EPA 600/R-24/093 | April 2024 | wwwepa.gov/research CbrA United States Environmental Protection Agency Proceedings for EPA Environmental and Human Health Indicators Symposium HELD ON OCTOBER 3 AND 4, 2023 Office of Research and Development Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment ------- EPA/600/R-24/093 | April 2024 | www.epa.gov/research Proceedings for EPA Environmental and Human Health Indicators Symposium Held on October 3 and 4, 2023 Office of Research and Development Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment ------- Acknowledgements 2023 Indicators Symposium Planning Committee Members: EPA: Meridith Fry, Susan Julius, Patricia Murphy, Britta Bierwagen, David Mintz, Mark Corrales, Joseph Greenblott, Laura Romano, Caitlin Briere, Rebecca Huff, Matthew Lee, Tai Lung, Onyemaechi Nweke, Matthew Sehrsweeney, Vanessa Van Note, Susan Holdsworth, Haley Miller, Margherita Pryor, Kelsey Hensley, Bill Jenkins, Regina Poeske, Lisa Chang, Michael Rylko, Kaylyn Gootman, Katheryn Barnhart, and Elizabeth Stanziano Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO): Peter Tango Puget Sound Partnership (PSP): Nathalie Hamel Disclaimer The views expressed in this Meeting Summary are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names, manufacturers or products does not imply an endorsement by the United States Government or the EPA. EPA and its employees do not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises. ii ------- Acronyms and Abbreviations ACE America's Children and the Environment AO Administrator's Office CBPO Chesapeake Bay Program Office a EST Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool CWA Clean Water Act DEI Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice EHHI CoP Environmental and Human Health Indicators Community of Practice EJ Environmental Justice EJ Screen Environmental Justice Screen EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EQI Environmental Quality Index ERB Equitable Resilience Builder FrEDI Framework for Evaluating Damages and Impacts MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NARS National Aquatic Resource Survey NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisory Council NEP National Estuary Program OAR Office of Air and Radiation OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer OCHP Office of Children's Health Protection OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention OEJECR Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights OELM Office of Land and Emergency Management ORD Office of Research and Development OW Office of Water PSP Puget Sound Partnership PRSF Puget Sound Restoration Fund ROE Report on the Environment QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control SAB Science Advisory Board SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality WA DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources ------- Table of Contents Acknowledgements ii Disclaimer ii Acronyms and Abbreviations iii Preface 1 Summary 2 Welcome and Goals of Symposium 2 Agency Leaders' Perspectives on the Importance of Environmental and Human Health Indicators 2 Attributes of Environmental and Human Health Indicators by Purpose 4 EPA Programmatic Performance Measures 4 Environmental, Social, Economic, & Health Indicators (Outcome Indicators) 5 Environmental and Human Health Indicators for Policy and Decision Making 5 Environmental and Human Health Indicators in Practice 7 Baselines and Trends 7 Relationships and Interactions Among Indicators (Underlying Drivers) 9 Day 1 Highlights 10 Welcome and Day 2 Goals of Symposium 11 Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Community Engagement into Indicators 11 Social Vulnerability, Lifestage Susceptibility, and Environmental Justice in Indicators 13 Community Knowledge and Environmental and Human Health Indicators 15 Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice 15 Integrating Community Knowledge in Environmental and Human Health Indicators 16 Use and Applications of Community Knowledge in Indicators 18 Day 2 Highlights 18 Closing 19 Appendix A 20 iv ------- Preface In 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the EPA Environmental and Human Health Indicators Community of Practice (EHHI CoP) with members from across the agency. The purpose of the community has been to advance environmental and human health indicator1 development and use across EPA programs and regions. In 2023, the EHHI CoP planned the Symposium to gather EPA indicator practitioners to discuss the use of indicators (e.g., to show progress and build support for programs) and explore the current landscape of indicators across EPA programs. The Symposium aimed to grow EPA's capacity to use environmental and human health indicators in EPA national programs, regions, and other geographic programs. The Symposium was held on October 2 and 3, 2023, with participants eager to spark interest, collaborate, and share new ideas on relevant topics to advance indicators in environmental health and protection at EPA. The meeting offered an opportunity to learn more about environmental and human health indicators, including their usefulness and what data or knowledge gaps exist. The outcomes from the Symposium included establishing a greater network of practitioners ready to collaborate and engage in cross-agency indicator development, coordination, and use. The following is a summary of the Symposium sessions and discussions. 1 In this context, an indicator is a simple measure that tracks the state of the environment and human health over time (Source: EPA Report on the Environment [ROE]). 1 ------- Summary The Symposium was organized by EPA and convened colleagues active in developing and using environmental and human health indicators across EPA programs and regions. The Symposium had the following objectives: • Increase EPA's capacity to use environmental and human health indicators in EPA national programs, EPA regions, and geographic programs by gathering EPA indicator practitioners to discuss the use of indicators (e.g., to show progress and build support for programs) and explore the current landscape of indicators across EPA headquarters, regional, and geographic programs. • Learn about environmental and human health indicators available, including what data or knowledge gaps exist and how this information might be helpful. • Spark interest, collaborate, and share new ideas on relevant topics to advance indicators in environmental health and protection at EPA. More than 250 participants joined the virtual event. The anticipated outcomes were to build a network of practitioners eager to engage in cross-agency indicator development, coordination, and use. These proceedings provide a summary of the meeting sessions and discussions, highlighting new directions, and conclusions. Welcome and Goals of Symposium Meridith Fry (Office of Research and Development [ORD]) and Susan Julius (ORD), the co-chairs of the Symposium, held an icebreaker discussion for 30 minutes preceding the first afternoon of the virtual event. The co-chairs then gave opening remarks. The purpose of the Symposium was: 1) To learn about recent advances in environmental and human health indicator development and use from a network of practitioners across EPA headquarters, regions, and geographic programs. 2) To recognize the common challenges in indicator development and use through discussions and exchanges at the Symposium. The themes on the first afternoon (Day 1) included developing environmental and human health indicators for policy and decision making, establishing baselines and trends, and understanding relationships and interactions among indicators. On the second afternoon (Day 2), the sessions addressed ways to incorporate community knowledge into environmental and human health indicators, such as integrating indigenous knowledge, social vulnerability, lifestage susceptibility, and environmental justice (Appendix A). The idea for the Symposium originated from the EHHI CoP, co-chaired by Meridith Fry and Susan Julius. This CoP was founded in 2018 and has drawn members from across the EPA offices and regions. In planning the event, the co-chairs convened CoP members to develop the agenda and identify speakers and panelists. The co-chairs thanked all who were involved for their time and effort. The co-chairs acknowledged that the conversations at the meeting would be valuable toward understanding key advances being made, how to push the envelope on indicator development, and any lessons learned from recent indicator efforts and experiences. Immediately following the opening remarks, the co-chairs transitioned to a panel of EPA leaders for their perspectives on the importance of indicators, which was followed by a series of breakout group discussions, presentations, and panels. Agency Leaders' Perspectives on the Importance of Environmental and Human Health Indicators Scot Hagerthey, Director of the EPA Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program (moderator), welcomed everyone to the Symposium and described how the SHC Research Program integrates public health, physical, natural, and social sciences, toxicology, engineering, and ecosystems research to support agency priorities and empower communities to make scientifically informed decisions. He also highlighted the EPA Report on the Environment (ROE), supported by the SHC Research Program, which compiles the most relevant and 2 ------- reliable indicator datasets to provide a comprehensive and historical view of the nation's environmental and human health status and trends. The ROE remains the only EPA resource that compiles indicators of the status and trends in the condition of the nation's air, water, land, human exposure, and health and ecological condition. He introduced five EPA leaders and asked for their perspectives on environmental and human health indicators and their use in environmental management and decision making: • Maureen Gwinn, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Research and Development (ORD) • Grace Robiou, Director of Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) • Tomas Carbonell, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Stationary Sources for Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) • Jeff Lerner, Acting Chief of the Partnerships and Accountability Branch, Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO), Region 3 • Peter Murchie, Geographic Programs Section Manager, Water Division, Region 10 Maureen Gwinn reflected on indicators as powerful tools for monitoring and communicating critical information. Indicators are useful to support planning, identifying priorities, targeting resources, and tracking progress towards the agency's mission and objectives. At EPA, indicators also drive decision-making with the ultimate objective to improve environmental and human health, and in a way that reduces unjust and preventable inequalities. In ORD, the ROE captures trends in the condition of the environment and human health. Collaboration with EPA Program and external partners has been fundamental to developing the ROE and is key to its success. Moving forward, EPA still must address several gaps in indicator development and the underlying data needed to support that development. Indicators will need to capture the dynamics of changes and trends and the trajectories of important features of environmental and social systems and their interactions. Data problems, methodological changes, and a lack of adequate time series have limited the use of indicators for monitoring trends over time. We also need to develop leading indicators that are predictive of future conditions, based on currently measured indicators that signify something important about the future, or based on models that reliably forecast future conditions. Another challenge for indicators is spatial scalability. The most appropriate way of representing an indicator may depend on the scale, decision context, or available datasets. Building in measures of environmental and social equity into our indicator systems and incorporating indigenous knowledge in a respectful and appropriate way are other challenges. ORD's research is addressing some of these issues, and the Symposium can help inform our future efforts in these areas. Grace Robiou remarked on OCHP's America's Children and the Environment (ACE) Report, first published in 2000. This agency report offers long-standing, national indicators representing three core areas: Environments and Contaminants, Biomonitoring, and Health. It is an important resource that compiles relevant indicators and identifies areas that warrant further attention (e.g., persistent problems). OCHP aims for the ACE Report to keep a pulse on the collective work of EPA, motivate research, and stimulate policy interventions when needed. The EPA Strategic Plan and OCHP Strategic Plan (Cross Agency Strategy #2) call out the need for indicators for furthering the mission, as well as developing new indicators to track progress. The ACE Report helps address disparities with several indicators now stratified by race and income. OCHP plans to focus resources on addressing disparities and will continue to further integrate environmental justice into indicators. In a presentation later during the Symposium, Laura Romano (OCHP) will present on incorporating life stage susceptibility into indicators. OCHP encourages this community to continue thinking about how children's health fits into indicators, such as how life stages and children's behavior affect variability and susceptibility. Tomas Carbonell provided remarks on OAR long history of developing and using indicators for decision making and tracking progress. OAR indicator development supports EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2. OAR offers 33 indicators across the four program offices within OAR. These indicators help OAR better understand the state of the environment and goals for air quality and the protection of public health. Indicators are used to understand 3 ------- program performance, solve problems, and demonstrate effectiveness. OAR uses indicators as part of its monthly business reviews, which track progress. Indicators have also become important tools for public education and holding EPA accountable for good outcomes. In terms of trends, there are six criteria pollutants that have been tracked since the 1970s. Tracking these indicators in non-attainment areas has helped track the effectiveness of strategies and impacts on certain populations. OAR challenges this community to come up with visualizations that communicate indicator information more powerfully internally and externally. Jeff Lerner offered his perspectives from EPA Region 3's CBPO, where there is particular emphasis on water quality and watershed health. Indicators are central to making informed and defensible decisions to improve the health of Mid-Atlantic communities. In a recent RESES project with ORD, a Mid-Atlantic Report on the Environment was developed. This resource included five indicators at the state scale down to the community level. Using participatory design methods, a prototype dashboard was developed, which can be used by regional staff and policymakers. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement is another great example of a goal oriented effort that utilizes an indicators framework called Chesapeake Progress (launched in 2016). Chesapeake Progress includes more than two dozen indicators of environmental health, restoration, and stewardship, to assist with tracking progress toward the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. It has been widely used and is highly transparent. The indicators are well documented and can be applied in an adaptive management framework. An upcoming report (Charting a Course to 2025: A Report and Recommendations for the Chesapeake Executive Council on How to Best Address and Integrate New Science and Restoration Strategies Leading up to 2025) will summarize the program's progress toward meeting 31 outcomes. Peter Murchie provided remarks on behalf of Region 10's Geographic Programs and the National Estuary Program (NEP). NEP is an EPA watershed based, collaborative governance program that aims to improve water, habitats, and living resources of 28 estuaries across the country. Each NEP implements a long-term plan based on local priorities. In Region 10, the Puget Sound NEP was established in 1987, and then in 2007 the state of Washington passed legislation to create the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP), a state agency dedicated to protecting and restoring the Puget Sound. PSP has identified environmental indicators and recommended environmental benchmarks to meet statutory Puget Sound recovery goals and assess effectiveness of the Puget Sound Action Agenda. The indicators themselves are baked into a collaborative governance system. Region 10 and the Geographic Program also use indicators widely to help tell their story. Environmental indicators and a separate sub-set of management-focused indicators are used frequently in decision making. Attributes of Environmental and Human Health Indicators by Purpose Following the Agency Leaders' Perspectives Panel, Katheryn Barnhart (Region 3 CBPO) and Doug Bell (Region 3 CBPO) led two breakout room discussions on what makes a good indicator (i.e., attributes of environmental and human health indicators by purpose). The discussion started with a brief presentation on how indicators require alignment of the purpose, scale, and relevant measure. The indicator dataset must be reliable and transparent. In terms of the design of new indicators, developers should understand the audience (i.e., internal versus external) and determine the engagement platform (e.g., website, report, database). Once an indicator is developed, the overall product must be managed for sustainability and utility. EPA Programmatic Performance Measures In the discussion of EPA Programmatic Performance Measures, participants discussed the need for clearly defining the purpose of indicators and aligning them with underlying statutes. Participants noted the challenges and uncertainty around statutory authority in some instances, such as who controls or most influences certain indicators. Under an adaptive management approach, timescales are important, such as what timescale you are evaluating indicators along. 4 ------- Environmental, Social, Economic, & Health Indicators (Outcome Indicators) In the discussion of Environmental, Social, Economic, and Health Indicators (Outcomes), participants discussed the scaling of indicators and how to use indicators to increase or improve communication channels. It was mentioned that indicators can also highlight where work is being replicated and how to consolidate efforts. Participants valued making clear, understandable indicators and taking time to adequately explain to the public various indicators and their different purposes. Environmental and Human Health Indicators for Policy and Decision Making The next session was a series of presentations on environmental and human health indicators for policy and decision making. Presenters included David Mintz (OAR), Mark Corrales (Administrator's Office [OA]), Laura Vary (PSP), John Hall (Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO]), Susan Jackson (Office of Water [OW]), and Sarah Lehmann (OW). This presentation session was moderated by Meridith Fry and Susan Julius. David Mintz from OAR discussed air indicators and their relevance to particular goals and targets. Before developing new indicators, practitioners should start with the precise question of interest. Other important considerations are knowing your audience, understanding whether you need targets (especially if there are statutorily set ones), how often you need to assess progress, and any other limitations on what you can infer from an indicator. Trends indicators for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) assist with assessing the percentage change in average pollutant concentrations over time. By September 2026, the agency is aiming to improve air quality in counties not meeting NAAQS by 10% (compared to 2016). Mark Corrales from OA discussed demographic and environmental justice (EJ) indicators near facilities and their use in regulatory analyses. The agency is making progress toward developing better indicators and is considering whether the right issues are being tracked. Before 2010, EJ analyses were not common in EPA rules. From 2012- 2016, the agency developed important indicators in EJScreen and the EJ technical guidance. Now there are many proposed rules that include an EJ analysis. In general, the use of indicators has expanded and diversified. Policies now emphasize addressing EJ issues and not just analyzing. Indicators need to align with statutes, guidelines, science, and best practices. Indicators can also highlight where action is needed, or where priorities should be set. Indicators can support a rule by showing where there are disproportionate impacts or where a rule might reduce disparities. Several example summary indicators, indices, and scores were presented. However, combining indicators is very challenging and is highly sensitive to choices made to normalize or weight. There has been a lot of analysis on the scientific rationale for these choices. In 2023, the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) draft report recommended not combining environmental indicators, since there is not a solid rationale for setting the weights currently2. It would be crucial to communicate what is explicitly or implicitly being weighted more heavily in any outcome number. Other approaches being considered are demographic summary indicators and expressing indicator values as ratios relative to the US (or state) percentage overall (e.g., percentage low income). Laura Vary from the PSP discussed the PSP Action Agenda Progress Indicators and their development. The Puget Sound Action Agenda includes 31 strategies to achieve six ecosystem recovery goals. There are 23 Vital Signs (whose condition is measured by Vital Sign indicators) that represent the current state of the ecosystem in relation to the six ecosystem recovery goals. The Action Agenda Progress Indicators show the progress of 2 U.S. EPA 2023. Scientific Review of EPA's Environmental Justice Screen (EJScreen) Mapping & Screening Tool. Available: https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/r/sab_apex/sab/advisoryactivitydetail?pl8_id=2627&clear=18&session=1376823 6122245#report 5 ------- implementing actions described in the Puget Sound Action Agenda; these indicators are focused on human actions that influence ecosystem recovery. PSP has a collaborative and iterative process for identifying indicators that have utility at the regional and local scale. As part of the development process, PSP identified what success looks like, detailed the path from action to outcome, vetted the logic, identified intermediate results, found sources for the data, and finally socialized the indicators. One example Action Agenda Progress Indicator of on-site septic systems was described, which showed where maintenance was lacking and can help initiate a call for action to better support local health jurisdictions. With Action Agenda Progress Indicators and their trends, PSP can help to improve the effectiveness of recovery investments. John Hall from OCFO presented on policy relevant indicators under the EPA Strategic Plan and the four cross- agency strategies. The agency has goals for climate and advancing EJ & civil rights, which has driven the development of measures aligned with these goals and objectives. Cascading performance measures are used in the EPA Strategic Plan and Long-Term Performance Goals (released every four years). Agency Priority Goals are updated every two years, and the Annual Performance Goals are important for the budget and annual budget proposals. Internally, measures (indicators) are used by OCFO in meetings with leaders from each program and region. One example indicator is the cascading measure under Goal 6 (Long-Term Performance Goal), which is a measure of human exposures under control at Superfund sites. The ROE indicators can also be related to many of the Long-Term Performance Goals. Susan Jackson and Sarah Lehmann from OW presented on policy-relevant water indicators. Susan Jackson described the two objectives under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 101. Ecological indicators have been developed in programs across the country. The indicators, methods, and attainment decisions have differed among states. In 2000, action was taken to develop the biological condition gradient including a conceptual model with six defined levels of condition and a technical practitioner's guide. Sarah Lehmann presented indicators used in the National Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS), which shows the condition of the nation's coastal waters, lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers, and wetlands. It is important to understand that policy questions can be deceptively simple, but sometimes the right data on water quality conditions nationally is unavailable. The NARS program has integrated data from various states and tribal monitoring programs to promote national consistency. Some key lessons learned are establishing an explicit link to CWA goals and management questions. Also, it is necessary to develop monitoring programs that provide information at the relevant temporal and spatial scales. From these presentations, participants heard about designing indicators to answer precise questions. The importance of defining indicators was expressed, including: what is the purpose for the indicator, who is the audience, what target/goal are you trying to meet, how often do you assess progress, what are the limitations, and what can you infer or not infer? The importance of integrating data and promoting consistency to answer specific questions was emphasized. Presenters acknowledged the many differences in indicators, methods, and decisions across EPA programs, states, and tribes. Indicator examples were given from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) trends, National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS), EPA Strategic Plan, Long-term Performance Goals, Agency Priority Goals, and Annual Performance Goals. One common thread among these indicators was ensuring the explicit link between goals and management questions. Some challenges included what indicators do not tell you (i.e., knowing the boundaries) and whether we are tracking the right issues. Incorporating disparities and environmental justice analyses are new challenges. It is difficult to combine environmental indicators into one number or value (e.g., an index). Questions remain around how to choose weights and provide the necessary scientific rationale for an index. Some great examples of how to develop effective indicators were shared. This included working with partners and the broader community to verify the relevance and priority of indicators as they are being developed. It has also been important to show the intermediate progress of implementing certain actions, by establishing a collaborative and iterative process using relevant indicators at multiple scales - both spatial and temporal. Finally, some recommendations included focusing on developing effective visualizations that communicate indicators clearly, thinking through 6 ------- how to socialize indicators, understanding what success looks like, and considering the path from action to outcome. Environmental and Human Health Indicators in Practice Participants next engaged in another breakout group discussion that featured panelists and discussion around Baselines and Trends and Relationships and Interactions Among Indicators (Underlying Drivers). Baselines and Trends For Baselines and Trends, the panelists included Nathalie Hamel and Mary Ramirez (PSP), Peter Tango (CBPO), Britta Bierwagen (ORD), Jillian Adair (EPA Region 3), and Drew Garey (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality [VADEQ]). This panel discussion was moderated by Lisa Chang (EPA Region 10, Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office). Nathalie Hamel and Mary Ramirez from the PSP discussed the Puget Sound Vital Signs and how they have created a shared understanding of baselines and targets. This tool has also created a shared understanding of long-term changes of socioecological drivers. Vital signs represent components of the ecosystem important to Puget Sound health and recovery and are measured by Vital Sign Indicators. This system of indicators helps translate broad goals into specific measures. Over 70 indicators, spanning the ecosystem, depend on a broad network of partners for data. Each indicator has a baseline (reference point in the past) and a target (future reference point) that articulates the desired condition. Multiple types of baselines are used for Vital Sign Indicators. Ecologically meaningful baselines (e.g., Baseline flow range based on 50-year timeframe that represent conditions before widespread global climate change) are helpful when required data is available. PSP also considers what is meaningful for policy change (e.g., recovery of chinook salmon). Baselines are necessary for comparing changes over time (i.e., trends). A baseline can also be when the data starts (e.g., first survey of resident engagement in hunting, fishing, foraging). Peter Tango from the CBPO (founded in 1983) discussed ten watershed agreement goals that address fisheries, habitats, water quality, and human dimensions like public access. In 2014, these goals were presented (e.g., what does it mean to have a healthy watershed?) using multiple outcomes and a variety of indicators for each goal. The CBPO has goal implementation teams that are connected to a subset of these goals. In a 2025 assessment, CBPO tracked progress from 2014 and then scored the outcomes (e.g., outcomes met, outcomes on-course, outcomes off-course). This is documented on the Chesapeake Progress website. Under the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, a decision framework was established that includes setting goals, identifying factors influencing goals, and developing a management strategy. As a result, successful outcomes have accounting, monitoring, and tracking systems in place. Some outcomes are qualitative, and some are quantitative, making it difficult to track them all in the same way. For quantitative outcomes, baselines are derived in a variable way. For example, baselines could be based on the starting year of the monitoring program, the best available research (like brook trout patch occupancy for the entire watershed), or an agreed upon decision by the committee or workshop. At CBPO, there is increasing interest in trends and accelerating progress. Britta Bierwagen from ORD described establishing baselines for regional stream monitoring networks. Research on stream data (from state surveys) including benthic macroinvertebrates, temperature flow, and water quality found that it was not possible to characterize climate impacts on these systems because the data was not collected frequently enough. She has worked with New England states on developing a more consistent annual monitoring of cooler water sites to understand what the impacts are and how quickly they are happening. Continuous temperature sensors have been used to monitor the changing baselines. They also developed indicators using taxa temperature tolerance analyses, which utilized biomonitoring data along with stream 7 ------- temperature data, assigning taxa to thermal preference. Thermal tolerances for fish and benthic macroinvertebrates were a focus of the effort. Using the taxa preferences for different temperatures, they were able to develop indicators. Jillian Adair from EPA Region 3 discussed the Water Division's Standards and the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Section. She has been working in the 303(d) program at EPA Region 3 (Philadelphia) since 2016. Her goal is to help the Region 3 states assess the water quality of their streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries based on sound science, and then identify the pollutants within those waterbodies that need to be reduced or controlled to achieve good water quality. Drew Garey from the VADEQ described a pilot project that compared the monitoring of waters in areas with potential EJ concerns compared to the monitoring of waters elsewhere, statewide (from 1991 - 2020). In general, VADEQ found that waters in communities with potential EJ concerns were monitored proportionally more than waters statewide; however, that pattern changed by year and by level of monitoring effort. In years when monitoring was low/sparse, areas with potential EJ concerns were monitored proportionally less than waters statewide, suggesting that annual state resource levels can have an impact on communities with EJ concerns. These data are preliminary and should not be used to make overall programmatic conclusions. Rather, this data analysis framework can be used by other programs to explore and assess their monitoring achievements in relation to EJ. Discussion Questions: 1) Do you have a success story or highlight to share about how your indicator baselines or trends were tied to policy-setting or decision-making? • VADEQ and EPA worked together to choose indicators of EJ and equality based on the definitions of EJ in Virginia's laws and regulations. Additionally, indicators were based on those used in EPA's EJScreen. It was important to rely on the work of experts with knowledge and experience in these topics. This project also included a retrospective analysis of how a program provided equal or unequal service to EJ communities. Policy decisions have not yet been made based on this project, but the outputs can be used by other states to analyze their programs which could influence other policies. • The PSP Vital Signs and indicators are tied to decision making, because they are used across Puget Sound to set the direction of targets. Implementation strategies for achieving ecosystem targets are defined by the indicators (e.g., water quality toxics in stormwater). The reporting on the Vital Signs does not typically drive decision making, but it informs management of the condition of Puget Sound (e.g., Kelp vital sign). Finally, the assessment of trends is tied to the Puget Sound Action Agenda, which recommends strategies based on documented trends. • For Chesapeake Progress, the indicators are tied to rigor, transparency, and accountability. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement gives shape to the CBPO and drives the organization's investment strategies and vision for the future. Overall, two-thirds of the outcomes are doing well, and the partnership has been doing well achieving those. Now, the CBPO is undertaking a reevaluation. They are thinking about whether to keep the same set of outcomes or changing them in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Whether they do so will be based on an examination of the indicator outcomes from 2014 to the present. • For the regional stream monitoring networks, state partners have used their own state data to inform designated uses and criteria for streams. The partners were able to use the information in multiple ways including to inform core programs and to investigate climate impacts. Working with Oregon, Washington, and the EPA Office of Water, the team considered the biological condition gradient to integrate a new forward-looking component to understand how conditions of those communities is changing as water temperature changes. These indicators can inform which areas you 8 ------- want to protect, based on the modeling performed as part of this effort. Questions can be addressed, such as: Are there stream areas that are going to be more resilient? Which areas should we focus protection or restoration efforts? 2) What recommendation can you make about using indicator baselines and trends to advance your program's goals? • In terms of creating indicator baselines and trends, use something available or an indirect estimation. One example is brook trout disappearance. Think about the indirect opportunities to collect the information you need and how that connects back to the direct opportunities for collecting data. Work with what you have. • Success is tied to finding partners that assist with establishing monitoring. Some challenges include continuous sensors, data management, and getting consistent quality. However, it is important to bring the information together and share it broadly, so people can benefit from it. • It can be easier to describe trends rather than say the condition of the indicator (e.g., how it is doing, or whether the indicator is good enough). To have a consistent understanding of the data, it is important to identify targets, benchmarks alongside trends, and baselines. It is equally important to have targets tied to baselines to provide context to trends. 3) Was there any statutory driver of your work? • For regional stream monitoring networks, there was not a statutory driver when the work was started. It was started as part of EPA's participation in the U.S. Global Change Research Program. In ORD, researchers wanted to understand how climate change would impact EPA programs. Biological indicators within the Office of Water were looked at, and the implications for CWA programs. Other key drivers were informing the national climate assessment and better supporting EPA programs. 4) Is there any interest in adapting national scale work to regional/local work? • In the CBPO, they are discussing about a 10% gain in miles of habitat and impacts to biota and what has changed to influence this. In general, there is interest in regional and local influences on trends, and communities want the trends to be explained (i.e., what has changed to understand the changes we are observing). 5) Other topics of interest from the panel discussion • How to translate statutory language to measurable indicators. • How to assess our provision of monitoring services to low-income communities and communities of color as opposed to the larger population. Relationships and Interactions Among Indicators (Underlying Drivers) For Relationships and Interactions Among Indicators (Underlying Drivers), the panelists included Jeremy Martinich (OAR), Danelle Lobdell (ORD), and Michael Pennino (ORD). The panel discussion was moderated by Joseph Greenblott (OCFO) and Patricia Murphy (ORD). Panelists introduced three EPA indicator efforts that are addressing relationships and interactions among indicators. Jeremy Martinich (OAR) described how indicators from the EPA Climate Change Indicators Program and impact projections from the Climate Impacts and Risk Analysis (CIRA) project can be combined to show how our changing climate is impacting current and future populations. Danelle Lobdell (ORD) introduced the Environmental Quality Index (EQI), which incorporates environmental quality indicators and epidemiology studies. This work has established associations with many environmental quality indices for various environmental health outcomes. Michael Pennino (ORD) discussed how the ROE is approaching relationships among national indicators. He discussed using storytelling to convey indicator relationships to the public, 9 ------- including why these indicators are important and what cross-media or cross-agency issues they address. Discussion Questions: 1) What are some of the potential applications or decisions that could be informed by your work? • In OAR, indicators are informative for understanding the causes and effects of climate change on human health and the environment. OAR uses damage function-based models (i.e., Framework for Evaluating Damages and Impacts [FrEDI]) to quantify and monetize the impacts of climate change under different emission scenarios. Programs can use this information to inform policy and understand relationships between endpoints and greenhouse gases. Specifically, FrEDI estimates effects for more than 20 categories of impacts (e.g., human health, infrastructure, agriculture) to estimate how greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation activities can affect the distribution of risks across sectors, regions, and populations. • In ORD, the EQI provides information for communities on problem areas. EQI highlights which domains are driving associations, which can inform decisions about where to target research on the impacts of environmental exposures. EQI can be used by programs as part of hypothesis generation, and in evaluating cumulative impacts and domains of exposure. • ORD also has been looking into associations (among indicators) that can be shared with program partners for awareness. There is interest in how multiple indicators are interconnected and how programs might use this information. This is currently being investigated by the ROE team. 2) What are some challenges and opportunities for future work in this area? • Challenges include how to communicate indicators that interact and how to apply an outreach or communication template to convey multiple indicators. • Another challenge is data limitations that exist and region/state-specific data gaps (e.g., Hawaii and Alaska are often left out despite strong climate impacts). • Data quality and resolution limitations are challenging, affecting whether they can be applied on a large scale. Also, availability of data can vary by domain (e.g., air, water, land, built, and sociodemographic domains). Day 1 Highlights • Emphasize integrating data and promote consistency to answer specific questions and ensure an explicit link between goals and management questions. • Design indicators to precisely answer: What is the purpose for the indicator, who is the audience, what target/goal are you trying to meet, how often do you assess progress, what are the limitations, and what can you infer or not infer from the indicator? Tie indicators to policy setting/decision making, such as to recovery plans and strategies. • Refer to NAAQS trends, NARS indicators, and the ROE as example EPA indicator products that are supportive of EPA Strategic Plan, Long-term Performance Goals, Agency Priority Goals, and Annual Performance Goals. • Recognize that indicators and trends can directly inform program investments, future planning goals, and organizational decisions. Exercise care and use methodological process for translating from qualitative statutory/regulatory into measurable indicators in each program. • Recognize differences in indicators, methods, and decisions across states, tribal programs, and other organizations. Understand how to translate qualitative statutory/regulatory information into measurable indicators. This should be done using a careful, methodological process tailored to each program. • Consider whether and how to scale indicators, when needed, to inform local, regional, and national programs. One example of a national monitoring program was shared. While national in coverage, EPA is now working with two states on how to integrate it into their Biological Condition Gradient. • Recognize limitations in the utility of models and analyses because of temporal and spatial resolution and 10 ------- quality of the data. • Establish priorities and mechanisms using a common approach for fulfilling data needs. Understand the indicator platforms available from multiple agencies. • Define a clear purpose for indicators with the right people and analytical approaches identified. • Think creatively about how to use indicators in combination with other information to support decision making. One example is bringing the indicators from the EPA Climate Indicators report together with damage functions from other organizations. • Use storytelling to communicate indicators. The ROE team is using stories to convey to the public relationships among nationwide indicators. • Know the boundaries of indicators (including what they do not tell you) and ensure that the right issues are being tracked. • Understand challenges that come along with incorporating disparities and EJ in indicators. • Understand that combining environmental indicators into one number is another challenge. Decisions need to be made on how to choose weights and the scientific rationale. Consider what is being explicitly or implicitly weighted more heavily in the outcome number. The current SAB recommendation is to not combine indicators in EJScreen. • Consider how well we are doing with providing monitoring services to EJ communities. Methodology and codes established by Virginia could be used by other states for policy and decision making. • Acknowledge that sometimes the policy question is deceptively simple, and we don't necessarily have the right data to look at conditions or trends. • Work with partners and the larger community to check relevance and priority of indicators as they are being developed. Show intermediate progress of implementing actions. Establish a collaborative and iterative process with relevant indicators at multiple scales. Develop good visualizations that communicate indicators clearly and spend time socializing indicators. Understand what success looks like and the path from action to outcome. Welcome and Day 2 Goals of Symposium Meridith Fry and Susan Julius opened the second afternoon (Day 2) of the Symposium. The purpose of the Symposium was reiterated: 1) To showcase recent advances in environmental and human health indicator development and use across EPA headquarters, regions, and geographic programs, and 2) To offer an opportunity to share the challenges we face and to create a space for fostering new relationships and strengthening our networks in this community. The theme for the second afternoon was how to incorporate community knowledge into environmental and human health indicators, including engaging communities and integrating indigenous knowledge, social vulnerability, lifestage susceptibility, and environmental justice. Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Community Engagement into Indicators Helen Berry, Marine Ecologist, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) presented her experience with integrating indigenous knowledge and community engagement into indicators. Helen Berry has conducted long-term monitoring of nearshore habitats for more than 25 years in Washington state, including development of two regional indicators (eelgrass and floating kelp). Her presentation summarized the formation of a diverse partner alliance that integrates agency monitoring, indigenous scientific knowledge, and community science into a statewide floating kelp indicator. The presentation highlighted successes in the development of a new floating kelp bed area indicator. The goal 11 ------- was to co-create and share knowledge rather than take or "steal" that knowledge from others. This would require an approach fundamentally different from a more traditional one of producing indicators with the expectation that the public would accept them as a source of information. Co-creating knowledge is critical to achieving sustainability because partners' active involvement to create information that meets their needs gives them a vested interest in the outcome of that information, and in this specific case, in the health of the kelp beds. The researchers assembled a diverse team that represented the whole community and all parties involved. The team was helped in their efforts by entities who developed the Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan. Two key concepts drove their approach: 1) Distinguish missing data from invisible data; and 2) make invisible data visible. Invisible data in this case are ecological data that are not reported or are no longer observable, such as where kelp beds once existed historically but have disappeared. These sorts of data may only be found through indigenous or community knowledge. One of the keys to developing indicators was to reach out and talk to people rather than only holding workshops. In this way, the team was able to work closely with partners and develop those indicators products the partners expressed a need for. The primary metric was floating kelp bed area (infrared map) to help assess long term trends. Examples were shared with partners showing both accessible and transparent visualizations (e.g., stoplight trends), and included information on how to maintain privacy and protect individuals and communities that participated. The presentation showed how visualizations were tailored to different communities and audiences who participated and wanted to access the information. The team produced four main products that reflected how the specific partners wanted to access information. These included a statewide summary report, a Puget Sound Partnership Vital Signs website, an interactive map to drill into data, and a Program Design and Data Assessment Protocol report. Challenges in this effort include spatially and temporally expanding the baseline data and continuing to pursue co-production and engaging the right institutions and structures to do so. This indicator development approach showed the value of remaining open to alternative methods to achieve greater diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and to address the biggest threats we collectively face. Discussion Questions: 1) What were some of the insights you gained while developing this indicator? • Our job was to give information out. Through our process it was important to show to all the organizations and individuals involved that knowledge wasn't being taken or stolen, but rather was being shared. • It was important to work very closely with tribes and only release synthesized products. • It was important to the process that the Samish Indian Nation representatives got approval from their council to participate because of our proposed approach. 2) Can volunteers begin to replant and expand kelp forest areas? • The closest partner is the Puget Sound Restoration Fund (PRSF) for restoration. Kelp restoration is hard, and they haven't yet achieved restored beds. Volunteer divers are sent out to sites from WA DNR or Samish to go to Reef Check and visit sites where they are working, in conjunction with the PSRF and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. 3) Do you have data ethics/use agreements in place with volunteer and indigenous scientists? If so, what are some of the components? There are many options out there for agreements (Memorandum of Understanding [MOU], End User, etc.), and it would be good to know what formal agreements were used. • The team directly connected with organizations and those organizations manage their own data. The Kelp Forest Alliance and their member organizations are represented, but there are no formal agreements. • It is a tough question about data sharing agreements. There are advantages with working in a community, but you must move at the speed of trust, and it can take years to build those relationships. Data sharing agreements are so important, but hard to navigate all the issues around 12 ------- them. The kelp problem was galvanizing to see the loss of those beds. Perhaps it allowed the team to get past certain issues and to proceed without a data sharing agreement. It is uncertain how to address this issue in the long-term. Something will have to be done. • Data sharing agreements are messy work. One participant has a tribe that is asking for that. The tribe has experienced a history of extractive research, and they want to protect their knowledge. Scientists have come in and taken and built careers on their knowledge and data. They have not seen any of the changes that were promised. • Building trust takes a long time, and it is important to find the right mechanisms to protect communities and indigenous data. Co-creating protection measures is important. The National Science Foundation recently funded a project on data ethics in their "informal science education" program area. • The team's work in the Puget Sound Program has been shaped by the EPA NEP framework, as established under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, and by the State's legislation establishing the PSP. For the NEP, a "collaborative governance" approach has been in place since 1988. This framework may help explain some of the long-term relationship building. • The Puget Sound Program floating bed kelp indicator team found a great solution to the data sovereignty and data sharing agreement issue by providing "synthesized" products. The products were co-created and were synthesized based on the underlying data. These products disconnected the synthesized information from the raw data, providing privacy while also preserving the value of those data. Some level of summarization could be one useful way to advance the difficult question of data sovereignty. 4) How does the kelp indicator roll up to the outcomes described? Do you have a restoration target for increasing the beds? • The PSP adopted recovery targets for some indicators, e.g., they have one for marine vegetation, and there are others that have been developed. Because the kelp indicator is new, there is no target currently. However, there is a kelp plan which provides a framework for developing a target and will be useful for determining strategies for moving things forward. Social Vulnerability, Lifestage Susceptibility, and Environmental Justice in Indicators The purpose of this session was to discuss and share information on how to build social vulnerability, life stage susceptibility, and environmental justice into our development and use of indicators. Laura Romano (OCHP, now Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention [OCSPP]), Matt Sehrsweeney (Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights [OEJECR]), and Emily Eisenhauer (ORD) presented on their relevant work. This session was moderated by Meridith Fry (ORD) and Susan Julius (ORD). Laura Romano presented on the ACE Report that covers indicator trends for children from ages 0 to 17 and women of childbearing age. Children are at greatest risk from exposure to contaminants throughout their lifestages from conception through fetal development, infancy, and adolescence. There may not always be data for every lifestage, so they consider what is available and what lifestage to target. Laura talked about some desired indicator characteristics, such as whether the indicator is important to children's health exposure or effects; whether the indicator is national in scope; whether it represents population-based data; whether the data are a series over time; and whether the data can be stratified by demographic characteristics. She also talked about what to consider in selecting indicators, such as whether there are specific concerns for developmental lifestage exposure/hazard and which lifestage is likely to have greatest external exposure. Matt Sehrsweeney talked about OEJECR's work to establish at least 20 indicators to assess EPA's performance in reducing disparities (an agency priority goal in the Strategic Plan). The vision of the intra-agency workgroup 13 ------- established by OEJECR is to select indicators that give the agency the ability to look at disparities, track the work the agency is doing to address disparities, and guide programs in addressing them. Two important criteria include clear and meaningful metrics with direct connections to EPA priorities and programs, and data accessibility and reliability. Draft indicators include those directly influenced by EPA, state, and local programs with accessible data sources and indicators that capture indirect or long-term outcomes (e.g., cardiovascular disease; pre-term/underweight babies; life expectancy) that are outside EPA's sphere of influence. Emily Eisenhauer presented her work on social vulnerability and flooding. Social vulnerability is systemic and structural. In her research on equitable resilience to flooding, she found there were three main groupings of inequities: existing economic, health, and social conditions. Disaster risk and impacts compound these existing inequities, and relief and recovery efforts are also often inequitable. These inequities have implications for the indicators used to understand conditions and trends, and whether the sources of inequities are uncovered and addressed, including existing conditions and policy and program actions for response, relief, and recovery. Emily Eisenhauer noted that participatory assessment can tie together both qualitative and quantitative indicators of resilience and equity in social, built, and natural environments, and is an approach that can provide richer information and lessen the burden on communities than traditional quantitative data gathering. Emily gave an example of the Equitable Resilience Builder (ERB), where they saw that communities can be involved all along the way, including selecting the most relevant indicators; customizing indicators; collecting information, and recording results. Emily mentioned the need to address sources of inequities, tackle ways to account for data gaps (such as in under-represented identities and associated legal issues and social factors) and cautioned about issues with lumping together disadvantaged groups that can obscure inequities. From these presentations, participants learned about data on social vulnerability, life stage susceptibility, and environmental justice that may be sparse. Despite data gaps, the presenters highlighted the need to consider what data are available and how to present that information using indicators. They emphasized the strong interest and need for developing clear and meaningful indicators and for stratifying new and existing indicators by factors such as race, ethnicity, and income. One of the Agency Priority Goals in the most recent EPA Strategic Plan (FY 2022 - FY 2026) charges the agency to establish at least 10 clear and meaningful indicators to track the work the agency is doing to address disparities and provide impetus to what agency needs to address. Two important criteria highlighted were 1) having a direct connection of disparity with the relevant EPA authorities and programs; and 2) having accessible and reliable data. Discussion Questions: 1) What are the challenges you face in moving your indicator work forward and how will you address them? • The ACE team plans to hold a workshop to bring internal and external experts together to identify topic areas missing in ACE and discuss how to engage communities and bring in local stories when indicators are national in scope, particularly EJ work that is mostly at the community level. • The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a great source of feedback for OEJECR. They briefed NEJAC last year and plan to brief them again. There are EJ organizations from across the country that are represented on NEJAC who have input. The indicators are living and evolving, not static, and OEJECR will take input from NEJAC and adapt. • For ERB, the tool is for local-level resilience planning, and not something that EPA will be using for itself, although some of the activities may be useful. ERB is about engagement- listening and being inclusive and making sure participation by community members is accessible and equitable. One area the team is considering carefully is how to ethically develop indicators without reinforcing inequities or burden communities. • For OEJECR, green space and tree canopy indicators are associated with gentrification and are identified by communities as issues they want to address. These indicators need to be addressed holistically, considering how we can increase greenspace without displacing people and what local policies are 14 ------- needed. This will require working with partners outside of EPA to generate solutions. 2) How do we reconcile the EJ program strategic vision of "thinking outside the box" and criteria such as "use accurate and reliable data that has undergone quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and is publicly accessible" (e.g., the "visible" and "invisible" data and potential indicators proposed in the first session "Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Community Engagement into Indicators")? • Instead of exclusively drawing from specific reports, look out there to see what else can be found. If everything goes through a QA/QC process, we can step outside the box and still find good data. • For community-developed data, consider the QA/QC aspect. Collecting data can be a big burden for a community, so gathering data (in a participatory approach) for the different systems, even just qualitative data, by bringing people together to discuss in a one-day workshop can be as productive as spending weeks gathering quantitative data. Data are only as good as what is accepted by a community and useful for identifying actions. Group processes allow for different perspectives and melding together to get to solutions. Community Knowledge and Environmental and Human Health Indicators Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice Participants in the Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice breakout discussed social vulnerability and susceptibility and why it is important in environmental justice. Onyemaechi Nweke (OEJECR) and Danelle Lobdell (ORD) moderated the discussion of how these concepts are represented by indicators, and the rationale and science behind what they are trying to display or show. Participants offered ideas for indicators of social vulnerability and susceptibility that can be useful to EPA analysts, the key types of knowledge that would facilitate their adoption by EPA analysts, and the processes for integrating these measures. The moderators posed questions for the group to consider on how to identify populations that are more vulnerable or susceptible to a particular exposure (that we would be responding to) and what to measure. The breakout participants reflected on how indicators can be used to benefit communities. Social vulnerability and susceptibility indicators can be used to assess challenges, like medically under-served populations or food insecurity. There is interest in having gender-based analyses to look deeper at differences. Race is an indicator of a larger information base. We still need to understand differences among communities and the questions we are asking. In terms of susceptibility, biologically we may be more susceptible; however, vulnerabilities may affect susceptibility. Using Census data, we can access social capital information. The Census is very good for urban areas but is quite limited for rural areas. One major consideration is making sure the indicators we are developing are useful for communities to assist with change. Positive indicators are important because they highlight good things happening that can be replicated in other areas. We sometimes gravitate to negative indicators or those that point out obstacles or challenges. Discussion Questions 1) Do we know what to measure for social vulnerability or susceptibility? For those that indicate yes, please list those measures. For those that say no, please explain why. • Use indicators to highlight where actions need to be taken. Some examples include access challenges, medically underserved populations/areas, access to health care, food insecurity, social cohesion, and civic participation. • Consider gender analyses because single female head of households can be another dimension of poverty including reduced child/family opportunities and life trajectories. • Look at the issues and what the community is saying first, before going to Census data. • Important indicators are social capital, adaptive capacity, resources available to the community, and diversity within the community. • Look beyond demographic information to prevalence of health or disease status, nutrition status, and 15 ------- other indicators that can be linked to biological or physiological sensitivity, behaviors, and other characteristics that can be linked to vulnerability. • Indicators that have built in measures of differences are good (e.g., homeownership broken down by race, or measures of income or other inequalities). Consider indicators of social forces driving vulnerability, rather than focusing on demographic groups, which are lagging indicators in a sense, not leading indicators. • On the national scale, explore the intersection of Census Blocks in the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) (as identified as under-served/underrepresented) and water quality information. Also, indicators of the number of children under five and low-income subpopulations would be important. • Because of the overwhelming amount of data, it is important to have a conversation and find out what is meaningful for communities and what is possible to change in the community. It is much more empowering to know what could be changed before developing indicators. Broadly, aim for better outreach to avoid being too insular. One important step is identifying the community leaders and bringing them to the front of the process. • Understand the spatial scale of analysis and who is responsible for the problem (e.g., need for county data if they can fix the problem) to use indicators that point to potential actions that can be taken. National trend data is still needed. For more local scale work, define the purpose and who the information is for. 2) For each measure provided, what knowledge would make a strong case for using it in your work? • Look at social vulnerability at different levels, consider what measure of susceptibility is wanted or needed, and know that indicators can take different forms, such as at the national, state, or local levels. • Consult with experts on what is needed next. In general, everyone is still learning. Integrating Community Knowledge in Environmental and Human Health Indicators In the Integrating Community Knowledge in Environmental and Human Health Indicators breakout discussion, participants discussed the processes for integrating community knowledge into indicators, considerations and sensitivities encountered when working with different community groups, and how to get the information back into the hands of the community. This discussion was moderated by Brittany Kiessling (ORD) and Anne Weaver (ORD). Collaboration (including listening) and co-generation while working on indicators and processes with communities is essential to having ethical incorporation of community knowledge. Building relationships and trust is the first step, and this can be time-intensive. As part of this, the research process should include a longer timeframe for relationship building. Some communities do not want exact location data to be published (e.g., information on specific sites and/or people). Equally important is protecting community autonomy in the study design, data collection, and data use phases of the project. Other specific challenges mentioned include working with unhoused communities when indicators are often place-based, and working with tribes to define value, ecological history, and cultural roots of their current place when their ancestral roots remain connected to their original home. Discussion Questions 1) When working with communities to develop indicators, how do you account for cultural sensitivities? • When working with Great Plains tribes, EPA has tried to listen and translate scientific models into more meaningful language. Proceed with building personal relationships first (such as "we're here to learn from you"). It is important to establish trust and identify people that can help with making connections. Trust and relationship building need to be incorporated into project milestones (interim products) and timelines to reflect the process of relationship building and not just the science. Build in "listening to needs" as a critical milestone. 16 ------- • Practice listening and wait to be invited in by the community. Find the connectors in the group to help facilitate relationships and define the process and benchmarks of success. One example is changing grant processes to account for relationship building. • Intentionally build capacity for learning about culture, equity, environmental justice, and specific communities. Have someone on the team focused on these topics and make this a full-time job. It is important to accept that things need to slow down. • With tribes, follow a proper process by connecting intentionally at the right levels of staff, tribal councils, or committees. This involves capacity building and will require training on equity and tribal issues. There is a need to have tribal liaisons and coordinators who help connect with groups and build relationships. Overall, be patient and expect things to move slowly. 2) Are there sensitivities with communities that surprised you? • When to share or not share data can be surprising. There can be sensitivities around not wanting data to become public. Sometimes we need to protect specific sites or people. • Who you talk to in the community can radically change the outcome or results. Consider who is involved and who is willing to speak about a project or topic. 3) How are organizations building products at the same time as relationship building? What should be done in the meantime while relationships are being built? • One suggestion is to have a facilitator for an Indian Nation that works with an EPA facilitator. This can speed up relationship building because each group is represented by one of the facilitators who they trust. The facilitators can work together to help resolve issues raised by each group. • There is a clear need for multiple facilitators from different perspectives, representing different groups. If possible, allow the stakeholder or partner groups to interview and select the facilitator(s) they agree on. • Start with building trust among a small team or partnership, and then expand from there. • Consider providing compensation as part of the process, which is important but can be hard to do. 4) When working at the national, regional, and state level, how do you reach communities and issues that are place-based or locally based (given that we are often operating at larger scales)? • It is important to network across scales, finding connectors between networks. Think about pathways of information to have an impact on multiple scales. • Avoid silos and connect across work. 5) How do you negotiate conflict between researchers and community goals and perspectives? • It is important to co-generate (or co-direct), so that both parties are involved from the start to clearly define goals and expectations. The communities are the experts and keepers of their own knowledge. We need to acknowledge an equal relationship. • Regarding tribal connections, there are tribal universities that could be an effective "connector" to ORD or other agency efforts. For example, Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, is one institute. They have also recently been identified as one of several centers for climate change impacts and adaptation. • The timeframe for science may not work for tribal universities. The timeframe for funding is often mismatched with the needs of the community. Identify shared priorities and establish shared timelines that work for all parties. • Do not confuse tribal communities with environmental justice communities. Tribes see themselves as distinct and have treaty rights. Tribes have unique relationships with the government as sovereign nations. 6) How can we disseminate data in an understandable and accessible way without gatekeeping? • First, decide on what data are desired to be disseminated and why gatekeeping could happen. • Consider how data portrays individuals and what the value of the information is to the people. Self- identification also plays a role. Think about working at the individual level, face-to-face. • Every community is different, so approach each situation differently. Some communities may opt out 17 ------- and not participate at all. • Acknowledge there are a lot of wishes from communities, tribes, and scientists for information packaged in the form of indicators. We are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of how we disseminate data in an understandable and accessible way. At this point, it is a challenge to provide information that helps us understand the why behind trends or patterns. Use and Applications of Community Knowledge in Indicators In the last panel discussion of the Symposium, participants discussed how to incorporate community knowledge and qualitative information into projects. Keely Maxwell (ORD) moderated the discussion and was joined by Ann Carroll (Office of Land and Emergency Management [OLEM]), Julie Vastine (ORD), and Susan Jackson (OW) as panelists. The panelists addressed the importance and need for indicators to measure and monitor social systems hoiistically, such as the social dimensions that affect disinvestment. When incorporating qualitative elements into metrics, we also need to make sure our metrics are in a language that communities can use, which is essential for meaningful public engagement. Compiling indicators is the beginning, not the end of a project. We need to consider the various time scales of action (e.g., restoration over long term vs. indicators on shorter time scales) and the connections to specific places. Building community capacity and familiarity with indicators throughout a project is essential as well as sustaining that capacity and engagement over time using participatory science. Participatory science at EPA can take many forms. We can engage the public in different steps of the process. We need to align indicators (e.g., indicators of socio-economic systems) with community interests, rather than with what they may not be thinking about. One challenge is how to keep volunteers engaged (e.g., in long-term monitoring) as well as consider their potential shifting interests over time. In general, engaging communities is a full-time job. However, partners like to see the outcomes of their work. Long-term participation requires resources to achieve a long-term vision. Milestones are important along the way, even when support for a project can come and go. Indicators keep partners focused on a clear vision and illuminate opportunities for making a difference over time. Day 2 Highlights • Aim to distinguish between missing data and invisible data. When possible, make invisible data visible. • Acknowledge that co-production of knowledge is a challenge to fit within traditional approaches, existing institutions, and structures. • Work closely with partners and only release synthesized products that maintain privacy and protect those individuals and communities that participate. Make sure visualizations are tailored to how different communities or audiences want to access the information. • Consider what data are available and what to present in terms of indicators, especially when data are sparse. Ensure data is accessible and reliable. • Develop clear and meaningful indicators and stratifications (e.g., race, ethnicity, income), which is in alignment with Agency Priority Goals. • Use indicators to support local planning and implementation but understand the difference between this and a national assessment or an assessment across locations. • Tie together qualitative and quantitative indicators of resilience and equity using participatory approaches, which can provide richer information and lessen burden on communities compared to traditional quantitative data gathering. • Involve communities along the way in projects, including selecting the most relevant indicators, customizing indicators, collecting information, and recording results. Make sure indicators are useful to communities to affect change. Collaboration and co-generation are essential to having ethical incorporation of community knowledge. Leave space for building capacity and consider how to sustain 18 ------- capacity when using participatory science. • Know the challenges including addressing sources of inequities (economic, health, social, policy, programs) and how to account for data gaps (e.g., under-represented identities, legal issues, social factors). • Be aware that lumping together disadvantaged groups can obscure inequities. Need to understand differences among communities and groups. • Recognize that Census data is good for urban areas but does not provide adequate data for rural areas. • Ensure balance between positive and negative indicators. Sometimes we gravitate to showing worsening or declining trends, but it is equally important to show good things happening. • Dedicate time to building relationships and trust. This needs to be first step in the process and can be time-intensive work. Incorporate this longer timeframe of relationship-building into the research process. Develop milestones for relationship-building activities. • Be a connector of different scales of networks. Also recognize connections to place, which are very important and need to be incorporated. • Measure and monitor social systems hoiistically, and make sure indicators are measuring socio- economic systems and what community wants, rather than what they may not be thinking about. Closing In the closing remarks, the meeting co-chairs thanked everyone who helped organize and plan the Symposium including: Pat Murphy, Britta Bierwagen, David Mintz, Mark Corrales, Joseph Greenblott, Laura Romano, Caitlin Briere, Rebecca Huff, Matthew Lee, Tai Lung, Onyemaechi Nweke, Matthew Sehrsweeney, Vanessa Van Note, Susan Holdsworth, Haley Miller, Margherita Pryor, Kelsey Hensley, Bill Jenkins, Regina Poeske, Lisa Chang, Michael Rylko, Kaylyn Gootman, Katheryn Barnhart, Peter Tango, Nathalie Hamel, and Elizabeth Stanziano. The co-chairs also thanked the presenters, moderators, panelists, and note-takers, and celebrated the event as a success because of everyone's contributions, as well as the preparation and delivery of each of the sessions. The co-chairs highlighted the indicator project examples, best practices, and lessons learned that were shared. They expressed appreciation for the wealth of knowledge at the meeting and the community of practitioners who gathered. They shared their plans for summarizing the sessions and key takeaways following this meeting. Before closing the meeting, the co-chairs invited all participants to either come off mute or write in the chat their favorite part of the meeting or a key takeaway that they will walk away with. The co-chairs concluded the Symposium, thanking everyone for attending and hoping to hear how the Symposium benefitted participants and inspired colleagues to think in new directions. 19 ------- Appendix A Agenda for October 3, 2023: Developing Environmental and Human Health Indicators Agenda ll:30am-12:00pm ET Coffee Chat Purpose: Icebreaker discussion about whv people are attending the Symposium and what you hope to get out of it. Moderators: • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development 12:00pm - 12:10pm Welcome and Goals of Symposium Moderators: • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development 12:10pm - 12:45pm Agency Leaders' Perspectives on the Importance of Environmental and Human Health Indicators Purpose: Learning agencvwide perspective on indicator use and value (i.e., what do indicators tell us and how do we communicate these messages?) Moderator: • Scot Hagerthey, National Program Director for the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program in the Office of Research and Development Panelists: • Maureen Gwinn, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Research and Development • Grace Robiou, Director of Office of Children's Health Protection • Tomas Elias Carbonell, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Stationary Sources, Office of Air and Radiation • Jeffrey Lerner, Acting Chief of the Partnerships and Accountability Branch, Region 3 • Peter Murchie, Section Manager ofPuget Sound Program, Region 10 12:45pm - 1:20pm Attributes of Environmental and Human Health Indicators by Purpose Purpose: What are attributes of environmental and human health indicators? What specific attributes make a good indicator? Group 1: EPA Programmatic Performance Measures Moderator: • Doug Bell, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region 3 Group 2: Environmental, Social, Economic, & Health Indicators (Outcome Indicators) Moderator: • Katheryn Barn hart, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region 3 1:20pm - 1:35pm Break 1:35pm -2:45pm Environmental and Human Health Indicators for Policy and Decision Making Purpose: How do we develop or select indicators aligned with statutory language and administrator priorities? How do we develop indicators, so they are policy-relevant? Moderators: 20 ------- • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development Presenters: • David Mintz, Office of Air and Radiation -Air Indicators • Mark Corrales, Administrator's Office - National vs. local decisions and comparing places vs. comparing stressors • Laura Vary, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington - Puget Sound Partnership, Action Agenda Progress Indicators Development and Utility • John Hall, Office of the Chief Financial Officer - The relationship between EPA's Performance Measures and Environmental and Human Health Indicators • Susan Jackson, Office of Water and Sarah Lehmann, Office of Water - Clean Water Act Indicators 2:45pm -3:45pm Environmental and Human Health Indicators in Practice Group 1: Baselines and Trends Purpose: How do vou tie indicator baselines and trends to policies and decision making and/or setting or evaluating management goals? Moderator: • Lisa Chang, Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office, Seattle, Washington Panelists: • Mary Ramirez, Vital Signs Reporting Technical Lead, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington and Nathalie Hamel, Vital Signs Reporting Lead, Puget Sound Partnership, Washington - Building shared understanding about the health of Puget Sound with the Puget Sound Vital Signs • Peter Tango, US Geological Survey, Chesapeake Bay Program - Baselines and trends: Insights from a decade working with goals and outcomes of the 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement • Britta Bierwagen, Office of Research and Development - Setting up stream monitoring to detect climate change • Jillian Adair, Region 3 and Drew Garey, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Analysis of Equality in VADEQ's fish tissue contaminant monitoring (Goal: Are EJ areas monitored at the same level as other areas?) Group 2: Relationships and Interactions Among Indicators (Underlying Drivers) Purpose: How can vou take indicators to the next level for policies/regulation by looking at interactions/relationships/underlying drivers? Use of indicators for evaluation. Moderators: • Joe Greenblott, Office of the Chief Financial Officer • Patricia Murphy, Office of Research and Development Panelists: • Jeremy Martinich, Office of Air and Radiation • Danelle Lobdell, Office of Research and Development • Michael Pennino, Office of Research and Development 3:45pm -4:30pm Sharing of Breakout Highlights, Closing, Day 2 Agenda 21 ------- • Day 1 Session Moderators • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development Agenda for October 4, 2023: Community Knowledge and Environmental and Human Health Indicators Agenda 12:00pm - 12:15pm Welcome and Day 1 Recap, Day 2 Goals Moderators: • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development 12:15pm - 12:45pm Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Community Engagement into Indicators Purpose: Sharing lessons learned through a specific example. Moderators: • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development Presenter: • Helen Berry, Washington Department of Natural Resources - Sharing lessons learned through an example of indicator development that integrates indigenous scientific knowledge and community science 12:45pm - 1:45pm Social Vulnerability, Lifestage Susceptibility, and Environmental Justice in Indicators Purpose: How to build social vulnerability, life stage susceptibility, and environmental justice considerations into indicators Moderators: • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development Presenters: • Laura Romano, Office of Children's Health Protection • Matthew Sehrsweeney, Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights • Emily Eisenhauer, Office of Research and Development 1:45pm - 2:00pm Break 2:00pm - 2:45pm Community Knowledge and Environmental and Human Health Indicators Group 1: What do we mean by social vulnerability and environmental justice indicators? Purpose: What do we mean by social vulnerability and environmental justice, and how it is represented by indicators? What is the rationale and science behind what they are trying to display or show? Moderators: • Danelle Lobdell, Office of Research and Development • Onyemaechi Nweke, Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights Group 2: What are the processes for integrating community knowledge in environmental and human health indicators? 22 ------- Purpose: What considerations and sensitivities have we encountered in working with communities to integrate community knowledge in indicators? How can we get indicators information back to the hands of the community? Moderators: • Brittany Kiessling, Office of Research and Development • Anne Weaver, Office of Research and Development 2:45pm -3:30pm Use and Applications of Community Knowledge in Indicators Purpose: Sharing of how to incorporate community knowledge and qualitative information in projects Moderator: • Keely Maxwell, Office of Research and Development Panelists: • Ann Carroll, Office of Land and Emergency Management • Julie Vastine, Office of Research and Development • Susan Jackson, Office of Water 3:30pm -4:15pm Open Discussion Purpose: Sharing of highlights from Breakouts and Discussions (bv Moderators). Reflections and synthesis of what we heard. Compile list of environmental and human health indicator topic areas to share and build upon with this group. Moderators: • Day 2 Session Moderators • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development 4:15pm -4:30pm Closing • Meridith Fry, Office of Research and Development • Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development 23 ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 Office of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of 50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free ------- |