priority
What are the science needs, gaps, and priorities?
II. Products
"Group" letter to NPM and Regions - 3 products are important - get "volunteers"
Senior level asking for help
Letter goes to manager that identifies current people ... let them identify others.
1. Office EJ - supportive! others
2. EJ coordinators, CBEP coord., others
3. NEJAC may meeting - other Agency members
Develop mechanism for creating possible "products"
Current 3 products starting point.
Can't discuss/work on 3 products separately OR work on them in parallel
ORD scientists are very loaded with work
"Call" for others who can help.
Is this the most important activities - product useful to communities.
"Step 1" - find the usefulness of these products to communities (using EJ, CBEP. etc.
coord., communitv involvement SDCG, BF, Livability?)
E-23
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Present to communities?
NEJAC have been asked
Develop a work group - get members
OPPT will work on Framework
Key Question - Group to look at end-user and overall design, coord., and objective; the
"way" the products will go - consensus
Develop parameters for activities of 3 products
Timeframe "What would be success?" rather than be endless
Describe how this will fit into their Program.
Steering workgroup: Rabi Kieber, Walter Brodtman. Hank Topper, Bruce Englebert,
Jenny Craig, Jerry Blancato
Focus area activities - future workshop?
E-24
-------
Community Assessment Focus Areas Summary Report FINAL 3/30/00
Appendix F. Draft Community Assessment Matrix
F-l
-------
Community Assessment Workshops
12/07/99
Community Assessment Matrix:
Tools and Data to Address Questions
Ts Thcrv A Threat to Our HraUh or Local Environment?
Question
1 . What are the environmental risks in our homes and
schools?
2. Is our poor health from environmental exposure?
Note: Can only answer specific environmental questions and
assess current situation but can not reconstruct past.
3. Is the air safe on the most polluted days of the year?
4. What is the cumulative exposure to toxics from all
sources?
5. Are the levels safe for children and other populations?
6. Are we at risk from acute exposures, accidents, and
episodic releases?
7. Does the mixture of different pollutants combine together
to adversely impact our health?
8. Is it safe for my children to swim in the local pond?
9. Is it safe to eat the local fish that I catch, especially if they
are the basis for my diet? What fish should I avoid and why?
I low much would be considered safe to eat?
1 0. Is the water from my well safe to drink?
1 1 . Will this new highway adversely affect our environment?
12. Are there areas that we should protect or limit our use?
Stressors
A1US
MM J'sipoMire
Muduj.s'
Fish Advisories
Alternatives for the
Future -Corvalis Jab;
Serifiijvi; |};ibi|;it }fl
Wolff -t-MiS (lap
program; Greenness
Index (land, cover);
«,V)
Exposure
Kt'l tool?
Smart £}rijwih i
-------
Community Assessment Workshops
12/07/99
1 KiHv CM W<> ClxirnwriM the ttisltt lit O«r Ctiutitumity?
Question
. Wluil environmental information is available for my local
community?
2. What arc the potential impacts, includiim increases or
ecreases, oi'local environmental pollutants?
. What is the cumulative impact of environmental
exposure?
<$. »RS,
APE, SDW1S, State/
IOQ) dalu
TttU'CSJWS,
Al'USUWIiiSmitj/
local MA
TK1, PCS, m%,
AVB, SliWlS, State/
}H my.
^tnu-igimey Right to
Know'Miii,-!
9
Exposure
9
Receptor
RtvV 5?crwnifH>,
Euvirou-mcntai
JivJiciuors
(community)
Caps
Utsk Sc( ceiling,
IvnvirornTwntttl
flHlicfiWf*}
(wmmuntly)
(uip1*
Uisli Sereenina
Enwt'oiv-uteittal
IntliciitPTs
(
C«ps
Ri^k Scrwnio^j
E/iviioii-ntciimi
fndtcsttors
(comtituntty)
Gaps
Risk Soccnltig,
linviron'menml
JfKllCdlOlS
(commttm'ly}
Cup*
9
Kffccts
Wt.S,MS|>S
nu&Msos
JK!S,M«1S
mis.Msns
JRKS,MSJ>S
9
Outcome
Ucalih ))<>(« {winwr
rates, owrtality
-------
Community Assessment Workshops
12/07/99
Mow Do Car Risks Compare to Oth«r amnwnUf<$?
Question
1 . Is there an unusually high incidence of
disease?
2. Do we have more than our share of
environmental strcssors?
3. Are there disproportionate impacts within or
compared to the community?
Strcssors
AtHtiriean llklia/t
Endncefint! Society
(Al SU$>- federally-
rwognizcd Tribes
(database under
construction); Nil,
MS. l'CSr AWS,
Cl'KCUS;
Transportation info/*
Chambers of
Commerce resident,1*,
public Jieitlifi tot «ud
hlootl levels, h^ustnff
AtiK'nt'in Indum
NciiiJnctj ;in(f
nilj>,l/lttririjj S'iCiL'ty
{AlKl^Ji) » I'wlflfiitly''
feeogni/cd Tribes
(database under
l
population data
CeiistH dats; school
papifliition datti
Effects
Outcome
000 »
-------
Community Assessment Workshops
12/07/99
I low dm We improve Our Overall. Environmental Quality Mif Life?
Question
'1. How can we get an overall picture to set
priorities?
5. How does the environment impact our
economic situation? Group did not easily
find answers. General tool: Community has
to make the value judgements.
6. What information is available regarding
traffic, noise, dust, bad odors? Gem-nil tool:
See Itallintore case studies.
1. \ low do we track our progress? Need to
establish a hascline.
Strcssors
Comparative Risk Lab
inmiwtt
Population giowth data;
wwm«j clwnRi' over
lime; iUta tmbci.tted.
wjih1nn *
Jictttjlly a nwiwormtt
tout
?
Effects
o
Outcome
)
------- |