CIPA Meeting December 10, 2008

Go to downloads

Cumulative Impacts and Precautionary Approaches Meeting December 10, 2008

Third meeting of the cumulative impacts and precautionary approaches (CIPA) workgroup to discuss what kinds of factors are important to consider when assessing cumulative impacts and what kinds of assessment methods and tools are needed.
 

Agenda

10:00 Welcome and Introduction of Work Group, Project Team, and Board and Department Representatives
Joan Denton, Director, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

10:10 Review of Agenda and Materials and Update on Project
George Alexeeff, OEHHA
Amy D. Kyle, University of California at Berkeley

10:30 Overview of Assessment Elements
Amy D. Kyle, University of California at Berkeley

10:40 Work Group Discussion
Work Group members: What kinds of factors are important to consider when assessing cumulative impacts? What kinds of assessment methods and tools do we need?

11:20 Public Comments

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Perspectives from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council’s Activities on Cumulative Impacts Methods
Shankar Prasad, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (15 m)
Questions and comments from the Work Group and the public (10 m)

1:25 Example of Tools: Screening for Cumulative Impacts by Community
Rachel Morello-Frosch, University of California at Berkeley (20 m)
Work Group: Questions and Comments (10 m)

1:55 Example of Tools: Use of Tool to Assess Inequality
Rachel Morello-Frosch, University of California at Berkeley (15 m)
Work Group: Questions and Comments (10 m)

2:25 Examples of Emerging Metrics
Michael Jerrett, University of California at Berkeley (10 m)
Work Group: Questions and Comments (5 m)

2:40 Work Group Discussion
Work Group members: What other models or examples of assessment tools would be informative to consider? How do you envision that the results of these tools be used?

3:20 Public Comments

3:40 Closing Comments from the Work Group

3:50 Wrap Up & Next Steps
George Alexeeff, Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs, OEHHA

4:00 Adjourn

 

Background Materials for Discussion of Assessment Tools:

Adopted Working Definitions for Cumulative Impacts and Precautionary Approaches

General Environmental Justice Related Provisions of California Law


Note: The following are a set of research papers that are relevant to the topic of development of assessment tools for cumulative impacts. The papers are intended to be generally representative of the state of research regarding assessment tools and methods for cumulative impacts. Some of these papers are highly quantitative and others are not. We are trying to provide an interesting mix of methods and tools.

These next three papers (Items 4-6) discuss the use of cumulative impacts methods for environmental assessments relevant to environmental review under federal law.

Burris RK, Canter LW (1997). Cumulative impacts are not properly addressed in environmental assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17:5-18. [Abstract only]

Burris RK, Canter LW (1997). Facilitating cumulative impact assessment in the EIA process. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 53:11-29. [Abstract only]

Cooper TA, Canter LW (1997). Documentation of cumulative impacts in environmental impact statements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17:385-411. [Abstract only]

The next papers demonstrate approaches to looking at cumulative risks, generally defined more narrowly than is true for the CI/PA project.

Evans GW, Marcynyszyn LA (2004). Environmental justice, cumulative environmental risk, and health among low- and middle-income children in upstate New York. American Journal of Public Health, 94(11):1942-4.

Krieg EJ, Faber DR (2004). Not so black and white: environmental justice and cumulative impacts assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24:667-94. [Abstract only]

Linder SH, Marko D, Sexton K (2008). Cumulative cancer risk from air pollution in Houston: disparities in risk burden and social disadvantage. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(12): 4312-22.

Marshall JD (2008). Environmental inequality: air pollution exposures in California’s South Coast Air Basin. Atmospheric Environment, 42:5499-5503. [Abstract only]

Farhang L, Bhatia R, Scully C, Corburn J, Gaydos M, Malekafzali S (2008). Creating tools for healthy development: case study of San Francisco's Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment.  Journal of Public Health Management & Practice. 14(3):255-265. [Abstract only]

Pratt GC (2000). Cumulative impact [correspondence]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(4):A162.

Benefits assessment has been used primary to estimate the health benefits that relate to the adoption of regulations or management programs. It has been used primarily though not exclusively to assess health benefits of air pollution regulations. The following paper discusses how concepts of inequality could be incorporated into such approaches.

Levy JI, Chemerynski SM, Tuchmann JL (2006). Incorporating concepts of inequality and inequity into health benefits analysis. International Journal for Equity in Health, 5:2.

The following papers discuss issues related to combining multiple attributes or factors.

Munda G (2005). “Measuring sustainability”: a multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7:117-34.

Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2006). Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: an objective measure. Ecological Economics, 59:305-11. [Abstract only]

Lejano RP, Smith CS (2006). Incompatible land uses and the topology of cumulative risk.  Environmental Management, 37(2):230-46.