How to Calculate Environmental Indicators


A "how-to" manual for other regions wishing to create environmental indicators for their own community

This manual contains detailed instructions on how to replicate for your region the environmental indicators found in the 2003 Silicon Valley Environmental Index. The 2003 Silicon Valley Environmental Index and this manual are available online at www.svep.org.

Last Revised on January 15, 2003

Water Use

(p. 15 of 2003 Index report)

Contact Info: Your local Water District Office

Our Contact: Barbara Judd, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Phone: 408-265-2607, x2269email: BarbJudd@scvwd.dst.ca.us

Methodology/Calculations: Ask for data on the amount of water use in the region under study. Also, ask for the breakdown of how much of the water used is recycled. For our index the data was given to us in Acre-Feet (1 acre-feet = 325,851 US gallons).  

Additional Information: Information about the annual average growth rate in per-capita and total water use from 1991 to 1998 was calculated via linear regression analysis over that time period.

Silicon Valley Population

(p. 17 of 2003 Index report) 

Contact: Your State's Dept. of Finance Office, Demographic Research Unit 

Contact Info: http://www.dof.ca.gov (for California)

Our contact: Mary Heim, CA Dept. of Finance, email: Mary.Heim@dof.ca.gov 

Availability: Data is probably available from the website or contact someone for the data. Our data was available from the web and we used report E-6. If available, we recommend using population numbers that are reflective of the population at the middle of the year (such as July 1). However, we used January 1 numbers for calculating this indicator, rather than July 1 numbers, because July 1 numbers were only available for the county and not for individual cities. (However, we used July 1 population numbers for normalizing other indicators because the other indicators were at the county level. Normalizing means calculating per-capita indicators - i.e., dividing the indicator by the population size to find out impacts per person.) 

Methodology/Calculations: Add the total population for each city included in the area you are analyzing. For example: Silicon Valley is defined by SVEP as all of Santa Clara County; the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City in Alameda County; the cities of Atherton, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo in San Mateo County; and Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz County. The Silicon Valley population in this indicator is calculated by adding the populations of each of these cities as of January 1, per data from CA Dept. of Finance.

County Population by Decade

(p. 17 of 2003 Index report) 

Contacts: Your State's Dept. of Finance Office, Demographic Research Unit

Our contact: Mary Heim, CA Dept. of Finance, email: Mary.Heim@dof.ca.gov

Contact Info: http://www.dof.ca.gov (for California)

Availability: Data is available directly from the Dept. of Finance website. For California you can use the report that specifies population by decade for each county, otherwise use the January 1 numbers to calculate this indicator.  

Methodology/Calculations: Self-explanatory. 

Components of Population Growth

(p. 17 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your State's Dept. of Finance Office, Demographic Research Unit

Contact Info: http://www.dof.ca.gov (for California)

Our contact: Mary Heim, CA Dept. of Finance, email: Mary.Heim@dof.ca.gov 

Availability: Data is available directly from the Dept. of Finance website, we used report E-6. We used July 1 numbers for calculating this indicator, rather than January 1 numbers, because we felt population numbers from the middle of the year (i.e., July 1) are more reflective of the average population for that year. (We also used July 1 population numbers for normalizing other indicators. Normalizing means calculating per-capita indicators - i.e., dividing the indicator by the population size to find out impacts per person.)

Methodology/Calculations: This indicator tracks the sources of demographic change in a County. The two sources of change are:

1. Natural increase - The change in population due to the difference in births and deaths in a year;

2. Net migration - The change in population due to the difference in immigration and emigration to the region under study. 

So the total change in population is the sum of these two sources. The graph breaks down these two components, showing the number of new people each year that are caused by natural increase and the number caused by net migration. If the net migration number is negative in a given year (i.e., more people moved out of the region that year than in), then the "net migration" number appears as a negative number that year. See the graph on page 17 of the 2003 Index report for a sample.

It is interesting to note that 89 percent of Santa Clara County's population growth since 1980 (up through 2000/01) has been due to new births rather than an inflow of new residents into the County. We track the components of change so we can determine whether the primary cause of the population growth is more babies or more new residents. From a global environmental perspective, it is environmentally desirable to have "zero population growth" so that the number of new babies equals the number of deaths, on average, in a given year. The data shows that Santa Clara County has not reached zero population growth.

Additional Comments: Natural increase refers to the excess of births over deaths.

Population - (Used for normalizing indicators)

(Not used as an indicator.)

Contacts: Your State's Dept. of Finance Office, Demographic Research Unit

Contact Info: http://www.dof.ca.gov (for California)

Our contact: Mary Heim, CA Dept. of Finance, email: Mary.Heim@dof.ca.gov

Availability: Data is available directly from the Dept. of Finance website, report E-2. We used July 1 numbers for calculating this indicator, rather than January 1 numbers, because we felt population numbers from the middle of the year (i.e., July 1) are more reflective of the average population for that year.

Methodology/Calculations: These July 1 population numbers are used for normalizing other indicators. Normalizing means calculating per-capita indicators - i.e., dividing the indicator by the population size to find out impacts per person... For example, if you have total water use for Santa Clara County and want to find out water use per-capita, you would divide total water use by the July 1 population number for Santa Clara County for that year. We normalize a lot of countywide indicators in our reports. We use the July 1 numbers because those represent the population at the middle of the year, and are thus a better "average" for the year rather than the January 1 numbers.

Fertility Rate

(Not graphed as an indicator, but appears in the last paragraph of the text on p. 17 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your State's Dept. of Health Services Office. For Califronia: CA Dept. of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Office of Health Information and Research, Sacramento

Contact Info:

Our Contact: Robin Jones or Jan Christensen, CA Dept. of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Office of Health Information and Research, Sacramento, phone: 916-445-6355, fax: 916-324-5599

Availability: You are looking for Age-Specific Birth Rates for your region by year. An age-specific live birth rate is the number of live births per 1,000 women in a specific age group.

Methodology/Calculations: The total fertility rate is the average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime. It is calculated as follows:

Step 1. Obtain age-specific birth rates in your region by year for women ages 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40-44. Exclude births to women under age 15 and 45 and over from the calculation, as these are "outliers".

Step 2. Add together the age-specific birth rates for that year.

Step 3. Multiply the sum by the number of years in each age group. (In our data set, the number of years in each age group is 5, so multiply the sum by 5.)

Step 4. Divide by 1,000.

The resulting number is the total fertility rate in the region for that year. The number represents the average number of children that each woman would bear in her lifetime if she bore children at the rate implied by the age-specific birth rates for a specific period.

To stabilize the population (i.e., achieve "zero population growth"), the average family size must remain about 2.1 for several years. Anything higher than this will lead to population growth over time, and anything less will lead to decline.

Land Use

(p. 13 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your State's Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Contact Info: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp (for California)

Our Contact: Greg Poseley, Manager, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, phone: 916-324-2761, gposeley@conserv.ca.gov.

Molly Penberth is Greg Poseley's back-up and associate, 916-324-0863, mpenber@consrv.ca.gov.

CA Dept of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 801 K Street, MS 13-71, Sacramento, CA 95814-3528.

General info: phone: 916-324-0859, 324-0850; fax: 916-327-3430.

Contacts for the map showing Protected Open Space Lands in the San Francisco Bay Area: Lynn Frederico, lynn@greeninfo.org, (415) 979-0343 x306 or Rachel Santos, rsantos@openspaceauthority.org, (408) 224-7476 ext. 18.

Availability: Check to see if the data for the indicator is available on the CA Dept of Conservation website, www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp. In 2001 the data was available at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/pubs/convrsn/9800excel/9800excel_data.htm. Otherwise, contact the department to ask for the data.

Methodology/Calculations: Obtain the Land Use Conversion Tables for the region under study. Calculate the number of acres in the following 4 categories:

Land Suitable for Grazing

Urban Land

Agricultural Land (non-grazing)

Other Land, including open space restricted from agriculture and grazing

The data is found in the column titled "total acreage inventoried". Land Suitable for Grazing is called "Grazing Land" on the report. Urban Land is called "Urban and Built-Up Land". Agricultural Land (non-grazing) is called "Important Farmland Subtotal". And Other Land, including open space restricted from agriculture and grazing is called "Other Land". Do not include the Water Area. Once you have the acreage in these 4 categories, translate them from acres to percentages (total percentages should equal 100 percent) in each category, and voila! You have your indicator.

You also want to calculate how efficiently the region is using urban land (appears in the second-to-last paragraph on p. 13 of 2003 Index report). To calculate this, divide the acres of urban land for the most recent year that data is available by the county population for that year (using July 1 numbers). For example, for 1998, divide 1,701,400 people in the county by 179,481 acres of urban land = 9.48 people per acre in 1998. We compare this number to 1984 (8.06 people per acre) to see if the region is using its urban land more efficiently over time. (As a sidenote: this method of calculation isn't entirely accurate, since some people live on agricultural land, but it should be a good rough indicator of efficiency of land use.)

Additional Information: Land use definitions are from the California Department of Conservation. Urban and Built-Up Land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and other development purposes. Highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities are included as Urban and Built-Up Land if they are part of a surrounding urban area.

Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock. Agricultural Land includes prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance, as defined by the Department of Conservation. Other Land consists of government lands not available for agricultural use; brush, timber, wetlands, and other lands not suitable for livestock grazing; vacant and nonagricultural land larger than 40 acres in size and surrounded on all sides by urban development; rural development which has a building density of less than one structure per 1.5 acres, but with at least one structure per 10 acres; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities of 10 or more acres unless accounted for by the County's Farmland of Local Importance definition; strip mines, borrow pits, gravel pits, ranch headquarters, or water bodies larger than 10 acres; and a variety of other rural land uses. Protected open space not used for agriculture and restricted from grazing is generally included in Other Land. Water areas 40 acres or larger were excluded from the graph and analysis. Water areas in 1998 were 8,457 acres, or about one percent of Santa Clara County. Impervious surfaces refers to land which has been paved over or which otherwise does not allow water to seep through the earth.

Energy Use (includes electricity, natural gas, and gasoline)

(p. 12 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your State's Energy Commission and Department of Transportation.

Contact Info:

Our contacts: Andrea Gough, California Energy Commission, email: Agough@energy.state.ca.us

Denise Jackson, California Dept. of Transportation, email: Denise_M_Jackson@dot.ca.gov

The source of information on gasoline sales is Denise Jackson, Caltrans, 916-654-6925, and the data is from the Board of Equalization.

Availability: Data came from the CA Energy Commission and CA Dept. of Transportation. The indicator includes energy used for electricity and natural gas as well as gasoline used for transportation.

Methodology/Calculations:

The contact at the Energy Commission should be able to supply figures for figures on electricity and natural gas use for the region under study. Also, ask for all historical electricity and natural gas data available. Then, contact someone at the Department of Transportation to get figures on gasoline use for your region, including all historical data available.

Once you have the data, you can calculate per-capita energy use per year by dividing total energy use (in Million BTUs) by the region's population for that year (using July 1 population estimates).

Additional Information:

Quads of energy use were calculated using conversion factors of 125,071.4 BTU per gallon of gasoline, 100,000 BTU per therm of natural gas, and 3,413 BTU per kWh of electricity.

Estimated Carbon Emissions

(p. 20 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your State's Energy Commission Department and Department of Transportation..

Contact Info: Our contacts: Andrea Gough, California Energy Commission, email: Agough@energy.state.ca.us

Denise Jackson, California Dept. of Transportation, email: Denise_M_Jackson@dot.ca.gov, 916-654-6925.

Availability: Data and conversion factors come from the CA Energy Commission, CA Dept. of Transportation, and U.S. Dept. of Energy. The indicator is broken out into carbon emissions from gasoline, electricity, and natural gas.

Methodology/Calculations:

First, compile the data for the energy use indicator described above under "Energy Use." Remember, our definition of energy use includes electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. Next, you multiply the total energy use from each source (electricity, natural gas, and gasoline) by a conversion factor to arrive at estimated carbon emissions from each source. Natural gas has 3.174 lbs Carbon/therm and Gasoline has 5.30 lbs Carbon/gallon. Calculating the carbon emissions for electricity usage is more complicated. You need to consider the electric generation portfolio of the serving electric utility (or the state or country, depending on your desired level of accuracy and geographical focus - to be more accurate the two should coincide). Then use the weighted average of carbon emissions which is determined by the ratio of electricity generated by coal, oil, natural gas and non-fossil fuels (i.e, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.).

Once you have the data, you can calculate per-capita carbon emissions per year by dividing total carbon emissions (in pounds) by the population for that year (using July 1 population estimates).

We also calculate which of the three carbon sources (gasoline, electricity, and natural gas) generates the largest percentage of total carbon emissions in our region, and which source(s) are driving the increase or change in carbon emissions over time. We cite this information in our explanatory text corresponding to the indicator, on pages 20 and 21 of the 2003 Index report.

Additional Information: The carbon emissions indicator reflects almost all of the carbon emissions in Santa Clara County except emissions from aviation, diesel sources, self-generated industrial sources, and sources not derived from fossil fuels.

Tons of Solid Waste Disposed

(p. 16 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your County's Integrated Waste Management Program

Contact Info:

Our Contact: Margaret Rands, Manager, Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Program, phone: 408-441-1198, fax: 408-441-0365, email: Margaret.Rands@pln.CO.Santa-Clara.CA.US

Clifton Chew, Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Program, phone: 408-441-1198 x4407, fax: 408-441-0365, Email: clifton.chew@pln.co.santa-clara.ca.us, 1735 N. 1st Street, Suite 275, San Jose, CA 95112,

Availability: Data is generally available as of May 15 of each year, when final numbers are reported to the state.

Methodology/Calculations: Obtain the total tons of solid waste disposed by the County jurisdictions. Note that we want to include all tons disposed, whether they were disposed at landfills inside or outside the County. Calculate tons disposed per-capita by dividing total tons disposed by County jurisdictions by County population for that year (using July 1 estimates).

Also be sure to request the region diversion rate for the latest year that disposal data is available. The diversion rate is not graphed, but is referred to in the text. (The 2000 Countywide diversion rate was 53-58 percent.) "Diversion rate" means the percentage of waste that was kept out of the landfill due to waste prevention, reuse, recycling, composting, or other means.

Percent of Monitored Days that Air Quality Exceeded State Ozone and PM10 (24-hour) Standards

(p. 18 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: For our indicator report: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Contact your local Air Quality Management District.

Contact Info:

Our Contacts: Dick Duker (formerly Avi Okin) and Mike Basso, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. For the 2003 Index report, Mike Basso reviewed the write-up and offered comments.

Avi Okin, phone: 415-749-4616, fax: 415-749-5101, email: aokin@baaqmd.gov (note: as of 1/14/03 Avi Okin had retired, and Dick Duker was the replacement)

Dick Duker - dduker@baaqmd.gov 415-749-4655. (note: When SVEP called Dick Duker on 11/18/02 to ask him to review our analysis and write-up, he asked us to fax the write-up to his boss, Mark Stoelting, fax 415-749-5082.)

Mike Basso, Senior Air Quality Meteorologist, phone: 415-749-4613, fax: 415-749-5101, email: mbasso@baaqmd.gov

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis St., San Francisco, CA 94109,

BAAQMD general number 415-771-6000.

Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqd.htm or http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam.

Availability: Data is generally available in Feb/March. Data requests must go through Avi Okin. Or SVEP has been told that data requests now are submitted via fax.  To request the data, log onto http://www.baaqmd.gov/records/pra.htm and download PRARFORM.PDF.  Print and fill out the top of the first page and the bottom of the second page (Request for other record: Other).  Be sure to mention which air monitoring station(s) you want, the format, periods of record, and the District person you are dealing with as the point of contact.  Also specify method of delivery (email, ftp, normal mail). FAX the form to the number at the top of the first page.

Methodology/Calculations: This indicator measures the percentage of monitored days in exceedance of state ozone (1-hr) and PM 10 (24-hr) standards in Silicon Valley. (PM 10 stands for particulate matter 10 microns or less in size.) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) measures ozone levels each day and PM 10 levels once every six days at monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area. SVEP gathers data from the BAAQMD monitoring stations that are in the defined area we are examining.

Ozone:

The graph depicting ozone exceedances reflects the percent of monitored days that at least one of these stations exceeds the state standard. The federal ozone standard, at 120 parts per billion, is set to protect the health of the average person, while the stricter California state ozone standard, 90 parts per billion (1-hour avg), protects the health of persons with respiratory difficulties. We track exceedances of the California state ozone standard, which is 90 ppb.

To calculate the ozone exceedances, first get a list of ozone exceedances (of the state standard) per year for each of the monitoring stations, listed above. Usually the list will cite the monitoring station, the date of the exceedance, and the maximum ozone reading (in ppb) on that day. Then count the number of days of exceedance during the year. It is very important to be sure not to double count the number of days in exceedance. Often, different monitoring stations will be in exceedance on the same day. For example, if the Gilroy station and the Fremont station were both in exceedance on July 7, that would count as ONE day of exceedance, not two. Finally, divide the total number of days in exceedance by 365 days per year to arrive at the percent of monitored days in exceedance.

PM 10:

The graph depicting PM10 exceedances reflects the percent of monitored days that at least one of the stations exceeds the state standard. PM10 is measured for 24 hour periods once every 6 days. Exceedances of PM10 are measured against the state 24-hour PM10 standard. The California state PM 10 standard is 50 micrograms per cubic meter, while the federal PM 10 standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter.

To calculate PM 10 exceedances, first get a list of PM 10 measurements for each day at each monitoring station. Then go down the list and circle each day when the PM 10 reading exceeds the state standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter. Keep track of which days are in exceedance, and again, it is very important to be sure not to double count the number of days in exceedance. For example, if both the Fremont and Redwood City stations are in exceedance on the same day, that counts as ONE exceedance, not 2. Tally the total number of days in exceedance, then divide that by 61. 61 is the total number of days per year that PM 10 is monitored in the Bay Area (i.e., once every 6 days, or 365 days divided by 6).

Daily Exceedance Over State Ozone Standards During Latest Year

(Lower graph on p. 17 of 1999 Index report. This graph was omitted from our 2003 Index report.)

Contacts: For our indicator report: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Contact your local Air Quality Management District.

Contact Info: Our Contact: Avi Okin, phone: 415-749-4616, fax: 415-749-5101, email: aokin@baaqmd.gov (now retired, Dick Duker is the replacement, see above.)

Mike Basso, phone: 415-749-4613, fax: 415-749-5101, email: mbasso@baaqmd.gov

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis St., San Francisco, CA 94109

Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqd.htm or http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam.

Availability: Data requests now are submitted via fax.  To request the data, log onto http://www.baaqmd.gov/records/pra.htm and download PRARFORM.PDF.  Print and fill out the top of the first page and the bottom of the second page (Request for other record: Other).  Be sure to mention what station(s) you want, the format, periods of record, and the District person you are dealing with as the point of contact.  Also specify method of delivery (email, ftp, normal mail). FAX the form to the number at the top of the first page.

Methodology/Calculations: Once you know the percent of monitored days that air quality exceeded state ozone standards, your next question might be, "By how much did we exceed the standards?" This indicator answers that question.

This indicator measures the daily exceedance over state ozone standards for a given year. SVEP measured the data for the most recent year for which data was available. The x-axis lists every day of the year while the y-axis indicates the percentage of the exceedance on that day. If air quality did not exceed the state standard on that day, the percentage is zero for that day.

For example, to create this indicator for 1998, you obtain data listing the maximum exceedance level for every day of exceedance at every Silicon Valley monitoring station. The Silicon Valley monitoring stations are Fremont, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Jose 4th St., San Jose East, and San Martin. Then you calculate the percentage by which the reading exceeds the state ozone standard, which is 90 parts per billion (1-hour avg). For example, if the ozone reading was 100 ppb at a particular station, the percentage exceedance would be (100-90)/90 = 11%. If multiple Silicon Valley stations are in exceedance on the same day, take the average of all the Silicon Valley exceedances on that day.

Additional Information: In the 1999 Index, SVEP calculated the average exceedance for the year as 16 percent. We arrived at this number by (let's call this "Method 1") first calculating the percent exceedance for each day. If a station had multiple exceedances that day, we took the AVERAGE for that day and entered that number in the spreadsheet by that date. Then we calculated the yearly average of the exceedances on the spreadsheet. If a particular date had multiple exceedances, we only included one number in calculating the average (i.e., the average of the exceedances on that date).

An alternate method to calculate the average percentage exceedance for the year (let's call this "Method 2") would be to simply take the average of ALL EXCEEDANCES that occurred that year, including all exceedances that occurred on the same date. I wonder if this method might be more accurate? The other method might tend to understate the average exceedance.

Still a third method ("Method 3") would be to identify the HIGHEST exceedance for each day, and average those.

Hypothetical Illustration (data is fictitious):

Date		# of Exceedances	Exceedance Readings
July 7			1		100 ppb
August 8		3		92 ppb, 125 ppb, 134 ppb
August 30		2		95 ppb, 111 ppb
September 9		1		98 ppb

Method #1		Avg. Exceedance for each date
July 7			100 ppb
August 8		117 ppb
August 30		103 ppb
September 9		98 ppb
Average =	104.5 ppb = 16% avg exceedance for the year

Method #2		Exceedance Readings
July 7			100 ppb
August 8		92 ppb, 125 ppb, 134 ppb
August 30		95 ppb, 111 ppb
September 9		98 ppb
	Average =	107.9 ppb = 20% avg exceedance for the year

Method #3		Highest Exceedance for each date
July 7			100 ppb
August 8		134 ppb
August 30		111 ppb
September 9		98 ppb
	Average =	110.8 ppb = 23% avg exceedance for the year

Note SVEP used Method #1 in the 1999 Index. This is another question for a technical expert. Remember, we are trying to get a sense of the magnitude of the exceedances over the Silicon Valley region for each day, and for the year as a whole. The thinking is that a small magnitude of exceedance wouldn't be as alarming as, say, a very large magnitude.

Commute Modes in Santa Clara County

(p. 19 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: RIDES for Bay Area Commuters

Contact Info: Our Contact: Kurt Overmeyer - phone: 510-273-2061, fax: 510-622-0201, email: kovermeyer@rides.org, general email: commute@rides.org.

RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, 1-800-755-POOL, www.rides.org

Availability: Data is available at RIDES website at http://www.rides.org/plan.sclara.html

Methodology/Calculations: This indicator provides a breakdown of the different commute modes in Santa Clara County into the following categories: drive alone, carpool, transit, and other. Obtain the data from RIDES and prepare a bar chart showing the percentage using each commute option for a given year. Total of all commute options for each year should equal 100 percent.

Additional Information: Commute data shown on the graph is generated by RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., via random telephone surveys. Survey results are statistically valid at the 95 percent level, with a confidence interval of +/- 5 percent. This means that 95 times out of 100 the characteristics of the sample would reflect the characteristics of the population, within +/-5 percent.

Vehicle Miles of Travel per Year

(p. 19 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your State's Department of Transportation, Transportation System Information Program

Contact Info: Our Contacts: Joe Avis and Ioana Pana, CalTrans, Transportation System Information Program (used to be Denise Jackson but she changed positions as of 11/12/02 and is no longer responsible for reporting mileage.) Ioana Pana is now responsible for the publication of the Assembly of Statistical Reports and Travel and Related Factors that list mileage data. Alternate contacts: Brian Domsic, Branch Chief of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), and if he can't help, contact External Affairs / Public Info.

Contact Info:

Brian Domsic, Branch Chief of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Caltrans, 916-653-3272, Brian_J_Domsic@dot.ca.gov

External Affairs / Public Information, Caltrans - 916-654-5782

Caltrans Library, Library Staff phone number is 916-654-4601, FAX 916-653-4560, e-mail library@dot.ca.gov

Joe Avis, Caltrans - phone: 916-654-3072, Joe_Avis@dot.ca.gov. On 11/21/02 Joe told SVEP that he does not calculate the final VMT figures by county. His office's input is the Annnual Average Daily Traffic Count that is used in the calculation. Transportation System Information Program (TSI) calculates the VMT.

Ioana Pana, Caltrans - Ioana_Pana@dot.ca.gov

(Denise Jackson was at phone: 916-440-0551, email: Denise_M_Jackson@dot.ca.gov)

Ioana will provide the data, and Joe Avis may be able to help analyze trends. Alternate contact: Brian Domsic.

Caltrans (headquarters), P.O. Box 942873, Sacramento, CA 95814, 916-654-5266.

Caltrans (District 4), P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660, 510-286-4444.

(Caltrans stands for the CA Dept. of Transportation)

Availability:

Note that the information we need is now posted on the web at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/docs.htm, so you don't even need to contact Joe Avis or Ioana Pana. Look for the yearly report titled "Maintained Mileage & Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Estimates by Jurisdiction".

This link should get you the daily vehicle miles traveled in 1999 for each jurisdiction.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/TSIPPDF/TABLE%202_1_6_99%20.pdf

This link should get you the daily vehicle miles traveled in 2000 for each jurisdiction.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/TSIPPDF/TABLE%202_1_6_00.pdf

The table with the daily vehicle miles traveled for 2001 should be on this web page by the end of 2002.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/docs.htm

Methodology/Calculations: This indicator tracks total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on maintained roads. For the 2003 Index we used the "Assembly of Statistical Reports." In the report, turn to the Maintained Mileage & Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel estimated by Jurisdiction table to get the city data. The source of the data is Caltrans, Traffic Operations Progam. In the 2003 Index the data source was changed from highway miles (gathered from a report titled "Travel and Related Factors in California") to a maintained miles, which includes all road that are publicly maintained, data found in "Assembly of Statistical Reports." SVEP made this change in order to break down the data at the city level and to include more mileage.

In the text of the write-up, SVEP breaks down total VMT into increases caused by population growth versus increases caused by increases in VMT per person. For example, in the 1999 Index, at the bottom of page 18, we calculated the increase in total VMT from 1979 to 1997. Then we said "About one-third of this increase is due to increases in the County's population, while the remaining two-thirds is caused by increases in vehicle miles traveled per person." To calculate this figure, simply figure out the VMT per person for 1980. Then multiply that figure by the population for the latest year for which VMT is available. The result is what total County VMT would be if VMT per person stayed the same as in 1980. Take that result and subtract total VMT in 1980, and this is the amount of the increase that is due to population growth. The rest is the increase due to an increase in VMT traveled per person since 1980.

Example:

So...


Santa Clara Basin Overall Watershed Health

Indicators Tracking Watershed Condition

Indicators Tracking Watershed Vulnerability

(Graphs on p. 22 of 1999 Index report. This indicator was omitted for the 2003 Index report.)

Contacts: Charles Spooner, U.S. EPA, Index of Watershed Indicators (EPA IWI provides the data for the indicator, which should be on their website at http://www.epa.gov/iwi/. Charles reviewed our write-up for the 1999 Index.)

Contact Info: http://www.epa.gov/iwi/.

Availability: The data for this indicator should be available at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Index of Watershed Indicators website. For background info, you might want to look at the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative website at http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/esd/WMI.htm.

For watershed health bioindicators, see http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators.

Methodology/Calculations: Had this indicator been included in the 2003 Index, it would have depicted that the overall watershed health for Santa Clara Basin was a "five" on a scale of "one" (best) to "six" (worst). This overall score, calculated by EPA, describes the watershed's overall aquatic health. A score of five means the watershed is in serious condition.

EPA comes up with the overall score by looking at 14 individual indicators that track the watershed's existing condition and vulnerability to future degradation. The two graphs on the bottom half of page 22 of the 1999 Index show the individual scores for each of the 14 indicators. The scores are on a three-point scale: better, less serious, and more serious. The EPA's website contains detailed information about each indicator and why each indicator scored what it did.

Additional Information: In the 1999 Index, data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to create this indicator relied on national data sets. As such, it did not include more localized data from states or local sources that could improve the analysis.

Percent of Drinking Water Analyses in Compliance with Drinking Water Standards

(and) Estimated Population Served by Santa Clara County Community Water Systems in Violation

(The first graph appears on p. 22 of the 2003 Index report. The second graph was omitted from the 2003 Index report but appears on p. 23 of 1999 Index report.)

Contacts: The data for the percent of drinking water analyses in compliance with drinking water standards comes from the California Department of Health Services. The data for the estimated population served by Santa Clara County Community Water Systems in Violation is from the Safe Drinking Water Information System, Center for Environmental Information and Statistics, U.S. EPA.

Our Contacts: Anthony Meeks, CA Department of Health Services, phone: 916-445-9083. Anthony got us the database and David Storm helped analyze the data. Dr. Steve Book, Chief of the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit at DHS Drinking Water, reviewed the write-up.

We also ran the write-up and graph by Cris Tulloch and Frances Brewster at the Santa Clara Valley Water District for their review before publishing the report.

Contact Info:

Anthony Meeks, CA Department of Health Services, phone: 916-445-9083

David Storm, Retired CA Department of Health Services, dlstorm@worldnet.att.net

Dr. Steve Book, Chief of the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, at DHS Drinking Water, sbook@dhs.ca.gov

Steven Book, Ph.D.
Drinking Water Program, California Department of Health Services
601 North 7th Street, MS 92, P.O. Box 942732, Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
phone (916) 322-1553; fax (916) 323-1382; email: sbook@dhs.ca.gov http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/

John Berg, California Department of Health Services, phone: 510-540-2159, fax: 510-540-2152. I called the Dept. on 11/18/02 and John Berg no longer works in that division. His voicemail refers the caller to Clifford Bowen at 510-540-2173.

Cris Tulloch, Santa Clara Valley Water District, phone: 408-265-2600 x2636, fax: 408-266-0271, email: CTulloch@valleywater.org, ChrisTul@scvwd.dst.ca.us, www.scvwd.dst.ca.us and go to water quality page.

Frances W Brewster, Senior Water Quality Specialist, Water Quality Unit, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686, ph (408) 265-2607, extension 2723, fax (408) 978-0156, email FBrewster@ValleyWater.org.

The data for the indicator "Percent of Drinking Water Analyses in Compliance with Drinking Water Standards" comes from the California Department of Health Services, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704, 510-540-3423, http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/ps/ddwem/index.htm. (However, I believe we used data from the Monterey Branch in our 1999 Index report.)

The data for the indicator "Estimated Population Served by Santa Clara County Community Water Systems in Violation" comes from Environmental Profile for Santa Clara County, California, from the Center for Environmental Information and Statistics website, http://tree2.epa.gov/ceis/ceis.nsf/$$All/0606085DW, which depicts data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Information System.

Methodology/Calculations: To calculate the indicator "Percent of Drinking Water Analyses in Compliance with Drinking Water Standards," obtain the total number of drinking water analyses conducted by water utilities serving Santa Clara County for a given year. Then obtain the number of exceedances of drinking water standards (MCLs, or Maximum Contaminant Levels). Subtract the number of exceedances from the total number of analyses to arrive at the number of analyses in compliance with drinking water standards. Divide this number by the total number of analyses to get the percentage of drinking water analyses in compliance with drinking water standards.

The analyses should include testing for the following constituents: inorganics, nitrates/nitrites, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and synthetic organic compounds (SOCs). The 1999 and 2003 Index did not include bacteriological tests because the data was not yet available in electronic form. If the data from bacteriological tests is available electronically when you update the indicator, then you should re-run all of the numbers from 1994 to the present including the bacteriological data. Be sure to indicate if bacteriological data is included or not.

In addition to calculating the percentage of drinking water analyses exceeding MCLs, SVEP also analyzed the percentage of VOCs and SOCs exceeding the California Department of Health Service's "trigger level", which is typically the detection limit for VOCs and SOCs. During 1994 to 1998, fewer than one percent of samples exceeded the trigger, ranging from 0.49 percent to 0.73 percent. SVEP did not include this information in the 1999 Index report, except in the Appendix.

Additional Information: Constituents included in the graph (showing percent of drinking water analyses in compliance with drinking water standards) are inorganics, nitrates/nitrites, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and synthetic organic compounds (SOCs). Constituents not included in the graph are radioactivitiy, bacteriological indicator organisms, and general minerals and physical characteristics.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), drinking water standards, are limits of contaminants that are allowed in drinking water. They are developed based on toxicological risk calculations to ensure that the contaminant's presence in drinking water does not pose any short-term or long-term health effects. MCLs have been established for most, though not all, of the contaminants found in the South Bay. Such standards are typically based on lifetime exposure for an adult. However, some MCLs may not be as protective of sensitive populations such as children and those with immune system disorders. Also, these standards are set for contaminants on an individual basis, and do not address any potential synergistic effects between mixtures of chemicals that may exist.

In addition to calculating the percentage of drinking water analyses not meeting MCLs, we also analyzed the percentage of VOCs and SOCs exceeding the California Department of Health Service's "trigger level", which is typically the detection limit for VOCs and SOCs. Fewer than 1percent of samples exceeded the trigger, ranging from 0.25percent to 0.61percent during 1994 through 2001.

Some north Santa Clara County communities receive disinfected, but unfiltered Hetch Hetchy water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

With respect to the bottom graph on page 23 of the 1999 Index report showing population served by Community Water Systems in violation in Santa Clara County, a Community Water System (CWS) is a public water system that supplies water to the same population year-round (e.g., homes or apartments in residential communities, towns, or cities). A public water system is defined as a drinking water system which provides water for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 people each day at least 60 days per year. Note that CWSs often provide drinking water to consumers in multiple counties. Therefore, the population served by CWSs in Santa Clara County does not necessarily correspond with the population residing in Santa Clara County. Also note that the figures do not represent the level of exposure to or risk from a specific drinking water contaminant. Drinking water contaminants can result in a variety of health effects, depending on the amount of the contaminant(s) ingested, the duration of ingestion, the contaminant's toxicity, and the age and general health of the person(s) exposed. Further, note that the data describes drinking water as it leaves the treatment facility (and the level of lead at some home faucets). It does not precisely contain information about the quality of drinking water at each individual tap.

Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks Undergoing Investigation, Monitoring, &/or Clean-up in Santa Clara County and Scotts Valley

and

Hazardous Chemical Leaks Undergoing Clean-up in Silicon Valley

(p. 23 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts:

These people provide data for Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUSTs) Undergoing Investigation, Monitoring, &/or Clean-up in Santa Clara County and Scotts Valley. They also provide data from the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Clean-Ups (SLIC) database:

Data for Fuel Leak Sites Detecting MTBE:

Contact Info: Our Contact information:

Randy Lee , San Francisco State Water Resources Control Board (also called SF Regional Water Quality Control Board), phone: (510) 622-2375, fax: 510-622-2460, email: Rl@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov

Jay Cano, Supervisor, Central Coast RWQCB, 805-549-3699.

Bob Hurford, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), bhurford@rb3.swrcb.ca.gov, phone: 805-542-4776 , fax: 805-788-3537. State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, 81 Higuera St., Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427.

Cris Tulloch, Santa Clara Valley Water District, phone: 408-265-2600 (or 265-2607?) x2636, fax: 408-266-0271 and 408-267-5057, email: CTulloch@valleywater.org, ChrisTul@scvwd.dst.ca.us, www.scvwd.dst.ca.us and go to water quality page.

Availability: You might want to check if the LUST information from the SF and Central Coast RWQCBs is available on the web at www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb2/, looking under Region 2 and 3, and public info lustis. You also might want to check if you can find the MTBE data on the web http://www.scvwd.dst.ca.us

Methodology/Calculations: Note that this indicator is tricky to calculate and quite involved. Your local agency might collect and store data differently, which might affect how you would calculate this indicator, so be sure to ask your contact how they would suggest calculating the indicator.

Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks part of the indicator

Data about Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks in Santa Clara County and Scotts Valley is handled by two agencies: the San Francisco RWQCB and the Central Coast RWQCB. For some cases, San Francisco is the lead agency, for other cases, the Central Coast is the lead agency. So you have to obtain data from both agencies, pull out the cases in Santa Clara County and Scotts Valley, and add them together. Note that the acronym used for Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks is LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks).

To get LUST data from the San Francisco RWQCB:

Contact the SF RWQCB and ask for the LUSTIS Monthly Case Reports for each month of each year you are analyzing. Look at the data for LOP Agencies. Specifically, we were interested in data for the SCVWD - 43099 agency. You need to calculate two numbers: the SF RWQCB cases closed during each calendar year and the SF RWQCB cases still open as of 12/31 of that particular year.

To calculate the SF RWQCB cases closed during each calendar year, look at the monthly case reports for January through November. For each month, you will see a number in the column "Closed since last rpt." by agency SCVWD - 43099. Add those numbers for the months January through November for each calendar year, and input that number on the spreadsheet "LUST open cases.xls" in the column "SF RWQCB Cases Closed During the Year".

To calculate the SF RWQCB cases still open as of 12/31 of that particular year, look at the December 31 LUSTIS Monthly Case Reports. Again, look at the row that corresponds to SCVWD - 43099. You will see four columns: "Local Cases", "Local Closed", "RWQCB Cases", and "RWQCB Closed". First, subtract "Local Closed" from "Local Cases". This represents the total number of local open cases as of 12/31 of that year. Then subtract "RWQB Closed" from "RWQB Cases". This represents the total number of RWQCB open cases as of 12/31 of that year. Add these two numbers together and input that number on spreadsheet "LUST open cases.xls" under the column "SF RWQCB Cases Still Open as of 12/31".

To get LUST data from the Central Coast RWQCB:

Contact the Central Coast RWQCB and ask for the following information for Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks in Santa Clara County and Scotts Valley that the Central Coast RWQCB handles instead of the San Francisco RWQCB.

a. Case #

b. Report date

c. City

d. Date discovered / "open"

e. Status

f. Date closed (also called "Date9")

Remember to get ALL HISTORICAL data, not just recent cases.

You need to calculate the number of LUST cases that were "open" at some point during each calendar year to the present. To do that, look at the date the leak was discovered - called the Discover Date. Then look at the date it was closed - called Date9. (The status code "9" means the case was closed.) For example, if a leak was discovered on 7/28/92 and the "status" is any number between 0 and 8, that case is still open. If the status number is 9, that case has been closed.

So a leak discovered on 7/28/92 with a status of 0 is considered still open through the year the data was collected (a recent year, 2001 or more current). A leak discovered on 6/12/97 with a status of 9 and a date closed (also called date9) of 5/26/99 is considered open in 1999 and closed in 2000, because it was open for part of 1999 but closed for the entire year 2000. A leak discovered on 6/12/97 with a status of 9 and a date closed (also called date9) of 5/26/00 is considered open in 1999 and 2000, because it was open during all of or part of each of those years.

You need to go through the report and calculate the number of cases open in your area. The next step is to input this number on a spreadsheet.

To finish calculating the total number of cases undergoing investigation, monitoring, and/or clean-up:

Once you have calculated and entered all this data in a spreadsheet, add up the three numbers to get the Total Number of Open Cases for each year, in the first column

MTBE part of the indicator

Part of our indicator tracks the number of leaking underground fuel tanks monitoring for MTBE and the number detecting MTBE. To update this part of the indicator, contact Santa Clara Valley Water District (or your local equivalent) and ask for MTBE Summary Sheets. For our report the data comes from their fuel leak database. As of February 1999, the title of these summary sheets was "Santa Clara Valley Water District Leaking Underground Storage Tank Oversight Program". Each sheet gave a program overview as of a specific date. On each sheet, you will see a section called "Data on Open Fuel Leak Cases (Groundwater Affected)." We need number of total fuel leak sites that are monitoring for MTBE, the number detecting MTBE, and the percentage monitoring with detect. For example, the May 13, 1998 summary sheet listed 386 total fuel leak sites monitoring for MTBE, 282 detecting MTBE, and 73 percent monitoring with detect. Then input this data on a spreadsheet. Generally, there will be several summary sheets for each calendar year, so you need to calculate the average number of fuel leak sites monitoring for MTBE and the average number of fuel leak sites detecting MTBE for each calendar year. These two yearly averages are shown on the indicator graph.

SLIC Data (Hazardous Chemical Leaks)

In addition to tracking leaking underground fuel tanks, we are also interested in hazardous chemical leaks. Hazardous chemical leaks, which are largely comprised of solvents, pose a greater threat to groundwater than do motor fuel leaks. In the 2003 Index, a graph appears on page 23 comparing data for 1999 versus 2001. In the 1999 Index, in the last paragraph of the Fuel Leak/MTBE indicator write-up on page 24, we indicated there were 245 sites with hazardous chemical leaks undergoing clean-up in Silicon Valley. That data was as of 5/10/1999. The data comes from a database called SLIC, which stands for Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Clean-ups. Like the LUSTIS database, the SLIC databases are available from the Central Coast RWQCB and the SF RWQCB.

To gather this information contact the RWQCB (or your equivalent) and ask for the following from their SLIC databases for the area under examination.


Count the number of cases in your area that are of "Active" status. In the SF RWQCB SLIC database, active cases are indicated by the letter "O" in the status column. In the Central Coast RWQCB SLIC database, active cases are indicated by any number from 0 to 8 in the status column (a status of 9 means the case is closed). As of 5/10/99 there were 233 active SLIC cases in Silicon Valley from the SF RWQCB database and 12 active SLIC cases in Silicon Valley from the Central Coast RWQCB database, for a total of 245 sites. When you update this number, be sure to indicate as of what date the data is effective.

Additional information: The motor fuel leak data shown on the graph represents "open" cases (i.e., sites discovered and undergoing clean-up) in Santa Clara County and Scotts Valley (San Martin data is excluded), as tracked in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS) databases of the San Francisco and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). For years 1982-1997, 70 open fuel leak cases are excluded due to insufficient information or data entry errors. Note that for the year 2000 the SF RWQCB did not create the April report, and for 2001 reports for September through November were lost, thus the total number of open cases for these years might be slightly understated. The number of hazardous chemical leaks represents active cases in Silicon Valley as of January 2002 from the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Clean-Ups (SLIC) databases of the San Francisco and Central Coast RWQCBs.

MTBE has been detected in Santa Clara County's water supplies in concentrations ranging from 0.6 to 2.9 parts per billion (ppb). The California Department of Health Services, Office of Drinking Water has adopted a 5 ppb drinking water standard that protects consumers from unpleasant tastes and odors and a 13 ppb standard that protects consumers from adverse health effects. In addition, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has adopted a public health goal of 13 ppb MTBE in drinking water to protect consumers against health risks over a lifetime of exposure. (The primary maximum contaminant level [MCL] for MTBE in California as adopted by the Department of Health Services is 13 ug/l.)

Note that Scotts Valley is excluded from the MTBE monitoring and detection data on the graph because SVEP did not have data from the Central Coast RWQCB on the number of Scotts Valley cases monitoring for MTBE. Also note that our calculation of open fuel leak cases includes all cases that were open at some point during the year, but the MTBE monitoring data summary sheets represent only a static point in time. Thus, the total number of sites monitoring for MTBE and those monitoring and detecting MTBE, as represented on our graph, are likely to be slightly understated. An aquifer is a water-bearing, underground zone of generally gravel and sand.

Federally- or State-Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur, or be Affected by, Projects in Santa Clara County

(pp. 24 and 25 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts:


Contact Info: Our Contacts:


Contact Info:

 


Other Contacts:

We did not actually use data from these folks, but they can provide helpful info or be available as a resource, if needed.


Availability: I believe in February or March the data should be available for the previous year.

Methodology/Calculations: The federal government and individual states designate species as endangered or threatened. Also available is information about species that are proposed for such listing, candidates for listing, species of concern, and other rare species that are not federally or state listed. Our indicator tracks federally- or state-endangered and threatened species that may occur, or be affected by, projects in Santa Clara County. In the write-up explaining "How are we doing?" (see pp. 24 and 25 of 2003 Index report) we also indicate the number of proposed and candidate species, species of concern, and additional rare species not federally or state listed. By summing these all up, we arrive at the total number of rare species in Santa Clara County, or rare species that may be affected by projects in the County. (In the 2003 Index, the total number was 158 plus 11 rare plant species that are extinct in the County, which is found in the write-up on pages 24 and 25.)

The indicator graph shows the cumulative number of species starting from 1967. For example, in 1967 three species that may occur, or be affected by projects, in Santa Clara County were federally listed as endangered or threatened: the San Joaquin kit fox, the bald eagle, and the San Francisco garter snake. So the graph shows three species for that year. No additional species were listed as endangered or threatened until 1970, when an additional five species were so designated. So we added five to three, to arrive at eight species, which is graphed for year 1970. Then in 1971 two more species were state listed as endangered or threatened (the CA black rail and giant garter snake), bumping up the total to 10. And so on.

In order to update the indicator graph, contact the above sources and get updated lists of species. Remember to ask for species that may occur, or be affected by projects, in Santa Clara County. Be sure to keep track of the date each list is effective so next time we do the update we know where to start. Note there may be some overlap between these lists so you want to keep track of the species on a master list so as not to duplicate species. Back in 1999, our master list was titled "ENCLOSURE A" - Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in or be Affected by Projects in the Area of the Following CA County or Counties. Because Enclosure A (which came from Harry Mossman at the US Fish & Wildlife Svc) excluded state-listed species (it only had federally listed species) we added the state-listed species in by hand. The source of the state-listed species was the CA Dept of Fish & Game. SVEP also added 24 species from the CA Native Plant Society that were rare but were not listed on the federal or state lists.

To figure out what date a species was listed (if your source data is missing that info), you can check the Code of Federal Regulations (also known as CFRs - although we believe this only lists federally-listed species). You want to check out 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. A reference librarian can help you with this, or you can check the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/~r9endspp/mammalsl.html#LnkOe.

Some things to watch for. First, check to see if any of the species on your graph that were federally- or state-listed from 1967 through your latest year of data were actually de-listed. If so, note the date they were de-listed, the name of the species, and insert that info into the corresponding column (federal or state) on the chart. Then subtract one for each de-listed species from the cumulative total on the corresponding year they were de-listed.

Second, check to see if any of the species on your graph that were federally or state listed from 1967 through your latest year of data became extinct since we last collected data. If so, add a new column on the electronic file called "extinct" and add a "one" in the year it became extinct and subtract "one" from the "listed" column. That way you can show on your indicator graph any species that become extinct - they can appear as a stacked bar chart in a different color than the listed species.

Third, if a species is both federally and state listed, insert it on the chart based on the EARLIEST date it was listed. Next to the species name, indicate that it is also federally- (or state-) listed. For example, the marbled murrelet is both federally and state listed, but it was federally listed first, so we include it under the "federal" column of the chart and indicate that it is both federally and state listed.

Fourth, if any species were newly federally- or state-listed since you last collected the data, and you need to add them to the indicator graph, check to see if they were previously listed on the proposed or candidate species lists, or if they were one of the species of concern or additional rare species not federally- or state-listed. If so, subtract one from those designations and add one to the federally or state listed designation. For example, when we collected data for the 1999 Index there were three proposed species: the mountain plover, the Central Valley fall-run chinook crit hab, and the Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon (these were all federally proposed threatened). When you do the update, let's say that the mountain plover had become federally threatened in the year 2000. Then you would remove it from the list of "proposed" species and add it to the list of "listed" species. If there were no other changes, then we would have only two proposed species and 34 listed species.

In general, any time there is a change in the designation of a species, check to see if it is on any of your lists from the previous update - either listed, proposed, candidate, species of concern or additional rare species not federally or state listed. That way you can avoid double-counting the species. You need to be very careful with this because it is easy to overlook or double-count species. It might be a good idea to create a master list of all 162 (or so) species in your own electronic database to keep track. The list could be alphabetized by common name, then indicate the scientific name followed by six columns and a checkmark under the corresponding column to indicate federally-listed (and date), state-listed (and date), proposed, candidate, species of concern, rare but not included in other columns. Since this list would provide a snapshot in time, indicate the date for which your list is effective.

Additional information: Much better information is needed to create meaningful indicators of South Bay species and habitats. It is important to note that the dates on the graph do not represent the biological, scientific dates that each species became rare. Rather, the graph reflects the dates that the species were listed as endangered or threatened through the federal or state regulatory process. Another limitation of the graph is that it does not display how well we are managing the endangered and threatened species in Santa Clara County. In other words, local populations of these species may increase or decrease, but this would not be reflected in the graph. Where possible, in this report we have tried to supplement the graph with indicators on local population estimates or habitats.

The animals counted in our data set are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects within, Santa Clara County. Fish and other aquatic species are included if they are in the same watershed as Santa Clara County or if water use in Santa Clara County might affect them. The plants that are included are ones that have actually been observed in Santa Clara County. Please note that scientists differ in opinion as to which species actually occur in a given county. The species reflected in our data set include those actually observed in Santa Clara County, and in the case of animals and fish, those that may be affected by projects within the County. Note that the 2000 and 2001 figures include critical habitat, which can now be listed as endangered or threatened. Critical habitat are specific geographic areas, whether occupied by listed species or not, that are determined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been formally described in the Federal Register. If critical habitat were not included, the total number of federally- or state-listed endangered or threatened plant and animal species that may occur, or be affected by projects, in the County in 2000 and 2001 would be 33 instead of 38, the same number as in 1999.

South Bay Wetlands: Past and Present Acres

(p. 26 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts:

SF Estuary Institute, SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Envt'l Engineer

Contact Info: Our contacts:

Robin Grossinger, Asst. Envt'l Scientist, SF Estuary Institute

Josh Collins, Envt'l Scientist, SF Estuary Institute

Mike Monroe, Project Co-Chair / Envt'l Scientist, U.S. EPA

Peggy Olofson, Project Mgr / Envt'l Engineer, SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

Contact Info:

Robin Grossinger, Asst. Envt'l Scientist, SF Estuary Institute, 510-746-7380, robin@sfei.org

Josh Collins, 510.746.7365, email: josh

Unconverted Image
sfei.org

San Francisco Estuary Institute . 2nd Floor, 7770 Pardee Lane, Oakland, CA 94621 . Ph 510.746.7334 . Fax 510.746.7300. www.sfei.org Josh Collins would be at this number, not at the San Francisco Estuary Project, below.

Back when we were working on the 1999 Index, Peggy Olofson was available at 510-622-2402, fax: 510-622-2459, pro@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov.

San Francisco Estuary Project

c/o SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

1515 Clay St, Suite 1400

Oakland, CA 94612

510-622-2465

Methodology/Calculations: This indicator tracks the change in wetlands from historical times to the present. Wetlands are broken down into the following four categories: tidal marsh, salt ponds, tidal flats, and other baylands.

Other baylands includes: storage or treatment ponds, diked wetlands, agricultural baylands, lagoons, and other baylands. We did not include bay fill (developed or undeveloped) because it is no longer a wetland. We also did not include adjacent habitats (like moist grassland, grassland/vernal pool complex, riparian forest, or willow grove), the bay, or bay channels because they are not "baylands".

We pulled data from the San Francisco Estuary Baylands Ecosystem Goals. The numbers are available in Appendix B, Table 5 "Past and Present Habitat Acreage for the South Bay Subregion" on page A-11 of the final report. The report is referred to as:

Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA / SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.

An estuary is a partially enclosed body of water where river water meets and mixes with ocean water. The term "baylands" is used to describe the lands near the Bay.

California Clapper Rail South Bay Population Estimates

(p. 27 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Contact Info: Our Contact: Joy Albertson, phone: 510-792-0222, fax: 510-792-5828, email: joy_albertson@mail.fws.gov

Methodology/Calculations: We simply contacted Joy Albertson to get the South Bay CA Clapper Rail population estimates. If the population estimate for a particular year is expressed as a range, take the average of the range. We believe the population estimates are based on CA Clapper Rail winter high tide survey results for South San Francisco Bay.

Data reflects population estimates, not actual counts. Data points for 91/92, 95/96, 96/97, 97/98, 98/99, 99/00, 00/01, and 01/02 represent the average of a range.

Fate of 123 Burrowing Owl Locations in Northern Santa Clara Valley

(p. 28 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Our Contact: Lynne Trulio, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, San Jose State University

Contact Info: Our Contact: work phone: 408-924-5445, fax: 408-924-5477, email: Janaslc@aol.com, or ltrulio@earthlink.com. San Jose State University, Environmental Studies Dept., San Jose, CA 95192-0116.

Methodology/Calculations: We contact Lynne Trulio to get the data.

Additional Information: The indicator was developed by Lynne Trulio, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at San Jose State University, using data collected by the consulting firm of H.T. Harvey and Associates. In 1994, H.T. Harvey and Associates prepared a list of 215 sites identified by local birders and consultants as occupied by burrowing owls between 1981 and 1988. They found that on 97percent of these sites, there were 10 or fewer birds and on 81percent just one or two birds survived.

In the spring and summer of 1995, 1998, and 2002 Lynne Trulio surveyed 111 of these sites (which had descriptions accurate enough to find) to determine their fate over the decade. Sites completely converted to a use unacceptable as owl habitat were scored as lost; reduced sites were those diminished in size or habitat quality; existing sites were those which, in Lynne Trulio's opinion, could still support a pair of owls. The sites are located in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Alviso. This indicator reports only on private or city-owned lands. Bayside parks, Moffett Federal Airfield and the San Jose Airport were not included in the survey.

It is important to note that the H.T. Harvey data do have limitations. They are anecdotal and not the result of a rigorous survey. However, they have been considered reliable enough for an analysis of owl population change over time (DeSante, et al., 1996). In addition, the sites were not randomly chosen. Those sites provided by consultants are likely to be biased, since these were probably sites being investigated due to their development potential. Sites from birders do not have this bias, but are likely to be in the more accessible areas. Though imperfect, these data are the best records that exist of owl locations in the 1980s and are a valuable baseline from which to evaluate site change over time.

Further, these data are a subset of the existing owl population and are not an accurate reflection of the number of owls in the Valley. These data also do not indicate how many owls were lost. Although 81percent of sites supported only 1 or 2 owls, any particular location may have had between 1 and 10 birds. These data show only the decrease in the number of owl locations that were occupied in 1988.

Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals Released or Disposed from Silicon Valley Manufacturers

and Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals Recycled, Recovered for Energy, Treated, or Incinerated Offsite

(p. 29 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Environmental Protection Agency.

Contact Info: Our contacts:

Kristen Goris initially helped with the data collection and explaining trend lines for the 2003 Index, but then we went through Robert Lucas and Lynda Deschambault. In your analysis, start with Robert and Lynda. They will actually calculate all the numbers for your county and email them to you.

For the 1999 Index Steve Hanna possibly helped with explaining trend lines, describing what is driving the changes over the years (though wasn't contacted for the 2003 Index). Patti Moynihan with EPA can possibly help identify changes in reporting requirements over the years.

Robert Lucas, 415-947-4176, lucas.robert@epamail.epa.gov, cell (510) 484-5945.

Lynda Deschambault, Environmental Chemist, Enforcement Officer, (415) 947-4183, Deschambault.Lynda@epamail.epa.gov

Kristen Goris, phone: 415-947-4173, email: Goris.Kristen@epamail.epa.gov.

Address: California EPA, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, 400 P Street, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 806, Sacramento, CA 95812-0806. General office phone number: 916-327-1848 or 800-808-8058. Steve Hanna is at 916-324-9924. Patti Moynihan with EPA is at 415-744-1109.

You can also check out the following websites for more info about TRI:

U.S. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/

U.S. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/enviro

U.S. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/tri

Environmental Defense Fund's scorecard website:

http://www.scorecard.org/ranking/

Methodology/Calculations: Several facilities are required to report emissions of certain toxic chemicals under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, also known as Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III. These reporting requirements are commonly known as TRI, or Toxic Release Inventory.

The data in the first graph is broken down by offsite release or disposal, local releases to air, local releases to water, and local releases to land. The second graph tracks TRI chemicals recycled, recovered for energy, treated, or incinerated offsite.

Since 1987 (the first year for which we have data), at least two changes were made to TRI law, resulting in more facilities and more chemicals that need to be reported. When discerning trends, it is important to make sure that each year compares apples to apples. The changes to the TRI law end up skewing the trend line a bit since the earlier years will have fewer companies and chemicals reflected than the later years. For this reason, it is important to keep track of the impact these changes (and any new changes since then) have on the trend line, and to explain that in the write-up.

The first change is as follows: starting in 1994 federal facilities were required to begin reporting TRI releases. Second, in 1995 247 new chemicals were added to the list of chemicals that must be reported under TRI.

For example, in 1997 4,482,890 total pounds of TRI chemicals were released into the local environment based on reporting requirements that were in place as of 1987, whereas 445,810 pounds were released based on new reporting requirements added since 1987. In 1994 3,714,804 total pounds of TRI chemicals were released into the local environment based on reporting requirements that were in place as of 1987, whereas 13,305 pounds were released based on new reporting requirements added since 1987. Analyzing these numbers, we can discern that one-third of the increase since 1994 is attributable to expanded reporting requirements. (Calculated as follows: 4,482,890 - 3,714,804 = 768,086 lbs increase based on original reporting requirements. 445,810 - 13,305 = 432,505 lbs increase due to new reporting requirements. Total increase = 768,086 + 432,505 = 1,200,591. 432,505 divided by 1,200,591 is 36%, or about one-third.)

Find out if there have been any changes that would impact the trend line. For example, have new chemicals been added to or deleted from the TRI list? Are any new classes of facilities required to report, or have any classes been omitted? Effective December 31, 1997, for the reporting year beginning on January 1, 1998, EPA added seven industry groups to the list of facilities subject to TRI reporting.

The last sentence in the 1999 write-up for this indicator says "Santa Clara County ranks 10th among California's 58 counties for total pollution reported under the Toxic Release Inventory law." We obtained the data from Environmental Defense Fund's scorecard website (http://www.scorecard.org).

There is also a sentence in the 2003 Index appendix that says, "The TRI list includes 667 chemicals, some of which were added in 1995 and 2000." The information to update this figure should be available at EPA's CEIS website, see above.

Note that the pounds of chemicals released does not necessarily correlate with the public health or environmental impact because hazard varies between chemicals.

Pounds of Pesticides Used in Santa Clara County (Excludes Residential Use)

and

Uses of the Most Toxic Pesticides in Santa Clara County During the Most Recent Year that Data is Available (Excludes Residential Use)

and

Most Toxic Pesticides Applied in Santa Clara County During the Most Recent Year that Data is Available (By Pounds Applied, Excludes Residential Use)

(p. 30 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Your local state Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Action Network, or local pesticide citizen action group.

Our contact: Susan Kegley, Pesticide Action Network

Contact Info: Our Contact:

Susan Kegley, Staff Scientist/Program Coordinator, Pesticide Action Network, North America Regional Center, 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102, skegley@dnai.com, phone: 415-981-6205 x316, fax: 415-981-1991. Pesticide Action Network general email address: panna@panna.org, website: http://www.panna.org/panna. Or http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ is a well managed pesticide database.

Beverly Martin, CA Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), phone: 916-445-4046, fax: 916-324-4088, website: www.cdpr.ca.gov/ or www.cdpr.ca.gov/whatnew.htm.

Availability: It seems as though there is a very long lag time for the data to become available, perhaps a two-three year lag. New data is available in the spring.

Methodology/Calculations: For California, the pesticide database at http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ should have all the information you are looking for.

Another source of pesticide data is the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's website: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.

If for some reason that fails to work here is how we first gathered our data. First, obtain data on the pounds of pesticides used in Santa Clara County per year, broken down into pounds used by pesticide as well as a total sum figure. To obtain this data, contact Beverly Martin at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) or check DPR's website to obtain Annual Pesticide Use Reports for the area being examined Indexed by Chemical, 1987 through the most recent year for which data is available.

Then, of the total pounds of pesticides used in the area being examined for a given year, you want to find out how many pounds were the "most toxic" pesticides. To do this, you need to figure out which pesticides are considered "most toxic". For our 2003 Index we used a list created by The Pesticide Action Network called "bad actor" pesticides (we refer to them as "most toxic" pesticides).

Important: if there are any new pesticides added to or deleted from our list of "most toxic", then you need to make that change to all the years for which we have data. For example, let's say that hypothetically a new pesticide called Allethrin is added to the "most toxic" list. Then you need to insert that pesticide into the chart titled "Pounds of 'Bad Actor' Pesticides Used in Santa Clara County" and input the pounds used for each year since 1991.

Also be sure to exclude Mineral Oil, Petroleum Distillates, Refined Petroleum Distillates, and Unclassified Petroleum Oil from our list of "most toxic" pesticides since only a small fraction of the components of these oils are carcinogenic.

Once you have completed the first chart, Pounds of Pesticides Used in Your County (Excluding Residential Use), then you need to create the two pie charts. The first pie chart, which depicts "Uses of the Most Toxic Pesticides in Your County" for the latest year for which you have data, breaks down uses by agriculture, structural pest control, landscape, rights of way, and other. You can find this information on the Annual Pesticide Use Report: (Your County) Indexed by Chemical.

Finally, create the second pie chart which depicts "Most Toxic Pesticides Applied in Your County" during the latest year for which you have data "(by Pounds Applied; Excludes Residential Use)". Simply copy the data for the latest year for which you have data from the chart titled "Pounds of 'Bad Actor' Pesticides Used in (Your) County" into the chart titled "Most Toxic Chemicals Applied in (Your) County During ____ (pounds, excludes residential use)." You'll want to call out by name the top used chemicals and then cluster the rest into "others".

Additional Information: Data on pounds, types, uses, and toxicology of pesticides applied in Santa Clara County is from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation as processed by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), based on PAN's data processing methodology available at http://docs.pesticideinfo.org/documentation4/ref_PURCA.html#PANProcess. The term "most toxic" pesticides refers to currently registered pesticide active ingredients in at least one of the following 5 categories (defined by PAN and Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR), http://docs.pesticideinfo.org/documentation4/ref_toxicity7.html#BadActor): 1) Known or probable carcinogens, as designated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), U.S. EPA, U.S. National Toxicology Program, or the state of California's Proposition 65 list. 2) Reproductive or developmental toxicants, as designated by the state of California's Proposition 65 list. 3) Neurotoxic cholinesterase inhibitors, as designated by California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Materials Safety Data Sheet for the particular chemical, or PAN staff evaluation of chemical structure (for organophosphorus compounds). 4) Known groundwater contaminants, as designated by the state of California (for actively registered pesticides) or from historic groundwater monitoring records (for banned pesticides). 5) Pesticides with high acute toxicity, as designated by the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. EPA, or the U.S. National Toxicology Program. The list of "most toxic" pesticides used for the 2003 Index report differs from the list used in the 1999 Silicon Valley Environmental Index report because of additions to the component lists. The analysis for the 2003 Index report used the "Bad Actor Pesticides" list from the Pesticides Action Network based on data released in November 1999 and downloaded on approximately January 8, 2002.

Structural pest control represents any pest control work performed within or around buildings or other structures. "Other" pesticide use includes: public health pest control; vertebrate pest control; fumigation of nonfood and nonfeed materials such as lumber, furniture, etc.; pesticides used in research; regulatory pest control used in ongoing control and/or eradication of pest infestations; other fumigation; and uncultivated non-agricultural areas.

Quantity of Hazardous Waste Generated in Santa Clara County by Large Quantity Generators

(p. 31 of 2003 Index report)

Contacts: Get the information off the web at the site listed below or by contacting Edward Brandt, Nathan Wilkes, or Patrick Callahan from U.S. EPA's Center for Environmental Information and Statistics. Or, if the website has a "contact us" feature where you can email someone directly from the website. For 2003 Index Patrick Callahan supplied the data. SVEP obtained his contact information by asking Edward Brandt.

Contact Info: Our contacts:

Patrick Callahan (contractor for US EPA region 9), phone: (415) 222-8290, email: Patrick.Callahan@ttemi.com, (I think the following email is no longer good: patrickc94109@yahoo.com). For our 2003 Index, Patrick Callahan reviewed the write-up.

Patrick Callahan 
Environmental Scientist 
Tetra Tech EM Inc. 
135 Main St. Suite 1800 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
(415) 222 -8303 Direct Line 
(415) 543-5480 Fax 
patrick.callahan@ttemi.com

Edward Brandt, phone: 202-260-6217, email: Brandt.Edward@epamail.epa.gov.

Nathan Wilkes, phone: 202-260-4910, email: Wilkes.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov.

Methodology/Calculations: Try getting the data from the U.S. EPA's Center for Environmental Information and Statistics website, http://www.epa.gov/eq. You'll want the data table for "Tons of Hazardous Waste Generated in (Your) County, (State)", and use the figures for "total waste".

Additional Information: Information on hazardous wastes comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Biennial Reporting System (BRS). BRS is an automated data processing system that contains data from Hazardous Waste Report Forms submitted by regulated hazardous waste generators and handlers.

A site is a Large Quantity Generator if it meets certain threshold criteria established in the regulations. Total waste depicted on the graph is the combined total of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste and state-regulated hazardous waste. (A RCRA waste is a solid waste assigned a federal hazardous waste code and regulated by the RCRA law, either because it was managed in a unit subject to RCRA permitting standards or because it was shipped and subject to RCRA hazardous transportation requirements.) A TSD facility is a facility that treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste.

Beginning with the 1997 biennial reporting cycle, EPA changed the reporting requirements for aqueous wastes, commonly called wastewaters, managed in treatment systems regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and not by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under the new reporting requirements, wastewater (except wastewaters managed by deepwell / underground injection) are excluded from the 1999 National Biennial Report. For purposes of the 2003 Silicon Valley Environmental Index report, the Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership has added both non-wastewater and wastewater data to arrive at total RCRA and state-regulated hazardous wastes for all years graphed (1989-1999). For more information about EPA reporting requirements and the National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, see http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs99/index.htm.

The tonnage of waste reported is meant to give a gross estimate of industrial waste activity in Santa Clara County and the amount of waste generated and managed, rather than an estimate of the risk to local populations. Facilities vary according to how close they are to human population areas and sensitive ecological features. Therefore, the figures shown may not accurately reflect risk to people and the environment.