Comment - 21869 - Kathleen Kilpatrick

Unable to open maps on older iPad, hard to maneuver on Power Mac laptop, also older, could not discern if due to older technology, older user, or program itself. For example, had to zoom in close to see landmarks on maps, and to deal with boxes that seem to pop up randomly, had to use arrows to move around vs tracking pad. Population characteristics: 5 Health: asthma, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, low birth weight. Cancer data is recorded, perhaps not complete, not available by census tract? Demographics: education, housing barriers, “linguistic isolation” (def ambiguous), poverty, unemployment What about age or life expectancy, both/either of which should be available or calculable in census data? e.g. children 5 and under, or school-age and under, could capture presence of populations, including childbearing women, who are at increased increased risk. Presence of elderly, 65/70 and up, also increases risk of vulnerability. Pollution burden: See suggested groupings below, might be easier to understand. Air quality: Ozone, PM2.5, diesel PM, traffic. Water: drinking, ground water, “impaired”(def unclear) Toxics: releases, small toxics, hazardous waste, solid waste, lead, pesticides. PFAs included as drinking water contaminant? Are pesticides containing PFAS all included in OEHHA’s list referenced below? For viewers/users less accustomed to this type of analysis, narrative explanations of defining characteristics for each population and pollution category and source of data would be helpful. Tracking California did this well on their pesticide mapping tool. A prominent key to what the various colors reference would also be helpful. For pesticide use, you reference OEHHA’s list of 124 hazardous and volatile chemicals. Please provide a link to the list. For adjacent tracts included, how close? Pesticides can drift for miles! For example, in the patchwork map of Watsonville where I live, one tract is identified as having zero pesticides. I find it unlikely that any area in Watsonville, or the Pajaro Valley, is free from pesticide drift. Since state agencies have stated their intention and/or are obligated to address cumulative impacts of toxic exposures, the maps would be improved by better ways to visualize and describe those cumulative impacts. Currently, it appears a sophisticated analysis is required to combine them. For example, when climate change indicators are added, such as heat index and wildfire risk, it might be useful to combine those with pesticide use, and to look at the population characteristics as grouped to accurately describe risks to ag workers and communities. Because our relative populations are smaller, rural populations are often under represented when characterizing environmental harms.