The Role of Environmental Justice in Oregon's Climate Change Adaptation Planning

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Malia T. Losordo for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resources Policy and Management presented on March 13, 2018.

Title: The Role of Environmental Justice in Oregon's Climate Change Adaptation Planning

Abstract approved: ______Mary Santelmann Adell Amos

Oregon has already experienced the impacts of climate change, and these impacts are expected to become increasingly severe and varied. In response, the State of Oregon has taken a number of actions to adapt to changing conditions, including coordinated planning approaches to climate change adaptation. However, climate change adaptation actions can exacerbate existing inequities when impacted communities do not participate or are not considered in the decision- making process. Oregon's Environmental Justice Law, ORS 182.535 et seq., was enacted to ensure that natural resource agencies integrate environmental justice principles—such as the equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits and meaningful involvement of impacted communities—into the decision-making process for every action, including climate change adaptation. This paper explores the experiences of some natural resource agencies' with applying Oregon's environmental justice law to climate change adaptation planning. Research questions addressed were (1) what role do environmental justice principles and environmental justice law play in and to what extent do they shape state-level adaptation efforts? and (2) what are potential barriers to integration of environmental justice into climate adaptation efforts? Document analysis and semi-structured interviews (n=19) were conducted to (1) describe the role that environmental justice principles and the environmental justice law played in three different state-level adaptation approaches and (2) identify perceived barriers to greater integration of environmental justice into these efforts. Two of the three efforts expressly sought to employ environmental justice principles, but took slightly different approaches. Barriers identified in each of the approaches, and for natural resource agencies in general, included lack of wide-spread understanding of the environmental justice law and environmental justice principles within some agencies; lack of community capacity to engage in decision-making; and lack of information about local and regional conditions. These findings indicate that the state may benefit from a comprehensive assessment of the challenges and barriers experienced by each of the natural resource agencies, as well as community-based assessments of both adaptation capacity and capacity to engage in natural resource agency decision-making processes.

The Role of Environmental Justice in Oregon's Climate Change Adaptation Planning

by Malia T. Losordo

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Presented March 13, 2018 Commencement June 2018

Master of Science thesis of Malia T. Losordo presented on March 13, 2018.

APPROVED:

______Co-Major Professor, representing Water Resource Policy and Management

______Director of the Water Resources Graduate Program

______Dean of the Graduate School

I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request.

______Malia T. Losordo, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses sincere appreciation to Dr. Mary Santelmann and Professor Adell Amos for their thoughtful guidance on this project. Special thanks are also due to Dr. Jenna Tilt, for her contributions to this project's design and guidance during data collection and analysis, and to Dr. Edward Weber and Professor Geoffrey Huntington for their feedback and support. Though they cannot be thanked by name, the author also expresses deepest appreciation to the individuals interviewed as part of this project, which would not have been possible without their support and thoughtful participation. Many friends and colleagues also contributed to this project by providing feedback, emotional support, and housing. They include Beth Andrews, Rianne BeCraft, Nicolette Canzoneri, Haley Carlson, Ryan Crumley, Kevin Flannery, Carolyn Gombert, Ingria Jones, Rachel Morris, Rob Predosa, Max Sage, Hannah Satein, Erica Tatoian, Sigvanna Topkok, and Ika Widiyasari. The author would like to thank her family – Maile Losordo, Amy Losordo, Tom Losordo, Gregg Levitt, Pat Levitt, Margi Bolstad, Madeline Belknap, and especially Gordon Levitt – for their patience and support throughout the research and writing process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Context ...... 1

1.1.1 Climate Change and the Need for Adaptation ...... 1

1.1.2 Oregon's Response to Climate Change ...... 3

1.1.3 Climate Justice and Climate Change Adaptation ...... 5

1.1.4 Oregon's Environmental Justice Law ...... 11

1.2 Research Task and Scope ...... 16

1.3 Expected Findings ...... 20

1.4 Plan of Development ...... 22

2 Methods ...... 24

2.1 Interviews ...... 24

2.2 Document Analysis ...... 29

3 Findings ...... 33

3.1 Common Barriers to Environmental Justice ...... 33

3.1.1 Understanding ...... 32

3.1.2 Community Capacity ...... 34

3.1.3 Information ...... 35

3.1.4 Financial Resources ...... 36

3.2 Climate Change Adaptation Framework ...... 37

3.2.1 The Climate Change Adaptation Framework ...... 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

3.2.2 The Regional Framework ...... 42

3.3 Climate and Health Program ...... 44

3.3.1 Climate and Health Profile Report ...... 46

3.3.2 Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment ...... 49

3.3.3 Climate and Health Resilience Plan ...... 51

3.4 Integrated Water Resources Strategy ...... 54

3.4.1 The 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy ...... 55

3.4.2 Implementing the 2012 Strategy ...... 57

3.4.3 2017 Strategy Update ...... 59

4 Discussion and Conclusion ...... 60

4.1 Role of Environmental Justice ...... 61

4.2 Barriers to Implementing Oregon's Environmental Justice Law ...... 63

4.3 New Questions Raised by this Research ...... 66

4.4 Conclusion ...... 68

Bibliography ...... 69

Appendices ...... 74

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Key Climate Change Definitions ...... 2

1.2 Timeline of State-Level Climate Change Bodies in Oregon ...... 4

1.3 Examples of State-Level Adaptation in Oregon ...... 5

1.4 IPCC Model of Climate Change Risks and Impacts ...... 7

1.5 Key Climate Adaptation Definitions ...... 8

1.6 Key Environmental Justice Definitions ...... 12

1.7 Four Traditional Notions of Justice ...... 12

1.8 Natural Resource Agencies ...... 13

1.9 Interrelated Duties of Natural Resource Agencies ...... 14

1.10 Task Force Duties ...... 15

1.11 BRACE Framework ...... 19

1.12 Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation ...... 21

1.13 Expected Findings of this Research ...... 22

3.1 The Climate Change Adaptation Framework Approach ...... 38

3.2 Environmental Justice Words Present in the Climate Change Adaptation Framework .... 39

3.3 Environmental Justice Words Present in the Regional Framework ...... 43

3.4 OHA's Core Value of Health Equity ...... 44

3.5 Environmental Justice Words Present in the Climate and Health Report ...... 48

3.6 Social Vulnerability Index ...... 50

3.7 Environmental Justice Words Present in the Vulnerability Assessment ...... 51

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

3.8 Resilience Plan Sections ...... 51

3.9 Sample Story Portrait from the Climate and Health Resilience Plan ...... 52

3.10 Environmental Justice Words Present in the Climate and Health Resilience Plan ...... 54

3.11 Environmental Justice Words Present in the Integrated Water Resources Strategy ...... 56

3.12 Place-Based Planning Pilot Project Areas ...... 58

4.1 Key Findings ...... 62

4.2 Key Needs ...... 64

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.1 Research Objectives and Questions ...... 17

1.2 Overview of the Three Adaptation Efforts ...... 18

2.1 Interview Codes ...... 28

2.2 Climate Change Adaptation Document Codes ...... 31

3.1 Climate Risks ...... 37

3.2 Environmental Justice Keyword Findings ...... 41

3.3 Populations Vulnerable to Risks Associated with Increased Drought ...... 47

4.1 Comparing Features of Barriers Identified in this Study to Barriers Described in Climate Change Adaptation Literature ...... 63

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A Frequently Used Acronyms ...... 75

B Interviews ...... 76

C Interview Guides ...... 77

D Code Testing Results ...... 79

E Final Codebook ...... 80

F Environmental Justice Task Force Documents Reviewed ...... 83

G Climate Change Adaptation Documents Reviewed ...... 88

The Role of Environmental Justice in Oregon’s Climate Change Adaptation Planning

1. Introduction Oregon has already experienced the impacts of climate change, and these impacts are expected to become increasingly severe and varied. In response, the State of Oregon has taken a number of actions to adapt to changing conditions, including coordinated planning approaches to climate change adaptation. However, climate change adaptation actions can exacerbate existing inequities when impacted communities do not participate or are not considered in the decision- making process. Oregon’s Environmental Justice Law, ORS 182.535 et seq., was enacted to ensure that natural resource agencies integrate environmental justice principles—such as the equitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits and meaningful involvement of impacted communities—into the decision-making process for every action, including climate change adaptation. This thesis investigates some natural resource agencies’ experiences with applying Oregon’s environmental justice law to climate change adaptation planning. 1.1 Context 1.1.1 Climate Change and the Need for Adaptation Scientific consensus is that the earth’s climate is changing – the atmosphere, land surfaces, and the ocean are warming at an unprecedented rate – and those changes are caused primarily by humans through greenhouse gas emissions and other “forcing,” such as land use changes (Figure 1.1). The impacts of the changing climate are being felt in natural and human systems, threatening communities, ecosystems, and economies across the globe. Even with mitigation, the impacts of climate change will be felt at least until the end of this century. Therefore, it is imperative that we prepare for the changes to reduce the risks associated with climate change. In its 5th Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.” (IPCC 2015). According to the IPCC, “it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in 2

global average surface Figure 1.1. Key Climate Change Definitions temperature from 1951 to Climate Change – a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of 2010 was caused by the its properties, and that persists for an extended period. anthropogenic increase in Risks – the potential for consequences, results from the [greenhouse gas] interaction of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard. concentrations and other Climate Impacts – effects of climate change on human anthropogenic forcing systems. Risks realized. together.” (IPCC 2015). Mitigation – actions that reduce the likelihood of climate Warming is also changes and physical impacts. evident in Oregon. Over the Adaptation – the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. Adaptation seeks to moderate or last century, the mean annual avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities by reducing temperature increased at the exposure and vulnerability of society and ecosystems to climate changes and impacts. every United State Historical Climatology Network station (IPCC 2014) the across the state (Dello and Mote 2010). Oregon experienced its warmest year on record in 2015, with a mean annual temperature of 50.4 °F (~10.2 °C) (Dalton et al. 2017).1 Additionally, the Pacific Northwest has warmed by 1.1 °F (~0.7 °C) between 1901 and 2012, largely due to increased greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, and that warming has accelerated since the 1970s (Dalton et al. 2017). Climate change is a highly complex problem that will impact every sector of socio- ecological systems while manifesting differently across the globe (Craig 2010). Climate change will also make natural systems less predictable, which will challenge laws and management structures based on the concept of “stationarity,” that natural systems fluctuate within a predictable envelope of variability (Craig 2010; Doremus 2010). Finally, climate change impacts are marked by uncertainty – models cannot project the precise manifestation of climate change impacts, particularly at highly localized geographic ranges (Camacho 2009). It is particularly difficult to project precipitation on a local and even regional level (Dalton et al. 2017).

1. Oregon’s previous record, 49.9 °F (~9.9 °C), was set in 1934 during the Dust Bowl. 3

With that caveat, increased temperatures are expected to impact environmental conditions across Oregon, posing risks to ecosystems, human health, safety, and economies. Key climate change risks facing Oregon include declining snowpack – which will result in lower summer streamflow and soil moisture – forest disturbances – such as wildfires, droughts, and insect outbreaks – rising sea levels and increased wave heights and storm surges – which will exacerbate coastal flooding and landslide hazards – and threats to human health – including heat waves, increased prevalence of infectious disease, and reduced air and water quality (Dello and Mote 2010; Dalton et al. 2013; Dalton, et al. 2017). Agriculture may experience benefits – from longer growing seasons, carbon dioxide enrichment, and conditions that allow new crops to be grown, but the negative impacts resulting from extreme heat, reduced water supplies, and increased insect and disease will likely outweigh the early benefits in the long run (Dalton et al. 2017). Oregon has already experienced some impacts, including the 2014-15 snow drought and 2015 drought, as well as increased incidence of wildfire activity and a longer fire season (Dalton et al. 2017). Climate change is a long-term problem – the earth is locked in to continued warming through at least the end of the century (IPCC 2015). Globally, even if all of the countries participating in the 2015 Paris Agreement meet their emission reduction pledges, the mean annual air temperature is expected to increase 3°C (5.4°F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100 (Dalton et al. 2017). In Oregon, the mean annual temperature is projected to increase 2.1 to 10.7 °F (~1.1 to 5.9 °C) above the historical baseline (the 1970-1999 average) by the 2080s (Dalton et al. 2017). Even under the low emissions pathway, Oregon is projected to experience a 3.6 °F (~2 °C) increase by the 2050s and a 4.6 °F (~2.5 °C) increase by the 2080s (Dalton et al. 2017). Because mitigation cannot prevent all of the serious impacts of climate change, we must reduce the risks associated with expected climate change impacts through adaptation. 1.1.2 Oregon’s Response to Climate Change At the state level, Oregon has recognized the threats posed by climate change and pursued policies to address them since the creation of Governor Goldschmidt’s Task Force on Global Warming in 1988 (OGWC 2009; Global Warming Task Force 1990) (See Figure 1.2). 4

Figure 1.2 Timeline of State-Level Climate Change Bodies in Oregon Oregon Task Force on Global Warming (1988) – created by Governor Goldschmidt to “review current scientific knowledge and assess how global warming could affect the state” and, based on that review, to provide the Legislature and Governor with information on “how the agencies propose to respond to the threat of global warming.” The task force summarized its findings in a June 1990 Report.

Governor’s Advisory Group on Global Warming (2004) – established by Governor Kulongoski to develop a strategy and provide recommendations about how Oregon can address its “global warming responsibilities.” The Advisory Group issued its key recommendations in its 2004 report: Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions.

Climate Change Integration Group (2006) – Appointed by Governor Kulongoski in to “develop a climate change strategy for Oregon that provides long-term sustainability for the environment, protect public health, consider social equity, create economic opportunity and expand public awareness.” The Governor asked the Integration Group to carry out four duties: (1) review the implementation of the Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions; (2) develop strategies for adaptation; (3) stimulate new research in mitigation and adaptation; (4) serve as a clearinghouse for information. In 2008, the Integration Group issued its final report: A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change.

Oregon Global Warming Commission (2007) – Established by the Legislature in 2007 (HB 3534). HB 3534 requires the Commission to “recommend ways to coordinate state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” consistent with the state’s emission goals, to “recommend efforts to help Oregon prepare for the effects of global warming[,]” and to “develop an outreach strategy to educate Oregonians about the scientific aspects and economic impacts of global warming and to inform Oregonians of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ways to prepare for the effects of global warming.” The Commission provides biennial reports to the Legislature; the first was issued in 2009.

Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) (2007) – Also established by the Legislature in 2007 (HB 3534) to facilitate research at the state’s public universities “on climate change and its effects on natural and human systems in Oregon;” to “serve as a clearing house for climate change information;” to “provide climate change information to the public in integrated and accessible formats;” to support the Global Warming Commission; and to provide technical assistance to local governments. OCCRI provides biennial reports to the Legislature; the first was issued in 2013.

(OGWC 2017; Dalton et al. 2013; OGWC 2009; CCIG 2008; Advisory Group on Global Warming 2005; Global Warming Task Force 1990; ORS 352.823, 468A.235 to 468A.245, 468A.250, 468A.260).

Although these efforts acknowledged the importance of both mitigation and adaptation, Oregon focused most of its state-level policy development and implementation on mitigation until 2009 when Governor Kulongoski directed representatives from Oregon’s natural resource agencies 5

and research institutions to work in conjunction with the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Framework, which was published in December 2010 (OGWC 2011; DLCD 2010). Since then state agencies have begun to develop their own adaptation strategies and other planning documents aimed at preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts, some of which were inspired by the Global Warming Commission’s 2009 report (See Figure1.3).

Figure 1.3 Examples of State-Level Adaptation in Oregon The Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework (2010) – A state-level qualitative assessment of key climate risks and existing capacity in state programs to address these risks seeking to provide context for climate adaptation planning within state government and on more regional and local levels.

Climate and Health Program (2010) – Oregon Health Authority’s multi-stage process to prepare the state’s health system and communities to protect the health of all Oregonians in the face of climate change. The program’s statewide work began with its Climate and Health Profile Report (2014) and, most recently, the program published a Climate and Health Resilience Plan (2017).

Climate Change Response Preparedness and Action Plan (2010) – Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s (OPRD) plan identifying potential impacts of climate change on OPRD’s mission, facilities, operations, programs, and statutory responsibilities, and suggesting “actions to reduce risk and increase overall resiliency in the face of a changing climate.”

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report (2012) – Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) first step towards developing an adaptation plan. The strategy provides “a preliminary assessment of climate change impacts to ODOT’s assets and systems operations,” highlights “the need for a vulnerability and risk assessment,” and identified “current areas of adaptive capacity and potential long- and short-term actions” for ODOT.

Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy (2012) – Provides a “blueprint” to help the state understand and meet all of the state’s current and future water needs. The first strategy was published in 2012 and the first updated strategy was due in 2017.

(OHA 2018a; ODOT 2012; OWRD 2012; DLCD 2010; OPRD 2010)

1.1.3 Climate Justice and Climate Change Adaptation Both the research community and the State of Oregon recognize that individuals and populations will experience the effects of climate change unevenly. In many instances, the communities experiencing most exposure to hazards will be those most vulnerable. In that way, 6

climate change will likely exacerbate existing environmental, social, health, economic inequities. These communities should be involved and considered in decision-making processes around adaptation, both to address the disproportionate impact that climate change will have on these communities and to ensure that adaptation actions themselves do not exacerbate inequity. At the same time, pursuing adaptation strategies that prioritize the most vulnerable can both address the long-standing social problems underlying the vulnerabilities and can also result in more effective adaptation overall. Globally, and across Oregon, low-income and marginalized communities and individuals will likely bear disproportionate amounts of the harm caused by climate change (IPCC 2014; OHA 2014; Kaswan 2012; CCIG 2008; EJTF 2008). Oregon recognizes that these communities exist across the state, in both urban and rural areas. Low-income households and communities are found throughout the state (OHA 2015). Additionally, marginalization can take a number of forms. Some of those forms – such as linguistic isolation, citizenship status, older age, or identifying as a racial or ethnic minority – have a distinct spatial pattern across the state (OHA 2015).2 Other forms – such as educational attainment (percentage of adults with a high school diploma) and the social isolation of older adults – are more widespread (OHA 2015). In its 5th Climate Change Assessment, the IPCC provided the following model for describing, understanding, and projecting future climate impacts, which helps to demonstrate why climate change impacts have been and will continue to be felt unevenly (See Figure 1.4).

2. For example, linguistic isolation and citizenship status-related marginalization is most prevalent in the Willamette Valley and Columbia River Gorge (OHA 2015). The percentage of adults over 65 is higher in rural areas, while the lowest percentages are found in urban areas, particularly the Willamette Valley, Central Oregon, and near Medford (OHA 2015). Minority communities are most prevalent in the urban Portland-Metro area and parts of rural north-central, eastern, and southern Oregon (OHA 2015). 7

Figure 1.4 IPCC Model of Climate Change Risks and Impacts (IPCC 2014)

The concept of risk is central to that framework. The IPCC defines risk as “the potential consequences where something of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain.” (IPCC 2014; Figure 1.5). The concept encompasses both the probability of adverse events and the actual impacts that will be experienced if the risks do occur. In that sense, a climate change impact is a climate change-related risk that has been realized. As the model indicates, risk is a function of climate-related hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. Hazards are potential climate-related physical events or climatic trends and their physical impacts (IPCC 2014). Exposure refers to “the presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental functions, services, and resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected.” (IPCC 2014). Vulnerability refers to “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected.” (IPCC 2014). The model also indicates that the core components of risk vary across time and space and are driven by changes in the climate system and socioeconomic processes. Specifically, climate system drives hazards, while socioeconomic factors, such as level of wealth, education, disability, health status, race, gender, and age, drive vulnerability and exposure (IPCC 2014). 8

Figure 1.5 Key Climate Adaptation Definitions (IPCC 2014)

Climate Change Impacts are a function of the interaction of climate changes or climate hazards within a specific time period and the vulnerability of an exposed society or system. Impacts are “risks realized.”

Risk results from the interaction of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard.

Hazard is the potential occurrence of a climate-related event or their physical impacts that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and environmental resources.

Exposure is the presence of people; livelihoods; species or ecosystems; environmental functions, services, and resources; infrastructure; or economic, social, or cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected by climate hazards.

Vulnerability is the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses concepts that include sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. Vulnerability is the result of diverse historical, social, economic, political, cultural, institutional, natural resource, and environmental conditions and processes.

For an example of how vulnerability can influence the level of risk, consider a risk associated with drought in Oregon – water insecurity (OHA 2014). Rural household with a private well and a higher income will be less vulnerable than one with a lower income, in part because the higher-income household has greater ability to afford bottled water, delivered water, to drill a deeper well, or to install a more powerful well pump. All other factors being equal, the lower-income household is at greater risk of water insecurity. For an example of how exposure can influence the level of risk, consider a risk associated with wildfire in Oregon – displacement (OHA 2015). A person living in Cave Junction, Oregon, which is near the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, will have greater exposure than a person living in downtown Portland because Cave Junction is closer to an area where a wildfire is likely to develop. All other factors being equal, the person in Cave Junction is at greater risk of displacement. Marginalized communities – whether they are because of social, economic, cultural, political, institutional, or other dynamics – are especially vulnerable to climate change (IPCC 2014). Because of systemic inequities resulting from marginalization, many vulnerable communities experience multiple and compounding sources of vulnerability (IPCC 2014; OHA 9

2014). For example, in Oregon, older populations are more likely to experience low socioeconomic status, social isolation, and existing, chronic illnesses (OHA 2014). And, tying into the wildfire example above, many rural residents in the Western United States who live near wildland areas cannot afford the cost of fire protection or to meet their basic needs, which puts them at greater risk of long-term displacement (OHA 2014). In its 2008 Report, the Oregon Climate Change Integration Group also recognized the increased vulnerability of marginalized groups and recommended that the state “prioritize the most vulnerable” when undertaking climate change adaptation (CCIG 2008). The Integration Group explained: “Climate change will affect everyone, but people and communities with more resources and capacity will be better able to withstand the impacts than people that are already under stress or are disadvantaged. Developing preparation plans now will build resiliency and reduce the vulnerability of these groups most at risk.” (CCIG 2008).

Also, in 2008, Oregon’s Environmental Justice Task Force (discussed in more detail below) announced that all entities addressing climate change issues must prioritize environmental justice issues because Oregon’s environmental justice communities (that is, communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes) “may be impacted by climate change through myriad, and potentially conflicting, ways.” (EJTF 2008). For example, environmental justice communities may experience direct impacts, such as increased health risks, and conflicting indirect impacts, such as increased energy costs from energy efficiency programs (EJTF 2008). Marginalized communities are also vulnerable to some adaptation and mitigation responses (IPCC 2014). As a result, adaptation policies and actions that do not include these communities or do not consider existing disparities that contribute to vulnerabilities can exacerbate existing inequities (OHA 2014; Hall and Weiss, 2012). Pursuing adaptation strategies that prioritize the most vulnerable can also help to address long-standing social problems such as poverty, healthcare, and political marginalization. Because these systemic inequities affect the underlying causes of vulnerability, they must be addressed to achieve successful adaptation (IPCC 2014; Kaswan 2012). For example, adaptation could prioritize the improvement of social services and other protective infrastructure for 10

marginalized groups (Shi et al. 2016; Kaswan 2012). Those adaptation strategies present co- beneficial strategies, which can minimize the risks associated with the uncertainty of climate change impacts by producing other public benefits, regardless of the effects of climate change (Camacho 2009). Adaptation strategies that prioritize and include the most vulnerable can also result in more effective adaptation overall. As the Oregon Health Authority explains it is important to consider and address the issues experienced by marginalized communities because disparate impacts, such as health disparities, “are symptoms of social and environmental conditions that ultimately affect us all” and “inhibit our ability to … build resilient communities,” which will protect all Oregonians in the face of the uncertainties related to a future under climate change (OHA 2017; OHA 2016). Similarly, involving marginalized communities in decision-making processes can provide new sources of information that are especially important when “uncertainty and complexity characterize the scientific understanding of policy problems,” which is the case for climate change and climate change adaptation (IPCC 2014). For example, their participation can provide information about indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems and practices, which, according to the IPCC, are “a major resource for adapting to climate change” but have not been consistently used in adaptation efforts to date (IPCC 2014). Their participation can also provide information on social values related to climate change impacts or potential adaptation actions or strategies (IPCC 2014). Finally, public involvement can increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of adaptation actions when it is inclusive, equitable, raises awareness, and allows for deliberation, argument, and persuasion (IPCC 2014). For example, consulting with the public on adaptation options can, as mentioned above, allow decision makers to gain information about social values, while also raising awareness about the need for certain adaptation actions, both of which can avoid public criticism of the ultimate decision (IPCC 2014).

1.1.4 Oregon’s Environmental Justice Law As noted above, Oregon has long expressed a commitment to considering and prioritizing the most vulnerable when it comes to climate change adaptation. At the same time, since 2007, Oregon’s natural resource agencies have been required to do so.3 Under Oregon’s environmental justice law (O.R.S. §182.535, et seq.), the state’s natural resource agencies have a duty to consider environmental justice any time they determine “whether and how to act.” The Environmental Justice Movement emerged in the 1980s as a grass-roots response of communities of color to “environmental racism,” the concern that people of color systemically receive disproportionately greater environmental risk, particularly in the context of hazardous and solid waste facility sitings (Rechtschaffen et al. 2009; Kaswan 2008; Bullard and Johnson 2000). Over time, the movement expanded from a fight against environmental racism to a fight for environmental justice (Bullard and Johnson 2000). Collin (2008), explains that “environmental justice refers to the distribution of environmental rights and benefits by race, class, and income” which include both substantive and process rights. Substantively, communities have equal rights to a safe and healthy living environment (Collin 2008). Procedurally, communities have the right to participate meaningfully in environmental decisions that affect them (Collin 2008) (See Figure 1.6 for key environmental justice definitions).

3. State-level efforts to address environmental justice concerns began more than a decade earlier when, in 1993, Governor Barbara Roberts established the Oregon Environmental Equity Citizen Committee to work with DEQ and the Oregon Health Division to examine disparate health impacts of the state’s environmental programs (EJTF 2008). 12

Figure 1.6 Key Environmental Justice Definitions Environmental Justice: • “The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (EPA 2017). “Equal protection from environmental and health hazards, and meaningful participation in decisions that affect the environment in which people live, work, learn, practice spirituality, and play.” (EJTF 2016).

Fair Treatment and Equal Protection means a just distribution of the environmental benefits and burdens of decisions and actions (EJTF 2016).

Meaningful Involvement means: • Potentially affected communities have (1) an opportunity to participate in decisions that will affect their environment and health, (2) have access to full information about the action and potential impacts, and (3) the ability to influence the decision (EPA 2017; EJTF 2016). • The decision-maker must (1) consider the concerns of all participants before making and final decision and (2) seek out and facilitate the involvement of potentially affected communities, specifically those traditionally underrepresented in decision-making (EPA 2017).

Environmental Justice Communities include minority and low-income communities, tribal communities, and other communities traditionally underrepresented in public process. Underrepresented communities may include those with significant populations of youth, the elderly, or those with physical or mental disabilities (EJTF 2016).

Environmental justice also embraces the four traditional notions of justice: distributive justice, procedural justice, corrective justice, and social justice (Kaswan 2008; Kuehn 2009) (See Figure 1.7 for definitions and examples in the environmental justice context).

Figure 1.7 Four Traditional Notions of Justice Distributive – the right to equal treatment. In environmental justice, this means the right to the equitable distribution of environmental burdens, from environmental hazards like waste facilities, and environmental benefits, like public parks (Kuehn 2009). Procedural – the right to be treated as an equal. In environmental justice, it is reflected in the call for meaningful involvement in decisions that impact communities (Kuehn 2009; Kaswan 2008). Corrective – punishing lawbreaking and addressing damages inflicted on individuals and communities. Reflected in the “polluter-pays principle.” (Kuehn 2009). Social – the call for a more just ordering of society where everyone should have enough resources and power to live as befits a human being (Kuehn 2009). Environmental justice views environmental issues in context, by understanding that environmental burdens are significant not only in environmental terms, but because they are a product of broad social, economic, and political forces. And, the movement’s goals are designed to achieve not only environmental benefits, but also community empowerment (Kaswan 2008). 13

In 2007, the Oregon State Legislature passed SB 420, the state’s environmental justice law, which is now codified as ORS 182.535 to 182.550. The law requires the State’s natural resource agencies to consider environmental justice when they determine “whether and how to act.”4 The law also requires the agencies to create a Citizen Advocate position to coordinate their environmental justice efforts and encourage public participation. Finally, the law creates the State’s Environmental Justice Task Force (EJTF) to advise the Governor and natural resource agencies on environmental justice issues, to act as a liaison between the State’s environmental justice community and the Governor, and to identify environmental justice issues in Oregon. Oregon’s environmental justice law expressly identifies 14 “natural resources agencies” whose missions intersect with environmental justice issues.5 The EJTF has identified two additional agencies whose work implicates environmental justice issues and, at the task force’s request, the agencies agreed to engage voluntarily with the task force and have become regular participants in task force efforts (EJTF 2008; EJTF 2013) (See Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.8 Natural Resource Agencies Natural Resource Agencies Agencies participating voluntarily

Agriculture Marine Board Energy Education Oregon Health Auth Occ Safety & Health Environmental Quality Public Utility Admin Fish & Wildlife Comm’n Housing & Comm Servs Forestry State Lands Administrative Services Geology & Mineral Ind Transportation Land Conserv & Dev Water Resources Fire Marshalls Office (ORS 182.535; EJTF 2013)

4. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.545 (2017). 5. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.535 (2017). 14

Under ORS 182.545, the natural resource Figure 1.9 Interrelated duties of agencies have four interrelated duties (Figure 1.9 Natural Resource Agencies summarizes the natural resource agencies’ duties). • Incorporate EJ into decision- The purpose of these duties is to require the making process; • Engage in public outreach to agencies “provide greater public participation affected communities; • Provide opportunities for and … ensure that all persons affected by decisions meaningful public involvement; of the natural resource agencies have a voice in • Create a Citizen Advocate position to facilitate 6 those decisions.” environmental justice duties; First, each agency must incorporate • Report annually to EJTF and Governor on EJ work environmental justice into its decision-making process. Agencies must “consider the effects on (ORS 182.545). [an] action on environmental justice issues[,]” when “making a determination whether and how to act[.]”7 Second, each agency must provide opportunities for affected communities to become involved in agency decision-making by “[e]ngag[ing] in public outreach activities in the communities that will be affected by decisions of the agency.”8 Third, each agency must ensure that those outreach activities provide an opportunity for meaningful community involvement by “hold[ing] hearings at times and in locations that are convenient for people in the communities that will be affected by decisions of the agency.”9 Fourth, to help the agency perform these duties, each agency must create a “citizen advocate” position responsible for “encouraging public participation[,]” “ensuring that the agency considers environmental justice issues,” and “informing the agency of the effect of its decisions on communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes.”10 Each year, the director of each natural resource agency must submit a report on the agency’s environmental justice work to the EJTF and Governor that describes the work done to “[a]dress environmental justice issues[,]” “increase public participation” of affected individuals and communities, “determine the effect of the agenc[y’s] decisions on traditionally

6. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.545 (2017). 7. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.545(1) (2017). 8 . Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.545(3) (2017). 9 . Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.545(2) (2017). 10. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.545(4) (2017). 15

underrepresented communities,” and “improve plans to further the progress of environmental justice in Oregon.”11 The EJTF is a 12-member body, appointed by the Governor, made up of “persons who are well-informed on the principles of environmental justice and who, to the greatest extent practicable, represent minority communities, low-income communities, environmental interests, industry groups and geographically diverse areas of the state.”12 Under ORS 182.542, the EJTF has five Figure 1.10 Task Force Duties duties that, collectively, direct the task force to • Advise Governor on EJ issues • Advise natural resource agencies on EJ advise both the Governor and the natural issues, including community concerns and resource agencies on environmental justice public participation processes • Identify, with natural resource agencies, issues and practices,13 to partner with the natural minority and low-income communities that may be affected by environmental resource agencies to identify “minority and low- decisions made by the agencies income communities that may be affected by • Meet with EJ communities and make recommendations to the Governor environmental decisions made by the regarding concerns raised by the agencies agencies,”14 to serve as a bridge between • Define EJ issues in the state • Report to Governor on the progress the environmental justice communities and the agencies are making and identifying other 15 EJ issues for the Governor to address. Governor, and to define environmental justice issues in the state (Figure 1.10 summarizes the (ORS 182.538) EJTF’s duties).16 Like the natural resource agencies, the task force must submit an annual report to the Governor. The task force’s annual report must discuss the task force’s view “of the progress of natural resource agencies toward achieving the [state’s environmental justice goals] and identifying any other environmental issues that the task force determines needs attention.”17

11. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.550 (2017). 12. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.538(1) (2017). 13. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.542(1) and (2) (2017). 14. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.542(3) (2017). 15. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.542(4) (2017). 16. Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.542(5) (2017). 17. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.538(2) (2017). 16

Oregon’s environmental justice law seems to envision a mutually-beneficial relationship between the EJTF and natural resource agencies, as the agencies are also “directed to assist the task force in the performance of its duties and, to the extent permitted by laws relating to confidentiality, to furnish such information and advice as the members of the task force consider necessary to perform their duties.18 The law also directs the Governor to “provide the task force with the necessary clerical and administrative staff support.”19 1.2 Research Task and Scope Given the state’s commitment to climate change adaptation and environmental justice, Oregon appears well-situated to ensure that the adaptation work of its natural resources agencies, at a minimum, does not exacerbate inequities and injustices, and that the same work strives to produce environmental and health benefits in vulnerable communities. However, there is little information about whether and how Oregon’s environmental justice law has been implemented in the state’s climate change adaptation work. This thesis explores some natural resource agencies’ experiences with applying Oregon’s environmental justice law to climate change adaptation planning. In doing so, the thesis seeks to understand the role that environmental justice has played in some of Oregon’s state-level climate change adaptation work to date and to identify some of the barriers that the agencies have encountered when implementing Oregon’s environmental justice law during climate change adaptation efforts (See Table 1.1).

18. Or. Rev. Stat. § 182.538(9) (2017). 19 . Or Rev. Stat. § 182.538(8) (2017). 17

Table 1.1 Research Objectives and Questions Objective 1: Describe the role of environmental justice in each of the three climate change adaptation approaches Research Questions: 1. Do the documents mention environmental justice or related principles? 2. If so, what do those references suggest about the role of environmental justice in each approach? 3. What do stakeholders and observers of each approach perceive was the role of environmental justice in the process? Objective 2: Identify barriers to the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law in the three climate change adaptation approaches Research Questions: 1. What do participants in and observers of each approach perceive as key barriers? 2. Which barriers are unique to adaptation, and which barriers relate more broadly to agency experience in general? 3. What do stakeholders and observers of each approach believe agencies need to better incorporate environmental justice into adaptation, specifically, and agency decision-making, in general?

My research focused on three state-level climate change adaptation efforts that represent different approaches to adaptation: The Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework, Oregon Health Authority’s Climate and Health Program, and Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy (See Table 1.2 for an overview of the efforts).

Table 1.2 Overview of the Three Adaptation Efforts Purpose Impetus Lead Key Audience Components Agency (documents reviewed for this project are bolded) Climate Change Guide future Governor’s DLCD Natural Resource Climate Change Adaptation adaptation planning directive Agencies Adaptation Framework Framework (2010) (2009) Local Governments Regional Framework (2015) Climate and Prepare Oregon’s CDC OHA Public Health Local Pilot Projects Health Program public health “Climate Professionals (2011-13) (2010) system for health Ready risks posed by Cities and The Public Climate and Health climate change States” Report (2014) Program Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment (2015)

Climate and Health Resilience Plan (2017) Integrated Strategy “to meet Legislative OWRD State Agencies Oregon’s Integrated Water Oregon’s in-stream Directive Water Resources Resources and out-of-stream (HB 3369 Water Users Strategy (2012) Strategy (2009) water needs” (2009)) (public and private) Oregon’s 2017 Integrated Water Universities Resources Strategy (2017) The Public

In 2009, the effort to produce the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework began when Governor Kulongoski asked the state agencies and university partners to determine the greatest climate change risks facing the state and developing initial recommendations on how to prepare for those risks (DLCD 2010). In 2010, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) published the final Climate Change Adaptation Framework. In 2013, Oregon Sea Grant partnered with DLCD in a project to downscale the Climate Change Adaptation Framework to the regional level (DLCD 2015). In 2015, DLCD and Sea Grant published the Regional Framework for Climate Adaptation: Clatsop and Tillamook Counties. 19

The Oregon Health Authority established its Climate and Health Program in 2010 to help the Public Health Division understand how to prepare Figure 1.11 BRACE Framework for new health risks posed by climate change (OHA Step 1: Forecast climate impacts and 2018a). Funded by the Centers for Disease Control as a assess vulnerabilities participant in the “Climate Ready States and Cities Step 2: Project the burden of disease Step 3: Assess interventions Initiative,” the Climate and Health Program is Step 4: Develop and implement a developing a Climate and Health Resilience Plan for the climate and health adaptation plan. state’s public health system by following a climate Step 5: Evaluate impact adaptation process specifically targeted at public health, known as the BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects) Framework (OHA 2014) (Figure 1.11). The Climate and Health Program has taken a number of actions to apply the BRACE Framework, including Local Resilience Planning, preparing a Climate and Health Report, and developing a Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment (OHA 2018a) (Table 1.2).20 At the time that this research was conducted, the Climate and Health Program was also in the process of developing its Climate and Health Resilience Plan (Table 1.2). In 2009, the Oregon Legislature directed the Water Resources Department (WRD) to “develop an integrated water resources strategy to…meet Oregon’s in-stream and out-of-stream water needs” in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and in consultation with other state, local, and federal agencies, other states, Indian Tribes, and the public.21 The Legislature specifically requested that the Integrated Water Resources Strategy (“The Strategy”) describe “[p]lans related to the challenges presented by climate change.”22 After three years, eleven public meetings with communities across the state, and countless advisory group meetings, WRD completed and released the Strategy in 2012 (OWRD 2012). The Strategy seeks to provide a long-term, adaptive approach to water resources management in the state that must be reviewed and updated every five years.23

20. Because of my focus on state-level adaptation planning, I did not look at the role of environmental justice in the Local Resilience Planning. 21. ORS § 536.220(3)(a) and (b) (2017). 22. ORS § 536.220(3)(d)(D) (2017). 23. ORS § 536.220(3)(e)(B) (2017). 20

1.3 Expected Findings Because Oregon’s environmental justice law had been enacted for over a year when the first adaptation effort began and for nearly a decade when this research was conducted, I expected environmental justice and the procedural requirements of the environmental justice law to be at least a part of the conversation during the development of each of the three adaptation efforts. I also expected environmental justice to play an increasing role in efforts over time, as the natural resource agencies strengthened their knowledge of environmental justice best practices, developed internal policies to implement the environmental justice law, and built relationships with environmental justice communities across the state. Although little information exists about the barriers to applying Oregon’s environmental justice law to state-level climate change adaptation, others have investigated barriers to the implementation of planned climate change adaptation at various levels of government and barriers to the implementation of Federal Executive Order 12898 (EO 12898).24 Research suggests that common barriers to implementing adaptation plans and actions include the lack of resources, including a lack of information; policy and institutional constraints; the belief that there is strong public opposition to the actions, and relatedly, conflicting values and risk perceptions among the public; and a lack of strong leadership (Bierbaum et al. 2013; Jantarasami et al. 2010; Moser and Ekstrom 2010) (Figure 1.12). Barriers to the implementation of EO 12898 may include the lack of clear policy guidance within agencies, inadequate coordination between federal agencies and state partners (which falls under the “institutional constraints” barrier in Figure 1.12), and leadership (Konisky 2015).

24. Exec. Order. No. 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (February 16, 1994), https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf. EO 12898 is similar to Oregon’s environmental justice law. It requires federal agencies to “make achieving environmental justice a part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.” EO 12898 also created an “Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice” tasked with providing guidance to federal agencies on disparate impact analysis, coordinating and guiding federal agencies’ development of environmental justice strategies, and assisting with and coordinating environmental justice research by certain federal agencies. 21

Figure 1.12 Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Leadership – inconsistent guidance, motivation, and vision for adaptation actions.

Resources – lack of funding, staff capacity and expertise, information, technology, time.

Policy and Institutional Constraints – internal rules and decision-making processes, seemingly rigid laws and regulations, fragmented decision-making, opposition to change, lack of institutional flexibility.

Communication – lack of accessible, useable, and understandable information about climate change impacts, risks, and solutions.

Values and Beliefs – differences in the values and beliefs that influence risk perception and management and the kinds of information and knowledge that groups value; concern that actions will be met with public opposition.

(Bierbaum et al. 2013; Jantarasami et al. 2010; Moser and Ekstrom 2010)

Because this research explores the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law by investigating its application to state-level climate change adaptation efforts, I expect to find barriers similar to those identified both in research focused on climate change adaptation and in research focused on the implementation of environmental justice laws and policies. Additionally, I expect that some of the barriers identified will be unique to the application of the environmental justice law to adaptation efforts, while other barriers will be ones commonly experienced by natural resource agencies when seeking to apply the environmental justice laws to all of their work, including day-to-day operations (See Figure 1.13 for a schematic illustrating the expected findings of this research).

Figure 1.13 Expected Findings of this Research

Role of Environmental Justice Climate General EJ Specific Barriers Barriers Climate Change Adaptation Framework

Climate & Health Program NEEDS

Integrated Water Resources Strategy

As an initial exploration, the research focused on obtaining a wide range of perspectives on each process, rather than taking a deeper look into any one effort or single agency’s role and experience in the efforts. Accordingly, this thesis is not meant to be a critical review of those particular adaptation efforts, climate adaptation policies in Oregon, or the efficacy of Oregon’s environmental justice policy. Instead, by describing the progress that agencies have made and the challenges they have faced, this thesis hopes to provide policymakers and affected communities with some insights that may enable the state to more effectively integrate environmental justice into Oregon’s climate change adaptation and better engage impacted communities in the process. 1.4 Plan of Development The remainder of this thesis will begin by explaining the mixed method approach used to investigate the research questions, which included content analysis of key documents and semi- structured interviews with state employees and Environmental Justice Task Force members who 23

participated in the three climate adaptation efforts. For each effort, the thesis will describe the history and general approach to adaptation, as well as findings related to the role of environmental justice in the effort and perceived barriers for each effort. The findings indicate that the environmental justice has not become a part of the day-to-day work of most natural resource agencies. The most common barriers discussed by interviewees included a lack of wide-spread understanding, within some agencies, of Oregon’s environmental justice law and environmental justice principles and best practices; and lack of community capacity to engage in decision-making; lack of information about local and regional conditions. Finally, the thesis recommends some next steps for researchers and for the state. 24

2. Methods To explore the role of environmental justice in Oregon’s state-level climate change adaptation, this project used a mixed-method approach to data collection, involving semi- structured interviews and document analysis, involving both quantitative and qualitative methods. Interviews were primarily used to identify key successes in and barriers for integrating environmental justice into Oregon’s climate change adaptation planning. Interviews also supplemented document-based findings on the role of environmental justice in adaptation planning and descriptions of each effort studied. Documents were used to describe the three adaptation planning efforts, to explore the role of adaptation in each effort, and to clarify information learned during the interviews. 2.1 Interviews Between May and July 2016, 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven state agencies the Governor’s Natural Resource Office, the Environmental Justice Task Force, and two non-profit organizations (Appendix B). The purpose of these interviews was to identify key successes and barriers to integrating environmental justice into each of the three climate change adaptation planning efforts. As Bernard (2011) explains, nonprobability sampling – that is, choosing participants on purpose, rather than randomly – is appropriate for in-depth studies, which require highly informed participants. In this case an initial set of interviewees were selected for their experience with the three efforts, and additional interviewees were selected using a “snowball sampling” approach, where the first interviewees recommended others to interview. The “snowball sampling” method is useful for studying a population that is difficult to identify (Bernard 2011). The interviews were transcribed, and those transcriptions were coded to allow the researchers to find key quotes describing the climate adaptation efforts, environmental justice issues related to climate change, challenges and needs related to integrating environmental justice principles into adaptation work. The interviewee population was composed of experts in water policy and science, climate policy and science, environmental justice, and planning and preparedness working for state government. The primary focus was on individuals involved in agency efforts to adapt to 25

climate change impacts and recruitment emphasis was placed on members of Oregon’s Environmental Justice Task Force and employees of natural resource agencies. This population provided an internal, government perspective on what the state is doing to integrate environmental justice into climate change adaptation planning and how effective those efforts are. This population was selected to limit the scope of this initial exploratory project to a reflection by state employees and officials. Future research focused on capturing perspectives from outside state government, and particularly perspectives from underrepresented and vulnerable communities across the state would be incredibly valuable. The initial list of potential interviewees was developed by searching the climate adaptation effort web pages to identify the agency staff designated as the point person on each effort. Agency websites were also searched to identify the citizen advocate from each agency. Those individuals who could be identified, and whose contact information was publicly available, were contacted by email or phone. At the end of each interview, interviewees were asked to identify additional individuals meeting the inclusion criteria listed above who they believed the interviewer should talk to next. Those individuals were contacted using the same recruitment email or call. The snowball sampling method helped identify Environmental Justice Task Force members who participated in each effort and other agency staff involved in each effort (Bernard 2011). The research team knows the identities of all the interviewees. However, the specific responses of each interviewee were kept confidential. Although Appendix B lists the agencies that interviewees work for, this report does not include their names or positions. Additionally, the organizations that the two non-profit interviewees work for will not be named. Finally, direct quotes are used sparingly and, when included, are be attributed using coded identifiers (e.g., “001,” “002” etc.). Some interviewees specifically asked not to be quoted, and their wishes have been respected. Potential interviewees were notified in the recruitment process that the interview would be audio recorded, with their consent, but that their name would not be associated with any information given in publications or presentations. Before each individual interview, interviewees signed a written consent form. Individual interviewees had an opportunity to ask 26

questions about their rights as research subjects before signing the form. Interviewees were also given a copy of the form, which included information about their rights as research subjects and contact information for the IRB at OSU. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, following a guide of 9 to 12 open-ended questions with addition prompt questions outlining the details that the interviewer can probe for. Two different guides were developed, one for staff from natural resource agencies and the Governor’s Natural Resources Office and one for Environmental Justice Task Force members and community partners in the efforts (Appendix C). The questions in each guide were grouped into four sections. The sections in the staff guide included (1) Introduction, (2) Climate Adaptation and Related Efforts, (3) Challenges and Needs, and (4) Conclusion. The sections in the Environmental Justice Task Force and Community Partner guide included (1) Introduction, (2) Experiences with Oregon Government, (3) Recommendations, and (4) Conclusion (Appendix C - the questions that became the focus of this thesis are in bold). Ultimately, 16 interviews were conducted with 19 individuals from 11 entities between May 2016 and July 2016 (Appendix B). Three interviews involved two interviewees; three interviews were conducted by phone; and five interviewees chose not to be recorded. The interviews were designed to last between 30 minutes to one hour, but interviewees were free to determine the amount of time they wanted to devote to the interview. Interviewees were also free to choose not to answer any question, or to specifically request that their answer to a question not be directly quoted. When the interviewee consented, the interview was recorded using a digital recorder. The interviewer also took limited field notes during each interview. When interviewees chose not to have their interview session recorded, the interviewer took detailed hand-written field notes. Interview participants were free to choose not to answer any question posed by the researcher and could leave the interview at any time. Each recording was downloaded to an encrypted file, as mentioned, and transcribed into a Microsoft Word document using ExpressScribe transcription software for Mac and a foot pedal. The field notes were also transcribed at the top of the document. Each document was titled with the identification number(s) of the interviewee(s) and the date of the interview. Transcriptions 27

were then uploaded into Dedoose, a secure, online data-analysis application for qualitative and mixed-methods research, which was used to code the interviews. In this research project, codes were used to allow a single researcher to retrieve excerpts from each transcript relevant to the coded themes, which were based on the research questions mentioned above, without omitting any relevant portions of the transcripts (Campbell et al. 2013). As Campbell et al. (2013) explain, analysis of semi-structured interviews “requires that coders have sufficient background knowledge in the subject matter of the interviews” because “this type of data involves interpreting what respondents mean in their answers to questions.” When drafting the interpretive narrative for each finding, all excerpts tagged with the relevant codes were selected on Dedoose and exported into a Microsoft Word document to be reviewed together, synthesized, and summarized. Specifically, coded excerpts were used for the following: describing the three climate change adaptation efforts, describing the role of environmental justice in climate change adaptation in Oregon, and describing key challenges and needs related to integrating environmental justice into that work. A preliminary codebook was developed, with primary codes based on the objectives of this research project: Climate Adaptation, Climate Impacts, Environmental Justice, Challenge, and Need. Secondary codes were also developed under the Climate Adaptation, Climate Impacts, and Environmental Justice, based on the specific research questions mentioned above. The secondary codes for Challenge and Need were developed over the course of the interviewing and coding process, based on common themes that emerged from responses (See Table 2.1 for interview codes and Appendix E, Final Codebook, for the definition of each code).

Table 2.1 Interview Codes – secondary codes that informed the findings in this write-up are italicized Primary Code Secondary Codes Climate Climate Change Effectiveness Adaptation Adaptation Other Framework Process Integrated Water Collaboration Resources Strategy Climate & Health Climate Water Other Impacts Environmental Definitions Analysis/Substance Effectiveness Justice Issues Outreach/Engagement/Process Collaboration Communities Resources Challenge Science/Technology Community Capacity Cultural Competency Institutional Capacity/Bandwidth Needs Tools Collaboration

Funding Training

Codes were tested for inter-coder reliability using methods adapted from Campbell et al. (2013). The purpose of these methods is to “ensure that a single knowledgeable code may be reasonably confident that his or her coding would be reproducible by other equally knowledgeable coders if they were available.” (Campbell et al. 2013). Two code testers were given a general overview of the research project and a copy of the code book, which included the name of each code, a description of excerpts that the code would apply to, and, in some cases, a representative quote. Three interview transcripts were randomly selected using an online random number generator with the identification numbers of all the interviews transcribed as of July 16, 2016. The three selected interviews were coded. Then, the Dedoose Training Center was used to create two “code application tests,” one that tested the primary and secondary Climate Adaptation, Climate Impacts, and Environmental Justice codes and one that tested the 29

Challenge and Need codes. Each code application test included all of the excerpts from the three transcripts that were tagged with the codes being tested, as well as three to five excerpts where none of the tested codes applied. For each excerpt, the tester was asked to select the codes that apply, and were informed that multiple codes or no codes could apply to each excerpt. As Campbell et al. (2013) explain, there is “no agreed upon threshold for what constitutes a numerically satisfactory level of agreement among coders.” Instead, the standard for what is acceptable will depend on the purpose of the study – for example, exploratory social research may have looser thresholds than medical research (Campbell et al. 2013). In this case, the goal was to achieve 75% agreement, between the coder’s code application and each tester’s application, for each code. For each code that did not meet that benchmark, the coder discussed the code with the testers and decided whether to clarify the description, drop the code, or merge the code with another code (Appendix D). After the testing process was completed, all of the transcripts were coded using the final codebook (Appendix E). One code tester did not complete the test for the Climate Adaptation and Environmental Justice codes. 2.2 Document Analysis Two types of documents informed this research. First, Environmental Justice Task Force documents were reviewed to explore how the task force has supported natural resource agencies’ implementation of the state’s EJ policy over the years. Second, documents related to the three climate change adaptation approaches were used to describe each approach and supplement findings from interviews about the role of environmental justice in each approach. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to analyze this second set of documents. All of the Environmental Justice Task Force Documents were found on the Task Force’s website. The documents include (1) Annual Reports submitted by each natural resource agency and by the Environmental Justice Task Force to the governor each year, which describe the work that the agency/task force has done related to the state’s EJ policy and highlight key efforts, (2) Minutes from quarterly Environmental Justice Task Force meetings, (3) other documents produced by the Environmental Justice Task Force (Appendix F). The documents related to the three approaches were found through an internet search (primarily through the convening agency’s website) and recommendations from interviewees (and then collected from the 30

website). These documents included reports, strategies, and frameworks produced as deliverables for each effort, as well as interim progress reports and minutes capturing information about the planning processes (Appendix G). The Environmental Justice Task Force documents were reviewed, and notes were taken and used to draft a summary describing how the Environmental Justice Task Force has worked to promote environmental justice in Oregon’s state-level natural resources decision-making, including the task force’s work to help Oregon’s natural resource agencies implement their duties under Oregon’s Environmental Justice Law. Documents related to the climate adaptation efforts were used to supplement comments made during interviews describing the three approaches and discussing the role of environmental justice in the three approaches, by reviewing each document, taking notes, and summarizing and synthesizing those notes in the findings. A quantitative content analysis of the text of the documents that were deliverables of each effort was also used to triangulate interview findings about the role of environmental justice in each approach. The quantitative content analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which environmental justice concepts were explicitly included in each climate change adaptation effort’s deliverable document, based on the assumption that efforts that are particularly committed to environmental justice would not only focus on the substantive and procedural aspects of environmental justice in the planning process, but also incorporate those concepts into written products describing the planning process and outcomes. A list of codes representing key concepts of environmental justice was developed by reviewing introduction and definition sections of documents and books prepared by environmental justice advocates and scholars, including: • “Environmental Justice: Best Practices for Oregon’s Natural Resources Agencies” Introduction and Definition of Environmental Justice Sections • Chapter 1 “Introduction” of Collin, R.M. & Collin, R.W. (2010). Encyclopedia of Sustainability (Vol. 3: Equity and Fairness). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press. • Chapter 1 “The Importance of Equity and the Limits of Efficiency in Water Resources” from Whiteley, J.M., Ingram, H. & Perry, R. (Eds.) (2008). Water, Place, and Equity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The list was also divided into 3 broad categories, representing the substantive and procedural aspects of environmental justice: (1) Populations: descriptors of specific demographics frequently viewed as potential EJ communities, as well as the terms “underrepresented” and “vulnerable;” (2) Impacts: keywords that would highlight concerns for outcomes that present concerns to environmental justice communities; (3) Process: terms that represent procedural best practices and values associated with environmental justice. The concepts of environmental justice and equity were also included in the code list, because some of the readings indicated that equity and environmental justice are not synonymous: although environmental justice embraces the principle of equity, pursuing environmental justice requires more (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Climate Change Adaptation Document Codes Word Category Keywords Environmental Justice Concepts Equity Minority Underrepresented Community of Color Disenfranchised Low-income (low income) Vulnerable Populations Populations Tribal Vulnerable Community Elderly Impacted Community Youth/Young Diverse Disabled Future Generation Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts Disparate Outcome Health Disparity (-ies) Equal Protection Equitable Fair Treatment Fair Meaningful Involvement Inclusive Process Participation Open Outreach Transparent Engagement Equal Access

The presence and frequency of each term was counted in each document. Documents were reviewed in PDF format. The control + F (find) function, was used to search the documents for each term. The total number of time the term appeared in the document and the page numbers on which it appeared were recorded. Terms that were imbedded in other words 32

were counted, if relevant, as were words with different endings (communities vs. community). Notes were also taken about the context in which the terms were used, and when the researcher decided not to count terms that were found (e.g. In the 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy, “diversity” only appeared with the term “biodiversity.”). Then, the word count function in Adobe Pro X was used to determine the total word count for each document. Because the function includes page numbers and footnote markers in the total word count, the recorded word counts probably represent an over-estimate. Word counts were used to calculate the percentage of the document consisting of each term, category of terms, and overall list of keywords. Finally, the data was used to create a word map visual of each document, where each term present in the document is included the word map and the size of the term represents its relative frequency (to other present words) and its color represents category. Recognizing that this quantitative approach does not fully capture the role or importance of EJ concepts in the documents, the page number notes were also used to refer back to the use of the words, so that notes about the context in which the words came up could also be taken and later summarized in the findings.

3. Findings This research explores the role of environmental justice in three state-level climate adaptation planning efforts in Oregon and barriers to the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law in those efforts. In this section, I will present the results from the document analysis and interviews together under a separate subsection for each adaptation effort. For each effort, the thesis will describe the history and general approach to adaptation, as well as findings related to the role of environmental justice in the effort and perceived barriers for each effort. Before that discussion, I will present common barriers identified through the interviews. Each individual effort section will also present specific examples of how the barriers served as obstacles to applying Oregon’s environmental justice law in that effort. 3.1 Common Barriers to Environmental Justice Interviewees identified three key barriers to the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law in the climate change adaptation efforts: (1) limited understanding of and experience with environmental justice principles and best practices; (2) limited community capacity to engage in agency decision-making processes; and (3) lack of information about regional and local conditions. Limited budgets, or other financial constraints, serve as a common, over-arching barrier to agencies’ and the EJTF’s ability to address these and other barriers to implementation. These barriers do not appear to be unique to the climate change adaptation context, but rather, commonly experienced themes of the efforts to implement the environmental justice law overall. 3.1.1 Understanding Limited understanding of and exposure to environmental justice principles and best practices in the natural resource agencies presents a challenge for the effective implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law. Early on, the EJTF observed varied levels of understanding between the natural resource agencies and worked closely with the natural resource agencies to “institutionalize” environmental justice through training programs and implementation plans and handbooks (EJTF 2009). Although the agencies have made progress on increasing understanding of environmental justice among their staff, interviewees still identified understanding as a key barrier. In some agencies, limited knowledge of the history of the 34

environmental justice movement and environmental justice principles presents a barrier to constructive conversations within the agency about how environmental justice could be considered in day-to-day operations. In one interviewee’s experience, uncertainty around the concept of an “environmental justice community” often ended conversations about developing environmental justice policies and procedures at their agency: “[W]hen you say ‘environmental justice community’ and you start there, it creates a lot of confusion from decision-makers. ‘What, tell me where this community is?’ is the likely question you’ll get. And that becomes almost a roadblock to … further conversations about environmental justice and I think sometimes that phrase, it becomes dismissed or, ‘well we can’t do this, it’s nearly impossible.’” (Interview 003)

Limited experience with disparate impact analysis and outreach and engagement best practices presents a barrier to the proactive identification and involvement of impacted communities in agency decision-making. For example, one interviewee discussed how outreach best practices provide new challenges for natural resource agency staff: “So for, ... you know that guy who’s been doing permits for twenty years ..., needs some type of a, you know step-by-step guide. Who does he call, which organizations does he call nearby? ... And did you think about having childcare and having, but does he have any resources for childcare? I mean, where the rubber hits the road gets really constrained and complicated really fast.” (Interview 009)

3.1.2 Community Capacity Some of the interviewees expressed the belief that community capacity represents one of the greatest gaps in the state’s implementation of the environmental justice law. To the interviewees, community capacity means a community’s ability to engage with agencies and in their decision-making processes, as well as a community’s ability to determine which issues or actions matter to them, and which decisions the community would like to have a role in making. As the EJTF Handbook explains, “increasing community capacity to participate affords an agency the opportunity to take advantage of the knowledge and expertise of local communities while strengthening their partnership abilities.” (EJTF 2016). Community capacity includes: access to technical information about environmental conditions in the community and impacts of potential actions; tools to monitor environmental conditions (i.e. community science); community-based organizations/networks/leaders who can represent community perspectives, 35

concerns, values; resources (funds, time, facilities) that enable communities to discuss potential issues and paths forward; resources the enable communities to discuss concerns and solutions with agencies (EJTF 2016; Interviews). 3.1.3 Information Many natural resource agencies also lack relevant data about local or regional conditions, which may limit the agency’s ability to identify potential environmental justice issues. Natural resource agencies need to be able to identify these issues proactively because, as discussed above, many communities have limited capacity to bring issues to the state’s attention. This lack of data also limits agencies’ understanding of local issues and the communities dealing with them, which in turn limits agency ability to effectively respond to these issues. As one interviewee explained, their agency is committed to involving affected communities in decision- making, but has sometimes struggled to figure out which issue communities want to be involved in and caught public criticism when they failed to involve a community in a decision that ended up being important to that community: “I think one of the ... big challenges that we have is we don’t necessarily know what may or may not be an issue for any given community that lives or works around any given site that we regulate. ... And so, I think that what we are really challenged with is, not necessarily how to do outreach, but when whatever, whatever decision that we have ahead of us, when to know that there’s gonna be interest in that. ... [O]ver the years we’ve tried different ways to try to do outreach to different communities, and in some ways we’ve been really successful and in other ways, ... there’s no response. So it’s, I think that that’s a really difficult thing is to figure out what people really care about and then how to engage with communities. ... I think we would do what we needed to do, ..., in terms of communication and getting input, but it’s, we seem to often miss the ball on either getting to the right people or knowing which topic or issue people would have interest in that we have a role in.” (Interview 014)

Similarly, agencies do not have the information needed to understand the variety of issues and stresses any given area experiences, how those issues might combine on the landscape, and how their experiences may exacerbate current issues or cause new issues for local communities. In other words, agencies are unable to comprehensively assess the risks that their actions pose to specific communities because they do not understand the factors that contribute to the 36

vulnerability of that community (See Figure 1.4). Limited local information also serves as a barrier to the equitable distribution environmental benefits--agencies are unable to use environmental justice considerations to decide where to prioritize certain work. Data limitations also limit utility of some tools developed to help incorporate environmental justice and equity considerations into climate change adaptation. 3.1.4 Financial Resources In its 2008 Annual Report, the EJTF observed that most agencies reported supporting the task force’s environmental justice recommendations, but reported that they lacked resources to implement those recommendations. Over the years, the natural resource agencies have reported a need for funding to support environmental justice training and public outreach. Interviewees also observed that limited financial resources contribute to agencies limited understanding of environmental justice principles – through a lack of consistent training and limited time that Citizen Advocates can commit to their work advising their agencies on environmental justice. Financial resource constraints also influence agencies’ ability to conduct effective outreach and engagement. Public participation best practices, especially those that promote the meaningful participation of environmental justice communities (e.g. having daycare and interpretation services at public meetings) require a significant investment of time and money. Meaningful involvement of impacted communities must begin early enough in the decision-making process to actually affect the outcome, which requires agencies to make this investment upfront, at a time when many do not feel comfortable committing that level of resources (EJTF 2016). Other interviewees recognized that natural resource agencies could play a role in filling the community capacity gap, through programs that encourage community involvement in decision-making that also build long-lasting community capacity in the form of community organizations or community-based environmental monitoring. But natural resource agencies and the task force lack funds to pursue that work on a broad scale. The EJTF also identified budget restraints as a major barrier to its own environmental justice missions (EJTF 2009).

3.2 Climate Change Adaptation Framework Environmental justice does not appear to have played a significant role in the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework or the Regional Framework for Climate Adaptation: Clatsop and Tillamook Counties (“Regional Framework”). However, the Regional Framework incorporated some concerns about equity in its focus on health risks posed by climate change and both frameworks stressed the importance of involving the public, through outreach and engagement, during the process of implementing each framework. 3.2.1 The Climate Change Adaptation Framework The Climate Change Adaptation Framework was the product of a collaborative effort of state agencies and partners including OCCRI, the Climate Leadership Initiative, Oregon Sea Grant, OSU Extension Service, and the OSU Institute for Natural Resources, and was developed through a series of interagency workgroup meetings and workshops. As a framework, rather than a plan, the Climate Change Table 3.1 Climate Risks (DLCD 2010). Adaptation Framework does not 1. Increase in average annual air temperatures, and likelihood of extreme heat events contain detailed commitments to 2. Changes in hydrology and water supply; actions or outcomes or clear reduced snowpack and water availability in some basins; changes in water quality and mechanisms for their implementation. timing of water availability Instead, the Climate Change 3. Increase in wildfire frequency and intensity 4. Increase in ocean temperatures, with potential Adaptation Framework seeks to guide for changes in ocean chemistry and increased ocean acidification future state, regional, and local 5. Increased incidence of drought planning efforts by providing context 6. Increased coastal erosion and risk of inundation from increasing sea levels and increasing wave and recommending an initial heights and storm surges direction for adaptation. Specifically, 7. Changes in abundance and geographical distributions of plant species and habitats for the Climate Change Adaptation aquatic and terrestrial wildlife Framework identifies eleven “risks,” 8. Increase in diseases, invasive species, and insect, animal, and plant pests that represent “likely changes in 9. Loss of wetland ecosystems and services climate conditions in Oregon” that 10. Increased frequency of extreme precipitation events and incidence and magnitude of pose “a significant threat to [the damaging floods 11. Increased incidence of landslides 38

state]” through 2050 (DCLD 2010) (See Table 3.1). For each risk, the Climate Change Adaptation Framework provides high-level, qualitative assessments of the risks, their consequences to key sectors (Ecosystems, the Built Environment, Public Health and Safety, and the Economy), and the capacity of state programs to address these risks. The framework’s assessment of the state’s capacity to address each risk identifies actions that already address the risk and major gaps in the state’s capacity. The Climate Change Adaptation Framework also identifies actions needed to fill these gaps, including both “priority actions,” short-term actions that Figure 3.1 The Climate Change Adaptation allow agencies to respond to the Framework Approach most pressing risks with little to no 1. Identify likely risks associated with climate change 2. Assess the adaptive capacity of state programs additional costs to the state, and 3. Identify short-term, low-to-no-cost priority actions additional, longer-term, more to prepare for those risks 4. Provide context and initial direction for additional resource-intensive actions. Finally, climate change adaptation coordination and planning. the Climate Change Adaptation Framework provides recommendations for implementing the priority actions (See Figure 3.1). The Climate Change Adaptation Framework’s approach was shaped, in part, by the 2010 recession. As the framework explains, “resource considerations made it paramount to limit the list of needed actions to a few relatively low-cost actions.” (DCLD 2010). Although the framework includes some longer-term actions, the participants focused on identifying “short- term, low-to-no-cost priority actions” and those actions are described as “the most important element” of the framework (DLCD 2010). The framework also explains: “[G]iven the state general fund budget situation ..., new resources are not likely to be available to implement any more than only a few of the needed actions, if any.” (DCLD 2010). Though participants anticipated that the Climate Change Adaptation Framework would be the starting point for a robust and long-term process of coordinated, inter-governmental climate change adaptation in Oregon, the recession and continuing budget constraints have limited the progress made on the actions identified in the Climate Change Adaptation Framework. However, as many interviewees noted, components of the Climate Change 39

Adaptation Framework have influenced and been incorporated into other agency initiatives and planning documents. For example, the Climate Change Adaptation Framework is highlighted in Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy and has informed the Climate and Health Program’s work. Environmental Justice and Equity do not appear to have played a significant role in the Climate Change Adaptation Framework. The document does not mention “environmental justice.” (Table 3.2). Interviews also confirm that environmental justice was not explicitly discussed in any of the meetings and workshops during the development of the framework. At the same time, as one interviewee noted, environmental justice is not always labeled as environmental justice, particularly in the work of natural resource agencies. That interview, and others, as well as the text of the documents, reveals that the framework does incorporate some concepts related to environmental justice. Nine of the 33 keywords are present in the Cliamte Change Adaptation Framework (Table 3.2). Most of these words reflect process and population concerns (Figure 3.1). The most frequently used words were “outreach,” which appears 26 times, and “tribal,” which appears 13 times. The one impact mentioned by the document is “health risk,” which appears four times.

Figure 3.2 Environmental Justice words present in the Climate Change Adaptation Framework.

Orange represents impact terms; green represents population terms; blue represents process terms. The size of each word represents its relative frequency.

The Climate Change Adaptation Framework refers to some of the substantive concerns of environmental justice. Although the framework does not assess the impacts of climate change, or of the recommended actions, on environmental justice communities, it does discuss the public health and safety consequences for each risk, which serves as an initial scoping of public health concerns. The document also mentions four population-related keywords. The most frequently mentioned word, “tribal,” appears almost exclusively in reference to intergovernmental coordination and collaboration around climate adaptation; addressing sovereignty concerns central to environmental justice issues experienced by indigenous communities. Environmental justice principles did not play a significant role in the process used to develop the Climate Change Adaptation Framework. As mentioned above, the framework was developed from the input of state government employees, without significant opportunities for public participation. However, interviewees believed that environmental justice would play a larger role in the Climate Change Adaptation Framework’s implementation because the priority actions only involved existing programs, which have environmental justice obligations under Oregon’s environmental justice law: “The only actions [recommended by the Frameworks] would just be [undertaken] through our existing programs. And I think ... that’s why I don’t see environmental justice called out in here. It’s because, you know, we have this, this [EJTF Best Practices] manual to help guide state natural resource agencies in the actions they take and since many of the implementation mechanisms are existing state agency programs that [if] taken with this [handbook] and with their own [environmental justice] policies [in mind] it should push it in that direction.” (Interview 005).

And, in fact, the Climate Change Adaptation Framework envisions a significant role for public involvement in the state’s adaptation to climate change. It highlights “communication and outreach” as an over-arching implementation recommendation, recognizing outreach as an important component of implementing adaptation actions related to each climate risk (DLCD 2010).

Table 3.2 Environmental Justice Keyword Findings

3.2.2 The Regional Framework Oregon Sea Grant and DLCD developed the Regional Framework to build regional-level adaptive capacity by providing more accurate context for “climate-sensitive” management decisions in local communities on the North Coast of Oregon (DLCD 2015a). Recognizing that the “state-level [framework] is not sufficiently detailed for local adaptation planning,” the project used climate projections specific to the North Coast to develop a Regional Framework for Clatsop and Tillamook Counties (DLCD 2015a). The partners convened representatives from federal and state agencies, as well as local government, for a series of three workshops. At each workshop, four work groups, representing four different management regimes or “areas of expertise and responsibility within which the effects of climate change will need to be addressed and managed” -- Infrastructure, Health and Safety, Natural Systems, and Working Lands -- identified priority risks, developed management objectives for adaptations, and outlined mechanisms and actions that could achieve those objectives (DLCD 2015a). As with the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, environmental justice and equity do not appear to have played a significant role in Regional Framework. The document does not mention “environmental justice” or “equity.” (Figure 3.3). And interviews confirm that environmental justice was not discussed expressly in the meetings or workshops used to develop the Regional Framework. But the Regional Framework does represent some progress towards greater integration of environmental justice principles into the adaptation process through downscaling. Interviewees noted that local representatives were able to bring community-based concerns into the conversations, and that the Health and Safety work group introduced the concepts of health equity and social determinants of health into the process. Seven of the 33 keywords are present in the Regional Framework (Table 3.2). Most of these words are process-related. Again, “outreach,” which appears six times, was the most frequently used word, while “health risk,” “participation,” and “engagement,” each appeared three times.

Figure 3.3 Environmental Justice words present in the Regional Framework.

Orange represents impact terms; green represents population terms; blue represents process terms. The size of each word represents its relative frequency.

Substantive environmental justice and equity concerns were most clearly considered in the Regional Framework’s focus on the concepts of “health” and “safety”. These concepts were not only considered as consequences of climate impacts, but also as one of the four “management regimes” that the Regional Framework was developed around. An interviewee noted that the workshops included a public health work group that included one local public health representative. That representative and participants representing OHA introduced environmental justice concerns into the conversation by discussing the social determinants of health. The management objectives that the public health work group developed did reflect some substantive elements of environmental justice. For example, objective Health and Safety (HS)-8 provides: “Ensure that natural hazards mitigation plans and public health and emergency services plans address the needs of underserved and disadvantaged community members.” (DLCD 2015a). But understanding served as a barrier to better integrating environmental justice into the Regional Framework. One interviewee noted that the full group’s ability to meaningfully consider and address health equity and environmental justice concerns was limited by their understanding of public health and the concept of “health” itself: “[I]t was really challenging because a lot of the people coming into that work[shop] didn’t really understand what public health does or what’s some maybe basics about climate and health. ... And so…we didn’t get, I felt like we didn’t get very far and maybe didn’t get to the heart of maybe some of the issues. 44

... [I]t was really good that [the local health representative] was there, but you know we spent a lot of time, ... tak[ing] quite a few steps back to kind of do that basic, you know, orientation, you know, to public health ... even what health is cause ... it can be challenging cause it is connected to a lot of things and there’s so many things that influence health. It does require some definition ... to have a productive conversation.” (Interview 010).

The Regional Framework’s development process represents progress towards applying more equitable, environmental-justice based processes to climate change adaptation framework development. For example, the workshops did include some community involvement, with representatives from county and local governments, including a local city planner and a health professional. However, the general public was not invited to participate. As with the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, the Regional Framework recommended actions and objectives, particularly those related to Health and Safety, that reflected processes more conducive to meaningful involvement. For example, management objective HS-7 provides: “foster improved public understanding of climate-related health and safety risks.” And the Regional Framework recommends that the implementation of HS-8 involve “collaborat[ing] with vulnerable populations to understand their needs” and “partner[ing] with disadvantaged populations and include them in decision-making.” (DCLD 2015a). 3.3 Climate and Health Program Health equity and environmental justice are major areas of emphasis in the Climate and Health Program’s work. In fact, advancing health equity is part of the core values of OHA (OHA) (Figure 3.4). OHA has an Figure 3.4 OHA’s Core Value of Health Equity Office of Equity and Inclusion that “We promote health equity so that everyone can “works with diverse communities to reach their full potential. We honor diverse cultures, histories and health practices. We reflect eliminate health gaps and promote our communities’ diversity as we make decisions optimal health in Oregon.” (OHA about how health resources are developed and distributed. We promote a workplace environment 2018b). that ensures inclusion and equity.” Interviewees also noted that (OHA) community engagement is central to public health. The Public Health Division of OHA is committed to empowering communities to come up with solutions to public health issues in their 45

communities. As such, the employees at OHA have a lot of training and experience in community engagement and understanding has not been a barrier to the agency’s implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law. In EJTF meetings, and among the natural resource agencies, OHA not only brings expertise in outreach and engagement, but is a strong advocate for the importance of those processes in decision-making, centrality of those processes for achieving equity and environmental justice. Because of their experiences, OHA employees are able to provide real-life examples of how meaningful engagement of impacted communities can not only achieve more equitable results, but overall better outcomes than the agency could have produced on its own. Building off of OHA’s commitment to health equity, the Climate and Health Program is “working toward climate equity, where no person shoulders a heavier burden on climate impacts due to social or economic circumstances.” (OHA 2018a). To further that goal, the Climate and Health Program’s approach seeks not only to directly address health equity concerns related to climate change, but also to raise awareness among health professionals and communities across the state of the connections between climate change and public health and of the importance of health equity. This prioritization of environmental justice is reflected in the text of the documents describing the Climate and Health Program’s work and was discussed in depth during interviews. Early actions applying the first few steps of the BRACE Framework focused on substantive elements of environmental justice: identifying communities and evaluating impacts. Although the texts of earlier documents do not reveal a lot of community involvement or outreach, the Climate and Health Program has been more intentional about employing an inclusive and equitable process in its more recent work. Interviewees noted that, as part of its equity mission, the Climate and Health Program is committed to developing mutually-beneficial relationships with communities and community- based partners. However limited community capacity to engage with the program was identified as a major gap in the Program’s ability to achieve its environmental justice and health equity goals. For example, on interviewee from the program noted that

“And part of ... what we’re learning is that we can’t just expect one, you know, say organization that represents or works with a certain community to sit on a million different task forces or advisory groups, just, you know, in a volunteer-type capacity. That we really need to think about valuing that kind of engagement in a different way. ... Because all of us in state government, we get paid to do these meetings and this work, right? But then we’re asking all these people to come to the table…and not get compensated. And so I think [a major lesson the program has learned is is] rethinking how we do that.” (Interview 001).

As that quote illustrates, one major challenge related to community participation is that community representatives are often expected to serve as stakeholders in decision-making processes, on advisory committees for example, in a volunteer capacity. Any one committee is time consuming, but this issue is often compounded by these service-oriented individuals choosing to, or being asked to, contribute their time and perspective to multiple volunteer endeavors. The Climate and Health Program has not yet been able to reimburse advisory group members from the community for their time, travel, and expertise, but the Climate and Health Program staff interviewed explained that they have tried to give back to communities and individuals who participate in their work in other ways – by providing them with headshots and way to communicate their work and interests through “Story Portraits” and by participating in community-based events. 3.3.1 Climate and Health Profile Report In 2014, the Climate and Health Program published its Climate and Health Profile Report (“the Report”), which describes the likely impacts of climate change and its influence on health in Oregon and fulfills the first step in the BRACE Framework. Specifically, the Report identifies eight climate impacts: Heat, Drought, Wildfire, Storms & Flooding, Sea-level Rise, Infectious Disease, Allergens, and Other Indirect Impacts; their associated health risks; and the communities most vulnerable to these risks. For example, the Profile Report identified and described four health risks posed by increased incidence of drought: food insecurity, water insecurity, mental health, and income loss (Table 3.3). For populations vulnerable to food insecurity, the Profile Report identified communities of color, American Indians, low-income households, pregnant women, children, 47

and rural residents. As for populations vulnerable to mental health impacts, the Profile Report identified famers and a ranchers, rural residents, and low-income households.

Table 3.3: Populations vulnerable to risks associated with increased drought (OHA 2014) Food Insecurity Water Insecurity Communities of Pregnant women Rural residents Infants Color Children Low-income households American Indians American Indians Rural residents Private well users Low-income households Mental Health Income Loss Farmers and ranchers Economically dependent on agriculture Rural residents Rural residents Low-income American Indians

The text of the Climate and Health Profile Report, reinforces the importance of environmental justice and equity in the Program’s work and reflects the document’s primarily substantive approach (Figure 3.5). Thirteen of the 33 keywords are present in the Report, including both “Equity”, which appears six times, and “Environmental Justice,” which appears once. (Table 3.2). Most of the keywords found in the document are associated with populations and impacts. This focus is consistent with the purpose of the document, which is to identify health risks likely to result from climate change impacts and the populations most vulnerable to those risks. The most frequently used words were “low-income, which appears 20 times, “disproportionate,” which appears 12 times, and “outcome,” which appears 11 times.

Figure 3.5 Environmental Justice words present in the Climate and Health Report.

Orange represents impact terms; green represents population terms; blue represents process terms; purple represents principles. The size of each word represents its relative frequency.

The only process word used in the Report is “outreach,” which appears four times. Interviews confirmed that the processes that the Climate and Health Program used to develop both the Report and the Vulnerability Assessment (discussed below) were mostly internal, involving literature review and evaluating publicly-available census data and OHA’s own health statistics. Professional stakeholders and internal experts reviewed and provided feedback on the documents. Interviewees attribute the process, which lacked public involvement, to parameters set by the two projects’ funder, the CDC’s Climate Ready States and Cities Initiative. As one interviewee noted, over the past few years, the CDC required its grantees to conduct quantitative analyses to project disease burdens related to climate change. The Climate and Health Program committed significant time and resources to develop the requisite expertise and conduct complex technical work and, thus, was not able to use community engagement to inform the Climate and Health Profile Report or the Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment. Although the text of the Report does not reveal a lot of community involvement or outreach, the Climate and Health Program has sought to engage various communities in conversations around the Report. After the release of the Climate and Health Profile Report, the Climate and Health Program has partnered with a number of community organizations to 49

sponsor public events about the intersection of climate change adaptation, resilience, and community health. Those conversations have been facilitated, in part, by other features of the Report that emphasize visuals and storytelling. These strategies illustrate the Climate and Health Program’s commitment to exploring various ways to communicate information in order to reach a wider audience, and especially those who have little exposure to government reports or research literature. For example, the Climate and Health Profile Report includes a “Climate Change Infographic” that illustrates the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and injury, illness, and death. The Report also features “Story Portraits” that highlight diverse perspectives on climate change and health in Oregon. The “Story Portrait” project also represents the Program’s approach to partnership. Because the portraits highlighted diverse perspectives on climate change in Oregon, the project allowed the Program to connect with people with areas expertise not traditionally involved in public health work. Through interviews, the Program learned about these people, their work, and their interests, and began to explore how they related to public health and health equity. At the same time, the Story Project was also designed to benefit the people that it features – each person received professional headshots and the Program’s staff worked with each person to write the “stories” as a success story that the person could use to highlight their accomplishments. Many of the people featured in the story portraits became advisors and stakeholders in later stages of the BRACE Framework. 3.3.2 Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment As part of the second step in the BRACE Framework, the Climate and Health Program completed a Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment (“the Vulnerability Assessment”). Published in 2015, the Vulnerability Assessment focuses on social vulnerability as one underlying factor in a community’s vulnerability to climate change impacts. The Vulnerability Assessment presents a Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) for the state that combines eleven indicators of social vulnerability, including measures of demographics, socioeconomic status, and health. The Vulnerability Assessment includes a set of maps that display the SVI and each of the eleven indicators at the census tract level for the state. (Figure 3.6). In short, the maps 50

identify the relative social vulnerability of communities in Oregon. By identifying areas with more vulnerable social and health baselines, the assessment provides a high-level picture of areas of the state where climate change impacts and climate change adaptation efforts are likely to raise health equity and environmental justice concerns. The Climate and Health Program chose to focus its Vulnerability Assessment on social vulnerability to provide public health professionals and others with a way “to integrate the concepts of social determinants and environmental justice into long-term planning.” (OHA 2015).

Figure 3.6 Social Vulnerability Index

However, lack of localized information has limited the utility of the tools. The data used in the Social Vulnerability Index is only collected at county- and census tract- levels. But agencies need an index with finer spatial resolution to identify specific communities that should be targeted and prioritized. As a series of maps, the Vulnerability Assessment prioritizes communicating concepts visually (even more so than the Report) and included five of the 33 keywords, in only 15 pages (Table 3.2). These included “Environmental Justice” and words from both populations and 51

impacts. Consistent with the Vulnerability Assessment’s purpose and development (discussed above), the document did not contain any process words (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7 Environmental Justice words present in the Vulnerability Assessment.

Orange represents impact terms; green represents population terms; blue represents process terms; purple represents principles. The size of each word represents its relative frequency.

3.3.3 Climate and Health Resilience Plan In 2015, the Climate and Health Program convened an advisory group of agency, health professional, and community partners to develop a Climate and Health Resilience Plan (step 4 of the BRACE Framework). The program staff and advisory group chose to refer to the document as a “resilience” plan rather than the “adaptation” plan contemplated by the BRACE Framework. They adopted resilience framing to on social systems and equity and emphasize building community resilience, which involves a focus on existing strengths within a community, as well as vulnerabilities. The Figure 3.8 Resilience Plan Sections Climate and Health Resilience Foundational Public Health Capabilities & Section Name: Plan (“Resilience Plan”) was released in February 2017. • Health Equity and Cultural Responsiveness INVOLVE The Resilience Plan included • Community Partnership Development PARTNER • Assessment and Epidemiology ASSESS 16 priorities and • Policy and Planning PLAN recommendations that were • Emergency Preparedness and Response PREPARE • Communications COMMUNICATE “actions that will build • Leadership and Organizational Competencies LEAD resilience to multiple climate 52

hazards and stressors” at both the state and local level that were designed to be “actionable within a five-year period,” with an update planned for 2020 (OHA 2017). The Resilience Plan’s components are divided into seven sections, focused on the “foundational public health capabilities.” (Figure 3.8). The Resilience Plan continued the Climate and Health Program’s commitment to communicating through visual and story-telling modes, featuring seven explanatory videos and twenty “Story Portraits.” (See Figure 3.9 for one of the Story Portraits Featured in the Resilience Plan).

Figure 3.9 Sample Story Portrait from the Climate and Health Resilience Plan (OHA 2017)

For example, one of the videos was a short, animated film explaining how climate change will affect environmental conditions in Oregon and, in turn, how the health consequences of those air quality effects will disproportionately impact minority and low-income communities in the state. The Program staff view the video as a tool to start a dialog within the agency and among public health professionals about the need to institutionalize climate change and climate justice considerations in public health and to empower public health professionals to become leaders in climate change adaptation. 53

Interviewees noted that the Climate and Health Program has especially prioritized community outreach, engagement and meaningful involvement in the process of developing its Resilience Plan. The Program convened a diverse advisory group that represents many interests and sectors not traditionally associated with public health. Many advisory group members also represent communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes. The advisory group has had significant influence over the Resilience Plan, shaping it in many ways. For example, based on input from the advisory group, the Resilience Plan represented a major departure from the approach recommended by the BRACE Framework. Rather than focusing on vulnerabilities and recommending interventions to address them, the Resilience Plan promoted a strength-based approach that “identifies and uses existing community assets, resources, networks and supports.” (OHA 2017). And, rather than matching strategies to specific hazards, the Resilience Plan takes an “all-hazards” approach, focusing on actions that can build community and system resilience more broadly (OHA 2017). The advisory group also inspired the Climate and Health Program staff to choose aspirational and innovative strategies for the Resilience Plan, rather than choosing strategies based on what would be most feasible in the present. As with the other documents produced by the Climate and Health Program, the text of the Resilience Plan reflected the program’s commitment to environmental justice and health equity. Fifteen of the 33 keys words were present in the Resilience Plan including both “equity,” which appeared 19 times, and “environmental justice,” which appeared three times (Table 3.2). Consistent with the Resilience Plan’s focus on community engagement in development, process words appeared with more frequency in the plan than other Climate and Health Program documents – five of the keywords appeared 14 times, including participating, which appeared five times and engagement which appeared six times (Compare Figure 3.10 with Figures 3.5 and 3.7).

Figure 3.10 Environmental Justice words present in the Climate and Health Resilience Plan.

Orange represents impact terms; green represents population terms; blue represents process terms; purple represents principles. The size of each word represents its relative frequency.

Most of the keywords were population terms – which appeared 34 times (Table 3.2). Of the population keywords, “diverse” was used most frequently, appearing 18 times. Impact words appeared 13 times, including “health disparity,” which appeared five times, and “outcome, which appeared four times. Finally, although it was the second shortest document reviewed as part of this research, the Resilience Plan had the second highest frequency of environmental justice keywords, with 83 appearing in the document. And, the Resilience Plan had the highest percentage of environmental justice keywords – they made up over 1% of the document, compared to the Profile Report, which had the next highest percentage of environmental justice keywords at 0.4% of the document. 3.4 Integrated Water Resources Strategy Like the Climate and Health Program, the Strategy is another planning approach that makes a targeted effort to incorporate environmental justice. Specifically, WRD has emphasized procedural aspects of environmental justice in the development, implementation, and update of the Strategy. In developing, implementing, and updating the Strategy, WRD and its partner agencies have been committed to following a process in which all interests in the state were considered and had an opportunity to share their perspectives and concerns. A major way that this is done is through an inclusive, public process. 55

Most significantly, environmental justice is a key component of one of the principles that guides both the development and the implementation of the Strategy: “Public Process: Employ an open, transparent process that fosters public participation and supports social equity, fairness, and environmental justice. Advocate for all Oregonians.” (OWRD 2012).

One interviewee noted that a goal of this principle is to ensure that people not only understand the policy decisions made through the strategy and how their voice has contributed to the decision-making process, but also have access to the technical data that drives water management across the state. WRD and its partners hope that access to this technical information will help the public to participate more effectively in water planning processes. 3.4.1 The 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy Though the Strategy is not a climate change document, it has adaptation embedded in it. The Strategy is a water management document outlining a way for various sectors and interest work together to understand the current state of Oregon’s water resources, the state’s current and future instream and out-of-stream needs, the emerging pressures that affect the state’s water needs and water supply, and key factors related to coordinate management to meet the state’s water needs. The Strategy discusses critical issues related to each of its four primary objectives and outlines thirteen sets of recommended actions. The Strategy also provides an in-depth discussion of how climate change will impact water resources in Oregon and the importance of climate adaptation to future water management in the state. Additionally, the Strategy identifies climate change as a “cross-cutting issue” that is “present or implied in every section” of the Strategy. During the development of the first Strategy, WRD and its partners held open house meetings held in communities across the state, government-to-government meetings, advisory group and stakeholder workshops, and provided opportunities for online and written input (OWRD 2012). The text of the first Strategy reflects a commitment to a public process that supports environmental justice. Sixteen of the 33 keywords are present in the strategy, including both “Equity,” which appears twice, and “Environmental Justice,” which appears six times (Figure 3.11, Table 3.2). Most of the words are related to populations and process. The most frequently 56

used words are “tribal,” which appears 30 times, “outreach,” which appears 26 times, and “outcome” and “participation,” which both appear 12 times.

Figure 3.11 Environmental Justice words present in the Integrated Water Resources Strategy.

Orange represents impact terms; green represents population terms; blue represents process terms; purple represents principles. The size of each word represents its relative frequency.

WRD works closely with the nine federally-recognized tribes in Oregon, both in the context of environmental justice and as sovereigns that the state has a government-to- government relationship with. Not only are the tribes frequently referenced and discussed in the Strategy, but they have also been involved in some of the actions implementing the process. For example, one of the implementation actions is to improve water resource data collection and monitoring by, among other things, updating Oregon’s stream gage network (OWRD 2012). In doing so, WRD has worked closely with tribes, the State Historic Preservation Office, and Parks Department to avoid installing new stream gauges and monitoring wells in culturally sensitive areas. 3.4.2 Implementing the 2012 Strategy During the 2012-17 implementation phase, WRD focused on building upon existing data and monitoring programs and by developing and administering the Oregon Water Resources Development Program, which seeks to build state and local capacity to collaboratively plan and implement water resources projects. Through the program, WRD provides funding and technical assistance to community-based water resource planning and development projects. The program 57

includes three components: (1) Place-Based Integrated Water Resources Planning, (2) Feasibility Study Grants, and (3) Water Project Grants and Loans. Financial resources were not a significant barrier to the implementation of the strategy. For example, in 2013, the legislature established “Water Supply Development Account” separate from the General Fund to fund the Water Resources Development Program.25 Also in 2013, the legislature added $780,000 to WRD’s budget to maintain and install groundwater monitoring wells and hire two additional groundwater scientists. Similarly, the legislature added $730,000 for new stream gages and two hydrologic technicians. WRD’s Place-Based Planning program empowers communities to collaboratively develop their own integrated water resources plan. The Strategy explains that these basin-level plans will be essential to meeting the state’s water needs because of the unique nature of each basin in the state. According to the Strategy, Place-Based Planning “enables communities to engage in a collaborative process to determine how best to meet their unique” water needs and provides “a venue for water managers to interact with the people who live, work, and play in a watershed and care deeply about it.” (OWRD 2012). That language mirrors the EJTF’s definition of environmental justice. And, indeed, some of the interviewees viewed Place-Based Integrated Water Resource Planning as a key way to integrate environmental justice into the work of WRD and water-related climate change adaptation in Oregon. Interviewees explained that, because of the context-dependent nature of environmental justice issues, place-based studies, which allow for a comprehensive look at all of the conditions in a community are best suited to capturing environmental justice concerns and workable solutions in a given location. As one interviewee noted, place studies “transcend oppression” because they “allow you to delve deeply into a long-term perspective of a particular place.” (007). Similarly, the Strategy explains that “Place-based planning allows these conversations [about communities’ values and concerns] to take place at a scale that a statewide strategy may not be able to achieve.” (OWRD 2012). Currently, WRD is supporting four place-based planning pilot projects across the state in Harney County, the Upper Grande Ronde Basin, the Lower John Day Sub-Basin, and the Mid-

25. Senate Bill 839 (2013), Oregon Laws 2013, ch 784, § 3. Codified at ORS § 541.656. 58

Coast Region (Figure 3.12). The planning groups are required to abide by the guiding principles of the Strategy, including employing a public process that supports environmental justice.

Figure 3.12 Place-Based Planning pilot project areas (OWRD 2018).

WRD’s Water Project Grants and Loans provide funds to evaluate, plan, and implement instream and out-of-stream water projects that will have economic, environmental, and social/cultural benefits. By statute, applicants are ranked on the environmental, economic, and social benefits of their proposed project.26 Social benefits considered by the reviewers include whether the project will provide a “measurable improvement in conditions for members of” environmental justice communities – specifically, “members of minority or low-income communities, economically distressed rural communities, tribal communities or other communities traditionally underrepresented in public processes.”27 Applicants for the 2016 funding cycle were also asked to show that they consulted with environmental justice communities and/or tribes with an interest in the project area and that the project would not impact them negatively. Applicants were also encouraged to explain how the project would promote environmental justice. Because of limited access to information about local conditions, the interagency team reviewing the 2016 Water Project Grant applications did not have a quick and reliable way to

26. ORS § 541.673 (2017). 27. ORS § 541.673(4) (2017). 59

confirm the assertions that the applicants made about the environmental justice impacts and benefits of their proposed projects. 3.4.3 The 2017 Strategy Update For the 2017 update, WRD plans to retain the goals, objectives, and principles from the 2012 Strategy and focus on reporting implementation progress, selecting implementation priorities for the next phase, and exploring key topic areas that require additional attention. In response to Governor Brown’s executive order, which directed WRD to focus on “long-term drought resiliency planning,”28 these key topics will include disaster preparedness (e.g. droughts, floods, earthquakes) and climate adaptation (OWRD 2015). In April 2017, WRD released a Public Review Draft of the 2017 Integrated Water Resources Strategy and held a comment period that ran from April 2017 to July 2017. The 2017 Integrated Water Resources Strategy was adopted by the Oregon Water Resources Commission on December 7, 2017. The 2017 update process has also involved open houses, where WRD presented on the progress that has been made implementing recommended actions from the 2012 Strategy and gathered public input on drought resiliency. This time around, WRD and its partners have sought to be even more intentional about pursuing meaningful community involvement by convening a more inclusive policy advisory group. For the 2017 update, WRD and its partner agencies specifically sought policy advisory group members with whom they had not worked before. Unlike the first advisory group, this new advisory group also includes an environmental justice voice, with a representative from the Environmental Justice Task Force.

28. Exec. Order. No. 15-09, (July 27, 2015), http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/executive_orders/eo_15-09.pdf. 60

4. Discussion and Conclusion Oregon needs to prepare for the impacts of climate change and the state has recognized the need to do so for many years. Climate change adaptation can exacerbate existing social, economic, and health inequities if the inequities are not taken into account when planning adaptation actions. But, if impacted communities are considered and involved in adaptation planning, adaptation efforts can not only prepare the state while avoiding disparate impacts on environmental justice communities, but also may serve to reduce existing inequities, strengthening the entire state in the face of climate change impacts. Oregon has an environmental justice law that seeks to ensure that natural resource agencies consider the environmental justice impacts of their actions and involve impacted communities in the decision-making process. As such, the state appears well-situated to address environmental justice and equity issues that will arise as the climate continues to change and that could result from adaptation actions. But little has been done to examine how the state has translated the principles of environmental justice and the duties in the environmental justice law into practice, particularly in the context of climate change adaptation. This research addressed the following questions: (1) what role do environmental justice principles and environmental justice law play in and to what extent do they shape state-level adaptation efforts? and (2) what are potential barriers to integration of environmental justice into climate adaptation efforts? I found that two of the three efforts expressly sought to employ environmental justice principles, but took slightly different approaches. Oregon Health Authority’s Climate and Health Program incorporated environmental justice through its commitment to health equity and creative approaches to working with diverse community partners and to using multiple modes of communication so that its work could reach a broader audience. The Integrated Water Resources Strategy incorporated environmental justice thorough its commitment to an open and transparent public process and emphasis on increasing community capacity to participate in water resources decision-making by, for example, making technical information publicly available and a part of the Strategy development process itself. 61

While my findings were consistent with an emerging and developing role for environmental justice in the two later efforts, explicit consideration of environmental justice and efforts to incorporate environmental justice considerations were lacking in the first – the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, as discussed in more detail in the sections that follow. I expected that some of the barriers might include lack of resources, policy and institutional constraints, beliefs and values, leadership, lack of clear policy guidance, and lack of coordination between agencies and with other governments. The barriers identified were consistent with my expectations – and with those observed in literature regarding climate change adaptation implementation, as detailed below. 4.1 Role of Environmental Justice The findings suggest that the role of environmental justice in climate change adaptation has grown over time. This pattern can be observed when comparing the three adaptation efforts and by comparing the multiple stages of each effort. The role of environmental justice has increased across all these efforts. The earliest adaptation effort, the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, did not explicitly consider environmental justice or provide opportunities for public participation (See Figure 4.1). It is not clear why this is the case, as the law had been in effect for over a year when the effort to develop the Climate Change Adaptation Framework began. None of the interviewees who had participated in developing the framework had any explanations. This finding could reflect a slow start to integrating the environmental justice law into the thought-processes of the natural resource agencies. The later adaptation efforts, the Climate and Health Program and Integrated Water Resources Strategy both represented conscious efforts to apply aspects of Oregon’s environmental justice law to climate change adaptation planning (See Figure 4.1). The role of environmental justice has also increased in later stages of each of the climate change adaptation efforts. Although environmental justice did not play an explicit role in the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, it is reflected in the downscaled Regional Framework’s focus on the concepts of health equity and safety both in the final framework and in the workshops used to develop the framework. The Climate and Health Program’s early work explicitly focused on the substantive concerns of environmental justice. But the development of 62

each project lacked public involvement, which has been attributed to the Climate and Health Program’s funder’s emphasis on using quantitative methods to project the disease burdens of climate change. Although the Program’s staff could not commit much time or resources to public involvement in those projects, they used low-cost strategies to set a foundation for increased community involvement in the later stages. In Climate and Resilience Plan, the Program built upon that foundation with significant community involvement, through a highly influential advisory group and a diverse range of community partners featured in its Story Portraits and video series. Finally, the agencies developing the Integrated Water Resources Strategy increased their commitment to a public process that promotes environmental justice during the 2017 update by holding more public input sessions across the state, by including an environmental justice perspective on its policy advisory group, and by seeking out new partners. These findings indicate that the natural resource agencies involved in these efforts are progressing in their ability to apply Oregon’s environmental justice law to their work.

Figure 4.1 Key Findings

4.2 Barriers to Implementing Oregon’s Environmental Justice Law Barriers identified by the interviewees included lack of wide-spread understanding of the environmental justice law and environmental justice principles within some agencies; lack of community capacity to engage in decision-making; and lack of information about local and regional conditions (Figure 4.1). Interviewees also identified a lack of financial resources as contributing to all of the other major barriers (Figure 4.1). And, when viewing the findings in the context of Moser and Ekstrom’s (2010) broader definition of “resources,” a lack of resources appears to be a major contributor to each of the identified barriers (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Comparing Features of Barriers Identified in this study to barriers described in Climate Change Adaptation Literature29 Barriers from Understanding Community Capacity Information Figure 1.12 Inconsistent support for training and internal policy- Leadership development

Citizen Advocate capacity Outreach and engagement Data (fine-resolution and staff expertise expertise among agency environmental data, socio- staff economic data)

Resources Funds, time, facilities to Technology meet to discuss issues and solutions (within community and with agencies) Little agency-specific best Tools to monitor Avenues for gathering practices guidance environmental conditions information from field Policy and offices Institutional Discomfort with “vague” EJ Constraints concepts Interagency information sharing Lack of public access to information about Communication environmental conditions and climate impacts

Some underrepresented communities potentially Values and Beliefs opposed to being identified as an EJ community

29. Bierbaum et al. 2013; Jantarasami et al. 2010; Moser and Ekstrom 2010. 64

These findings indicate that actions needed to better integrate environmental justice into the decision-making of natural resource agencies may include: (1) Additional Human Resources, (2) Increased Coordination and Collaboration, and (3) Funding Programs (Figure 4.1) (See Figure 4.2 for specific examples of needs).

Figure 4.2 Key Needs Human Resources Regular and evolving EJ training – across entire agency Agency-specific EJ guidance documents Full-time citizen advocates in each natural resource agency Positions dedicated to capacity-building work Positions dedicated to outreach and engagement Leadership

Coordination and Collaboration A statewide EJ Mapping tool Statewide EJ Database Interagency Workgroup on Climate Change Partnership Agreements Regular field staff “inventories”

Implementing and Downscaling Plans

Funding Programs For employing outreach best practices Community Resilience Project Grants Stipends for Policy Advisory Group Members and other time-consuming community involvement service.

The findings also reveal an interesting contrast between the funding of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework and the Integrated Water Resources Strategy. The Climate Change Adaptation Framework was mean to highlight low-to-no-cost priority actions for agencies, with the implied expectation that the agencies would not receive additional funding to support the actions. It has largely not been implemented or had the impacts that its creators had hoped it would have on state-level adaptation in Oregon. By contrast, when the legislature directed WRD and its partners to create the Integrated Water Resources Strategy, it committed to funding that effort. The legislature has continued that commitment, by funding many of the specific implementation actions recommended in first strategy, including three grant programs, 65

and by funding the 2017 update. Although the Climate Change Adaptation Framework explicitly points to budgetary concerns as the reason for its focus on low-to-no-cost actions, the legislature ordered the Integrated Water Resources Strategy to be developed in the same year that Governor Kulongoski directed the natural resource agencies to develop the framework so both efforts were envisioned and developed under the same economic climate. This raises the question: other than budget limitations, what factors and circumstances contributed to the different funding approaches and outcomes of the two projects?30 This contrast demonstrates that a government’s announcement of policy goals is not always accompanied with a commitment to funding the policy mechanisms created to achieve those goals. And, without financial support, it can be hard to translate stated goals into real- world changes. Although these observations do not relate to environmental justice, they illustrate a dynamic that may also be at play with the environmental justice law. The findings indicate that, although the environmental justice law creates the infrastructure to address issues of environmental injustice, the bodies charged with implementing the law may not have been provided with the resources needed to effectively used that infrastructure. The barriers identified were consistent with my expectations – and those observed in literature regarding climate change adaptation implementation and the implementation of the federal environmental justice executive order (Table 4.1). However, the interviewees discussed barriers as more related to the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law in general, rather than specific challenges of applying the environmental justice law to the climate change adaptation context. This indicates that the state may need to focus on implementing the environmental justice law before it is able to identify or even experience unique implementation barriers that may exist at the intersection of environmental justice and climate change adaptation. As an initial exploration of the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law in climate change adaptation, this research focused on three specific adaptation efforts. As a result, the research was not able to capture the experiences of each natural resource agency or of the variety of professions working within each agency. While the role of environmental justice in the

30. Some factors to explore may include the impetus for each project, the key proponents of the project, the discussion surrounding each project’s enactment, and whether the source (governor vs legislature) of the mandate matters. 66

many and varied policies and programs of each natural resource agency would provide a broader context for understanding the findings of this study, such breadth of inquiry was beyond the scope of this thesis. Similarly, this research did not address the experiences of communities affected by agency decisions and actions. Because the findings indicate that the state still has a lot of work to do to achieve the procedural goal of the environmental justice law, i.e., having agencies consider environmental justice every time they decide whether and how to act, this research suggests that the state may benefit from a comprehensive assessment of the law’s implementation. It may be valuable to interview the Citizen Advocates and leadership (directors and managers) from each natural resource agency, past and present members of the Environmental Justice Task Force, and staff from the Governor’s Office to learn about efforts to implement the law, any successes or barriers experienced, and the lessons learned. A survey of all (or a representative sample of) natural resource agency staff could provide a better picture of awareness of the environmental justice law and the role that it plays in day-to-day within each agency. It would also be valuable to conduct a more external assessment of Oregon’s environmental justice law to capture the perspectives of impacted communities and environmental justice advocates. The state may also benefit from monitoring the place-based planning pilot projects’ experiences promoting environmental justice and the public participation guiding principle, and evaluating successes and challenges for integrating those values into the process. 4.3 New Questions Raised by this Research Additional research may also help to promote the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law and the increased integration of environmental justice into the state’s climate change adaptation efforts. Three avenues that I would like to explore include:

(1) Institutional and policy constraints to the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law • What institutional constraints do agencies perceive as barriers to increased integration of environmental justice into their work? Barriers may include: institutional culture, agency 67

authority (i.e. enabling legislation), internal decision-making processes, and state and federal environmental and procedural laws. • Are there features of the environmental justice law’s design that serve as barriers to its implementation? A symbolic politics framework could provide one method for evaluating the design of the law.31 For example, Newig (2007) proposes considering the following factors to determine whether an environmental law is more symbolic than functional: “substantive effectiveness,” including how well-suited the law’s provisions are to meeting its stated policy objectives, whether the law provides its implementing bodies with the means to enforce its provisions, and whether adequate infrastructure exists to implement the policy; and “political-strategic effectiveness,” including the severity of sanctions for non-compliance, the kind of legal vehicle in which the policy is found (constitutional amendment, statute, executive order vs. administrative rule or local ordinance), and the timing of its passage. Under Newig’s (2007) framework, only laws with low substantive and political-strategic effectiveness are truly symbolic. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of the environmental justice law may be particularly useful in pinpointing ways that the law could be amended to increase its effectiveness.

(2) Legal barriers to the implementation of Oregon’s environmental justice law • Do other state, federal, or local laws (potentially or actually) limit the natural resource agencies ability to implement Oregon’s environmental justice law? • Do natural resource agency staff perceive any laws to be barriers to the implementation of the environmental justice law?

(3) Similarities between climate change adaptation and environmental justice efforts in Oregon • Do climate change adaptation and environmental justice present similar policy problems?

31. Symbolic politics refers to situations where (1) policymakers deliberately intend for a law or policy to fail or (2) a policy is designed to initiate a political process towards reaching broader goals that the government or public is currently unable or unwilling to fulfill (Lewis and Owley, 2014; Matten, 2003) 68

• Do adaptation plans and environmental justice have similar barriers to implementation? • Could these similarities help to address both? 4.4 Conclusion Oregon’s environmental justice law appears to create a policy infrastructure that is well- suited to ensure that state-level climate change adaptation does not exacerbate existing inequities across the state. However, until this research, there was little information about whether and how the law had been implemented in the state’s adaptation work. Based on the experiences of natural resource agency staff and Environmental Justice Task Force members who participated in the Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework, Climate and Health Program, and Integrated Water Resources Strategy, environmental justice appears to have played an increasing role in climate adaptation. At the same time, the findings also suggest that environmental justice has not become a part of the day-to-day work of most natural resource agencies. Because this research was an initial exploration, additional research is needed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the environmental justice law and key barriers preventing the state from accomplishing its environmental justice goals. 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernard, Russel H. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 5th Ed. New York: AltaMira Press, 2011.

Bierbaum, Rosina, Joel B. Smith, Arthur Lee, Maria Blair, Lynne Carter, F. Stuart Chapin III, Paul Flemming, Suan Ruffo, Missy Stults, Shannon McNeeley, Emily Wasley, Laura Verduzco. “A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (2013): 361-406.

Bullard, Robert D. and Glenn S. Johnson. “Environmental Justice: Grassroots Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy Decision Making.” Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3 (2000): 555-78.

Camacho, Alejandro E. “Adapting Governance to Climate Change: Managing Uncertainty Through Learning Infrastructure.” Emory Law Journal 59 (2009): 1-77.

Campbell, John L., Charles Quincy, Jordan Osserman, and Ove K. Pedersen. “Coding In-depth Semistructured Interveiws: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement.” Sociological Methods and Research 43, no. 3 (2013): 294-320.

“Climate Change and Public Health.” Oregon Health Authority. Last Accessed on Feb. 3. 2018. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Pa ges/index.aspx. (OHA 2018a).

Collin, Robert W. “Environmental Justice in Oregon: It’s the Law.” Environmental Law Review 38 (2008): 413-455.

Craig, Robin Kundis. “‘Stationarity is Dead’ – Long Live Transformation: Five Principles for Climate Change Adaptation Law.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 34 (2010): 9-73.

Dalton, Meghan M., Philip W. Mote, Amy K. Snover, eds. Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2013. http://www.occri.net/media/1078/climatechangeinthenorthwest.pdf.

Dalton, Meghan M., Kathie D. Dello, Linna Hawkins, Philip W. Mote, and David E. Rupp. The Third Oregon Climate Assessment Report, Oregon Climate Change Research Institute. Corvallis, OR: College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 2017. http://www.occri.net/publications-and-reports/third-oregon-climate- assessment-report-2017/.

Dello, K.D. and P.W. Mote, eds. Oregon Climate Assessment Report: December 2010. Corvallis, OR: College of Oceanographic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 2010. http://pnwcirc.org/sites/pnwcirc.org/files/ocar2010.pdf.

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework. Salem, OR: DLCD, 2010. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/ClimateChange/Framework_Final.pdf.

Doremus, Holly. “Adapting to Climate Change with Law that Bends without Breaking.” San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy Law 2 (2010): 45-86.

Governor’s Advisory Group on Global Warming. Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions: December 2004. Salem, OR: 2005. http://www.oregon.gov/energy/Data- and-Reports/Documents/2004%20Oregon%20Strategy%20for%20Greenhouse%20Gas% 20Reductions%20Report%20Legislature.pdf.

The Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group (CCIG). Final Report to the Governor: A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Energy, 2008. http://www.theresourceinnovationgroup.org/storage/CCIG_Final_Report.pdf.

Hall, Margaux J. and David C. Weiss. “Avoiding Adaptation Apartheid: Climate Change Adaptation and Human Rights Law.” Yale Journal of International Law 37 (2012): 309- 66.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, , M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and L.A. Meyer. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2015. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.

Jantarasami, Lesley C., Joshua J. Lawler, Craig W. Thomas. “Institutional Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in U.S. National Parks and Forests.” Ecology and Society 15, no. 4 (2010). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art33/.

Kaswan, Alice. “Environmental Justice and Domestic Climate Change Policy.” Environmental Law Reporter 38 (2008): 10287-314.

Kaswan, Alice. “Domestic Climate Change Adaptation and Equity.” Environmental Law Reporter 42 (2012): 11125-43.

Konisky, David M. “Federal Environmental Justice Policy: Lessons Learned.” In Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Justice, Edited by David M. Konisky. Boston: MIT Press, 2015.

Kuehn, Robert R. “A Taxonomy of Environmental Justice.” In Environmental Justice: Law Policy and Regulation, Edited by Clifford Rechtschaffen, Eileen Gauna, and Catherine O’Neill. 2nd Ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009.

“Learn About Environmental Justice.” United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Last Updated September 26, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn- about-environmental-justice.

Moser, Susanne C. and Julia A. Ekstrom. “A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 51 (2010): 22026-31.

“Office of Equity and Inclusion.” Oregon Health Authority. Last accessed February 8, 2018. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/OEI/pages/index.aspx. (OHA 2018b).

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). ODOT’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report: April 2012. Produced by Liz Hormann, in consultation with the ODOT Climate Change Technical Advisory Committee. Salem, OR: ODOT, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/TDD%20Documents/Climate-Change- Adaptation-Strategy.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force (EJTF). EJ Task Force 2008 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2008. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and% 20Reports/2008%20EJTF%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force (EJTF). Oregon Governor’s Environmental Justice Task Force: 2012-2013 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/ policy/environment/environmental_justice/Documents/2012-2013%20EJTF%20 Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force (EJTF). Environmental Justice: Best Practices for Oregon’s Natural Resource Agencies. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/environment/environmental_justice/Documents/Orego n%20EJTF%20Handbook.v4.pdf. 72

Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC). Report to the Legislature: January 2009. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Energy, 2009. http://www.keeporegoncool.org/s/2009-Legislative-Report.pdf.

Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC). Report to the Legislature: 2011. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Energy, 2011. http://www.keeporegoncool.org/s/2011- Legislative-Report.pdf.

Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC). Biennial Report to the Legislature: February 2017. Salem, OR: OGWC, 2017. http://www.keeporegoncool.org/s/2017-OGWC- Legislative-Report.pdf.

Oregon Health Authority (OHA). N.D. OHA Core Values. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/Documents/ OHA-Core-Values.pdf. Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Oregon Climate and Health Report. Prepared by B. Haggerty, E. York, J. Early-Alberts, C. Cude. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Authority, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Document s/oregon-climate-and-health-profile-report.pdf.

Oregon Health Authority (OHA). “Climate and Health Equity.” YouTube Video. Published November 8, 2016. https://youtu.be/xD1aDHIqzyE.

Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Oregon Climate and Health Resilience Plan. Prepared by Emily York, Julie Sifuentes, and Gabriel Markus. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Authority, 2017. https://apps.state.or.us/Forms/Served/le8267a.pdf.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). Climate Change Response: Preparedness and Action Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, 2010. http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/docs/coastal_plans/oprdclimatechangeplan_forcom mission_forweb.pdf.

Oregon Task Force on Global Warming. Report to the Governor and Legislature: June 1990. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Energy, 1990. https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl%3A12803/datastream/OBJ/view.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy: August 2012. Salem, OR: OWRD, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS_Final_2.pdf.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 2017 Update to Oregon’s Water Resources Strategy. Memorandum to Water Resources Commission Dated November 20, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS/Agenda_Item_O_IWRS_Update.pdf. 73

“Place-Based Integrated Water Resources Planning.” Oregon Water Resources Department. Last Accessed February 8, 2018. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/Place_Based_ Planning.aspx#Place-Based_Planning_Areas

Rechtschaffen, Clifford, Eileen Gauna, and Catherine O’Neill. “Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement.” In Environmental Justice: Law Policy and Regulation. 2nd Ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2009

Shi, Linda, Eric Chu, Isabelle Anguelovski, Alexander Aylett, Jessica Debats, Kian Goh, Todd Schenck, Karen C. Seto, David Dodman, Debra Roberts, J. Timmons Roberts, and Stacy D. VanDeveer. “Roadmap Towards Justice in Urban Climate Adaptation Research.” Nature Climate Change 6 (2016): 131-37.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Frequently Used Acronyms

Abbreviation Stands For CDC Centers for Disease Control DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality EJ Environmental justice EJTF Environmental Justice Task Force EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency IWRS Integrated Water Resources Strategy OCCRI Oregon Climate Change Research Institute ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OHA Oregon Health Authority OSU Oregon State University PSU Portland State University WRD Oregon Water Resources Department

Appendix B: Interviews

Efforts Discussed ID Affiliation Notes CCAF IWRS C&H 001 Oregon Health Authority Joint with 002 X 002 Oregon Health Authority Joint with 001 X 003 Water Resources Department X 004 Governor’s Natural Resources Office Not recorded X 005 Department of Environmental Quality X X 006 Nonprofit X Joint with 008 007 Environmental Justice Task Force X Part not recorded Joint with 007 008 Environmental Justice Task Force X Part not recorded 009 Governor’s Natural Resources Office X X X 010 Oregon Health Authority X X 011 Oregon Department of Transportation X 012 Department of Agriculture X Not recorded 013 Department of Fish and Wildlife X X By phone 014 Department of Environmental Quality X 015 Department of Agriculture Not recorded X Joint with 017 016 Environmental Justice Task Force Not recorded By phone Joint with 016 017 Nonprofit Not recorded By phone 018 Oregon Department of Transportation By phone X X 019 Oregon Climate Change Research Institute X X X

Appendix C: Interview Guides – questions that became the focus of this thesis are in bold.

Sample Interview Guide – Agency/Governor’s Staff Introduction 1) How long have you been with [Name of Agency]?

2) How did you come to work for [Name of Agency]?

3) What other positions do you hold/have you held in the agency? a) What are/were your duties/responsibilities in those positions?

Climate Adaptation and Related Efforts 4) What major water-related climate change impacts has [Agency] worked to address?

5) How does your work relate to these issues?

a) Can you provide some examples of projects you’ve worked on related to [drought, storms/flooding, water quality]? i) Probe about goals, their role, partners, data, target communities.

b) What are other ways you or [Agency] has been involved in climate adaptation in Oregon? i) Probe about agency/employee experience working on or implementing (1) Climate Change Adaptation Framework (2) IWRS (3) Climate and Health Program

6) What role, if any, did environmental justice or equity play in the [each effort discussed above]? i) Were impacted communities/populations identified? ii) If so, what did you do? (1) Reach out to/involve the community? (2) Address impacts? iii) Were any of these communities “environmental justice” communities? (1) How did you identify them as such?

Challenges and Opportunities 7) Can you describe some of the challenges that [Agency] faces in addressing environmental justice concerns related to climate change?

8) What resources or opportunities are available to [Name of Agency] to help better address these issues?

9) What do you think [Agency] needs in order to better address [drought, flooding, water quality]?

Conclusion 10) Would you like to make any other comments about climate adaptation and EJ? 11) Who else do you think I should talk to about these issues? 12) Do you have any questions for me? 78

Sample Interview Guide – Environmental Justice Task Force Members and Community Partners

Introduction 1) Will you tell me about your background as it relates to environmental justice?

2) How do you define “environmental justice” and “equity”? What do the terms mean to you and in your work?

3) In your opinion, what are some of the greatest environmental justice issues presented by climate change? a. In general, nationally, and in Oregon specifically?

b. What kinds of EJ concerns have emerged (or will emerge) in Oregon related to i. The increased prevalence of drought ii. More extreme weather events and flooding iii. Deteriorating water quality (from temperature, drought, flooding)

Experiences with Oregon Government 4) Can you tell me about your experience serving on the Environmental Justice Task Force? a. What discussions or efforts have you been involved in related to climate change or water resources?

5) Can you tell me about your experience working with [agency interviewee has worked closely with]? a. How have you been involved in [name of climate adaptation effort]?

b. How effective has the [agency] been i. At considering EJ issues ii. At involving EJ communities? throughout the update process.

c. What other [agency] efforts have you participated in, or in what other ways have you interacted with the [agency]?

6) What other state agencies have you worked with on issues related to EJ, water, or climate change, through the EJTF or otherwise? a. What kinds of efforts were you involved in? b. What was the nature of your involvement in these efforts? c. How effective were these efforts i. At considering the issues ii. At identifying and/or involving affected communities? d. Of these efforts, which do you believe were most effective? Which fell short?

Recommendations 7) What do you believe are the major challenges in, or obstacles to, addressing EJ in Oregon’s natural resource agencies’ climate adaptation efforts? a. How could those barriers be addressed?

8) Do you have any other recommendations for how Oregon could better protect environmental justice communities from climate change impacts?

Conclusion 9) Who else do you think I should talk to about these issues?

Appendix D: Code Testing Results Codes that received less than 75% agreement between at least one tester and the student researcher are bolded. Tester 1 Tester 2 Code Agree Disagree Percent Agree Disagree Percent Challenge 16 8 0.67 22 2 0.92 Need 14 10 0.58 22 2 0.92 n-tools 15 9 0.63 22 2 0.92 n-funding 19 5 0.79 23 1 0.96 n-collaboration 20 4 0.83 19 5 0.79 n-training 21 3 0.88 24 0 1.00 chall-sci/tech 22 2 0.92 23 1 0.96 chall-comm capacity 22 2 0.92 20 4 0.83 chall -inst. capacity/bandwidth 19 5 0.79 19 5 0.79 chall - cultural competency 19 5 0.79 20 4 0.83

Overall 187 53 0.78 214 26 0.89

Code Agree Disagree Percent Agree Disagree Percent Climate adaptation 53 5 0.91 c ad IWRS 57 1 0.98 Environmental Justice 51 7 0.88 ej resources 52 6 0.90 c ad CCAF 55 3 0.95 c ad process 56 2 0.97 c ad collaboration 53 5 0.91 c ad other 53 5 0.91 c imp water 51 7 0.88 climate impacts 53 5 0.91 ej communities 54 4 0.93 ej effectiveness 48 10 0.83 ej analysis/substance 56 2 0.97 ej definitions 58 0 1.00 ej issues 55 3 0.95 c ad effectiveness 57 1 0.98 c ad climate and health 56 2 0.97 c imp other 51 7 0.88 ej outreach/eng/process 53 5 0.91 ej collaboration 55 3 0.95

Overall 1077 83 0.93 80

Appendix E: Final Codebook Parent codes, based on research objectives, are in bold and capitalized. Child codes, which emerged during coding process, and lower case and in a normal style. Quote examples removed for confidentiality.

Code Description CLIMATE ADAPTATION Discussion of actions (e.g. planning, rulemaking, monitoring) being taking by natural resources agencies to address or investigate climate impacts to water resources.

c ad – CCAF Discussion of the 2010 Climate Change Adaptation Framework developed by DLCD and other state agencies, as well as the related “North Coast Alignment” project to create a Climate Adaptation Plan for the North Coast.

c ad – IWRS Discussion of the Integrated Water Resources Strategy developed by WRD in 2012 and the process for updating the IWRS for 2017

c ad – climate&health Discussion of actions related to OHA’s Climate & Health Program (e.g. Local Climate Adaptation Plans, Social Vulnerability Assessment, Climate & Health Profile Report, Climate Resilience Plan)

c ad – other Discussion of other actions agencies have taken (or might take) to adapt to climate change impacts.

c ad – process Discussion of how agency undertook a climate adaptation effort (development, data, partners, funding, implementation)

c ad – effectiveness Discussion of whether agencies have effectively considered how climate change will impact their operations or water resources.

c ad - collaboration Discussion of agencies working together, or with other organizations, in climate adaptation efforts.

CLIMATE IMPACTS Discussion of ways that climate change might manifest in the world c imp – water Discussion of specific ways that climate change might impact water resources (e.g. rivers, lakes, oceans, estuaries, groundwater, snowpack) or lead to severe water- related events.

c imp – other Discussion of climate change impacts not directly related to water resources.

Code Description ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Discussions related to environmental justice – such as disproportionate impacts of environmental decisionmaking on those traditionally underrepresented in public processes & meaningful involvement of communities in these processes. ej - definitions Interviewee’s perspectives of what the terms “environmental justice” and “equity” mean. ej – issues Discussion of specific ej issues that interviewees are concerned about regarding climate change and/or water. ej – communities Communities that the interviewee identifies as affected by drought, flooding, storms, decreased water quality, or other climate impacts on water resources. Code if community is minority, low-income, tribal, or some other one that could be considered “underrepresented in public processes” (like rural). ej – analysis/substance Discussion of whether agencies, or the state, have considered environmental justice in their decisionmaking (and particularly in the context of climate adaptation actions). Ways of considering may include identifying communities, analyzing disproportionate impacts of adaptation actions on ej communities, including ej issues in the conversations/planning.

ej – outreach/engagement/process Discussion of whether/the extent to which agencies reach out to communities or encourage/promote their participation in climate adaptation efforts (or their decisions in general). ej - effectiveness Discussion of how effective agencies, or the state, have been at promoting and considering ej (in process and substance, as discussed above). ej - resources Discussion of resources (tools, trainings, written materials, other people like citizen advocates and the EJ Task Force) available to natural resource agencies and their staff to incorporate EJ into their work. ej - collaboration Discussion of agencies working together, or with other organizations, to address ej issues or improve ej outreach/engagement.

Code Description CHALLENGE Discussion of why agencies are not considering environmental justice or conducting community outreach and engagement into climate adaptation efforts, or agency decision making in general. chall – sci/tech Discussion of whether existing data, analysis methods and tools, or models are sufficient to support climate adaptation and/or EJ efforts. chall – cultural competency Discussion of whether agency staff demographics or knowledge (and acceptance) of EJ principles, outreach practices, cross-cultural communication limit ability to address EJ. chall – community capacity Discussion of limitations on community’s ability to engage with government – to advocate for themselves, to participate in public processes, or even to participate on policy advisory groups when invited. chall – inst. capacity/bandwidth Discussion of whether agency/state/EJTF resources (both financial and human-i.e. staff time) limits the entity’s ability to address ej or consider/adapt to climate impacts. NEED Discussion of what agencies, the EJTF, or the State as a whole needs to better address EJ issues related to climate change. need-tools Discussion of whether agencies need better data, data analysis/visualization tools (i.e. GIS), or written guidance (e.g. decision frameworks, checklists, more handbooks) need-funding Discussion of whether agencies need additional funding – from the legislature or other grants need-collaboration Discussion of whether agencies need to better coordinate on ej and climate adaptation, or whether they need other partnerships need-training Discussion of whether agency staff need better training in ej principles and best- practices.

Appendix F: Environmental Justice Task Force Documents Reviewed

Environmental Justice Task Force Annual Reports

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. EJ Task Force 2008 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2008. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and% 20Reports/2008%20EJTF%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force: 2009 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/ EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2009%20EJTF%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. Oregon Governor’s Environmental Justice Task Force: 2010 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2010. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/ Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2010%20EJTF%20Annual%20Repo rt.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. Oregon Governor’s Environmental Justice Task Force: 2012-2013 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/ policy/environment/environmental_justice/Documents/2012-2013%20EJTF%20 Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force: 2014 Annual Report. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF %20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2014%20EJTF%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

Environmental Justice Task Force Meeting Agendas

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. January 16, 2009 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2009.01. 16%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. May 6, 2011 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2011. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2011.05. 06%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. March 9, 2012 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2012.03. 09%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. June 29, 2012 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2012.06. 29%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. September 21, 2012 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports /2012.09.21%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 21, 2012 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports /2012.12.21%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. April 12, 2013 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2013.04. 12%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. September 6, 2013 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2013.09. 06%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 5, 2013 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2013.12. 05%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. August 22, 2014 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2014.08. 22%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. October 17, 2014 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2014.10. 17%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 3, 2014 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2014.12. 03%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. February 27, 2015 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20 Reports/2015.02.27%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. May 29, 2015 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2015.05. 29%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. September 25, 2015 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/ 2015.09.25%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf. 85

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 4, 2015 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2015.12. 04%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. February 5, 2016 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2016.02. 05%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. June 3, 2016 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2016.06. 03%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. July 25, 2016 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2016.07. 25%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. September 23, 2016 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports /2016.09.23%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 2, 2016 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2016.12. 02%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 12, 2016 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/ 2016.12.12%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. March 10, 2017 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2017. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2017.03. 10%20EJTF%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. June 9, 2017 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2017. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2017.06. 09.%20-%20June%209,%202017%20Agenda.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. September 8, 2017 Agenda. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2017. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2017.09. 08%20-%20September%208,%202017%20Agenda.pdf.

Environmental Justice Task Force Meeting Minutes

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. October 24, 2008 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2008. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2008.10. 24%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. January 16, 2009 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2009.01. 16%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. April 24, 2009 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2009.04. 24%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. July 17, 2009 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2009.07. 17%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. October 23, 2009 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2009.10. 23%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. March 9, 2012 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2012.03. 09%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. June 29, 2012 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2012.06. 29%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. April 12, 2013 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2013.04. 12%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. September 6, 2013 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/ 2013.09.06%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 5, 2013 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/ 2013.12.05%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. August 22, 2014 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2014.08. 22%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. October 17, 2014 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2014.10. 17%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. December 3, 2014 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports /2014.12.03%20EJTF%20Minutes.pdf.

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. June 9, 2017 Minutes. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2017. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/EJTF%20Meetings%20and%20Reports/2017.06. 09%20-%20June%209,%202017%20Minutes.pdf.

Other Environmental Justice Task Force Publications

Oregon Environmental Justice Task Force. Environmental Justice: Best Practices for Oregon’s Natural Resource Agencies. Salem, OR: EJTF, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/environment/environmental_justice/Documents/Orego n%20EJTF%20Handbook.v4.pdf.

Appendix G: Climate Change Adaptation Effort Documents Reviewed

Climate Change Adaptation Framework Documents

*Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Oregon Climate Change Adaptation Framework. Salem, OR: DLCD, 2010. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/ClimateChange/Framework_Final.pdf.

*Weber, Jeffrey. Regional Framework for Climate Adaptation: Clatsop and Tillamook Counties. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OCMP/docs/Publications/Regional_Framework_Adapt_Cla t_Till.pdf.

Climate and Health Program Documents

Benton County Health Department. Climate Change Health Adaptation Plan. 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Do cuments/AdaptationPlans/adaptation-plan-benton.pdf.

Crook County Health Department. Climate and Health Adaptation Plan. Prineville, OR: Crook County, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/ CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/AdaptationPlans/adaptation-plan-crook.pdf.

Jackson County Public Health. Climate and Health Action Plan. Medford, OR: Jackson County Health and Human Services, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/AdaptationPlans/adaptation-plan- jackson.pdf.

Multnomah County Health Department. Climate Change and Public Health Preparation Plan: An Assessment of Public Health Impacts of Climate Change and Actions to Protect Our Health. Prepared by Kari Lyons-Eubanks, Matt Davis, and Arnaud Simon. Portland, OR: Multnomah County Health Department, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/ HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/AdaptationPlans/adapt ation-plan-multnomah.pdf.

North Central Public Health District. Climate Adaptation Plan. 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/ oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/AdaptationPla ns/adaptation-plan-north-central.pdf.

Oregon Health Authority. Local Climate and Health Adaptation Planning: Lessons Learned Summer 2013. Portland, OR: Oregon Climate and Health Program, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HealthyEnvironments/climatechange/Documents/Summa ry-of-Lessons-Learned.pdf

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Climate and Health Program. Portland, OR: Oregon Climate and Health Program, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/2013-14-Annual-Brief.pdf

*Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Climate and Health Report. Prepared by B. Haggerty, E. York, J. Early-Alberts, C. Cude. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Authority, 2014. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Do cuments/oregon-climate-and-health-profile-report.pdf.

*Oregon Health Authority. Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Authority, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/Social-Vulnerability- Assessment.pdf.

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Climate and Health Program. Portland, OR: Oregon Climate and Health Program, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENT S/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/2014-15-Annual-Brief.pdf.

Oregon Health Authority. Climate and Health Resilience Plan Advisory Group Meeting Minutes: March 9, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/HealthyEnvironments /climatechange/Documents/Resilience%20Plan/March-2015-Resilience-Advisory-Group- Notes.pdf

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Health and Climate Resilience Plan Advisory Group Meeting Notes: June 3, 2015.

Oregon Health Authority. Health and Climate Resilience Plan Notes and Next Steps. October 6, 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/HealthyEnvironments/climatechange /Documents/Resilience%20Plan/October-2015-Resilience-Advisory-Group-Notes.pdf

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Climate and Health Program. Portland, OR: Oregon Climate and Health Program, 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONME NTS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/2015-16-Annual-Brief.pdf.

*Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Climate and Health Resilience Plan. Prepared by Emily York, Julie Sifuentes, and Gabriel Markus. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Authority, 2017. https://apps.state.or.us/Forms/Served/le8267a.pdf.

Oregon Health Authority. Oregon Climate and Health Program. Portland, OR: Oregon Climate and Health Program, 2017. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMEN TS/CLIMATECHANGE/Documents/2016-17-Annual-Brief.pdf.

Integrated Water Resources Strategy Documents

“Integrated Water Resources Strategy.” Oregon Water Resources Department. Last Accessed February 8, 2018. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/law/integrated_water_supply _strategy.aspx.

*Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy: August 2012. Salem, OR: OWRD, 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd /LAW/docs/IWRS_Final_2.pdf.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). A Roadmap to the Implementation of Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Water Resources Strategy: February 1, 2015. Salem, OR: 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/IWRS/Agenda_Item_A_Attachment_2_IWRS_ Roadmap_of_Actions_Final.pdf.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). Integrated Water Resources Strategy: May 18, 2015 Implementation Update. Salem, OR: 2015. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/ docs/IWRS/2015_05_IWRS_Update_Final.pdf.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). Integrated Water Resources Strategy: March 8, 2016. Salem, OR: 2016. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/LAW/docs/2016_03_IWRS _Update_Final.pdf.

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). Oregon Water Resources Development Program. Salem, OR: 2017. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/docs/WRDP/WRDP _Oregon_Water_Resources_Development_Program_Handout.pdf.

“Water Resources Development Program.” Oregon Water Resources Department. Last Accessed February 8, 2018. http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/water_resources_ development_program.aspx.

(* represents documents used in quantitative content analysis)