JATAP Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project A Successful Multi-Jurisdictional Research Partnership

1. JATAPJoint Air Toxics Assessment Project A Successful Multi-Jurisdictional Research Partnership National Congress of American Indians Mid-Year Convention Policy Research Center Tribal Leader/Scholar Forum June 16, 2009 Niagara Falls, NY

2. Presented by: Ondrea Barber Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Margaret Cook Department of Environmental Quality Gila River Indian Community Patricia Mariella American Indian Policy Institute Arizona State University

3. Joint Air Toxics Assessment Project (JATAP) • Collaboration between tribal, state, county and federal governments to: -determine the types, distribution and sources of air toxics in central Arizona (Phoenix area) airshed -understand and reduce the health risks from air toxics in the airshed

4. Air Pollution does not recognize political boundaries. Are air toxics coming onto tribal lands from neighboring urban areas? What air toxics are being emitted from freeways on tribal lands?

5. JATAP is a Complex Project • Multi-jurisdictional Steering Committee for planning and coordination of joint activities; consensus decision-making • Coordination, Logistical and Technical Support: ASU American Indian Policy Institute (ITEP for the first phase) • Funding: EPA Grants; EPA scientist on special detail (Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement/IPA)

6. JATAP Participants • Agencies with Monitoring Sites: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community EPNR Gila River Indian Community DEQ Arizona DEQ • Other participating agencies: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Maricopa County Air Quality Pinal County Air Quality Control District EPA Region 9 and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards City of Phoenix

7. ADEQ Tribal Governments Policyestablished in 1995 ADEQ recognizes the sovereignty of Tribal governments and their jurisdiction over lands within Indian Country as defined by federal law [18 U.S.C.A. §1151]. ADEQ will not assert authority over Indian Country. ADEQ recognizes that the federal government has the primary responsibility for assisting Tribes to regulate and manage the environment within Indian Country. ADEQ supports the strengthening of Tribal capacity for environmental management and regulation. ADEQ support to Tribes will be provided in the interest of the State and will not be used as the basis for assertion of State authority within Indian Country. ADEQ is committed to developing cooperative relationships with Tribes, and will respect the environmental concerns of Tribes. ADEQ requests that Tribes show similar respect for the environmental concerns of the State of Arizona. Without Tribal consent, ADEQ will not solicit and asserts no claim to EPA resources that would otherwise be provided directly to Tribes.

8. Modeling Domain Monitoring Area Pilot Study JATAP Project Area

9. Accomplishments of JATAP2005-2009 • Continuous involvement of multi-jurisdictional agencies (airshed) • High quality micro and neighborhood scale data and analysis (enhances regional and national data) • Significantly improved understanding of distribution and sources of air toxics in Phoenix Area Airshed

10. TRANSITIONS: from Monitoring to Outreach from Data to Policy and Action • Need Outreach Messages; include ‘action plan’ for risk reduction • Modeling and risk assessment (air toxics differ from ‘criteria pollutants’) • Salt River and Gila River conducted micro-scale emissions inventories

11. Geographical and Trend PerspectivesPart of ‘Message’ • What are the national and regional trends for air toxics? (Benzene risks in all urban areas; trend is down) [Studies predict significant reductions in pollution from high traffic roadways from new federal diesel fuel and engine rules]

12. California Case Study:Unintended Consequences • South Coast CA Air Toxics Study (Multiple Air Toxics Study 1999) • Ban on new schools or expansion of schools near freeways • School over-crowding • Do we know how many schools, day care centers, health facilities, other sensitive facilities are near freeways in the Valley?

13. Gila River Indian CommunityJATAP Message for Policy Makers • The Gila River Indian Community’s air quality is good (particularly from a regional perspective) • Data indicates essentially no health risk near monitor of air toxics from industries • There is a low level increase in air toxics (benzene) from vehicles; benzene is distributed though the whole Valley; at Gila River the levels are lower than at Salt River and only slightly higher than at Queen Valley (a remote site)

14. Gila River Indian CommunityJATAP Message for Policy Makers (continued) • The primary health risk from air toxics is an increased risk of cancer (leukemia); urban areas in the U.S. have levels of air toxics that pose some increased cancer risk • Freeways increase near-by air pollution; air pollution declines 60% at 320 feet from the roadway and drops to background levels at 650 feet • JATAP is working in the Community to reduce air toxics, particularly at schools

15. WHAT ACTIONS MITIGATE RISKS FROM AIR TOXICS? Facilities: regulatory/non-regulatory Mobile Sources: (freeways) -roadway design -trees and vegetation -buffer zones (land use planning) -filters in near roadway buildings -targeted reduction in outdoor activities -school bus anti-idling and retrofit

16. Tribal Planning Implications Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Existing Freeways: -adjacent land use commercial Gila River Indian Community Potential Freeways: -costs and benefits

17. Reasons for Success • Multi jurisdictional collaboration with an overarching set of goals with immediate significance • EPA funding available; each jurisdiction had its own grant funding • Coordination through university programs with tribal and state partnerships • Excellent quality data – reassessment by all partners after pilot project; dedicated and highly-trained technical staff committed to collaboration

18. Challenges Common to all Partners • There are no national ambient standards for air toxics; understanding health risks requires risk assessments and modeling • EPA primarily funds monitoring; harder to find funding for risk assessment and almost impossible to find funding for outreach • Technical staff need support in developing effective outreach messages for policy-makers and public

19. THANK YOU! For More Information: Ondrea Barber (480) 850-8000 ondrea.barber@SRPMIC-nsn.gov Margaret Cook (520) 562-2234 Margaret.cook@gric.nsn.us Patricia Mariella, Ph.D. (480) 965-9005 pat.mariella@asu.edu