State of the Science and the Future of Cumulative Impact Assessment: Proceedings of a Workshop Series (2025)
Chapter: 3 Liaison Virtual Town Hall
3
Liaison Virtual Town Hall
On December 12, 2024, the National Academies’ Committee on State-of-the-Science and the Future of Cumulative Impact Assessment hosted a virtual Town Hall event with members of the committee’s community and Tribal liaison group. Focusing on cross-cutting themes pertinent to cumulative impact assessment, the event aimed to amplify community voices by inviting members of the public to share their lived experiences on topics relevant to the committee’s charge. The event consisted of two exercises using the World Café method. These exercises were designed to elicit participants’ perspectives about the stressors that impact communities, now and in the future, and explore a vision of how cumulative impact assessment can contribute to future community health and well-being.
Committee chair Weihsueh Chiu (Texas A&M University) provided opening remarks to set the stage for the Town Hall meeting. Providing context on the committee’s charge and the role of the meeting as an information-gathering session to inform the committee’s deliberations, he described the concept of cumulative impact assessment as a tool to help decision-makers understand how different stressors combine to impact the health of people and communities. These stressors may include factors that have traditionally been the focus of environmental health assessments, such as air pollution, as well as other factors such as climate change and socioeconomic issues. In addition, Chiu noted that the committee defines health not just as a lack of disease but as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.
The committee’s charge addresses several topics related to the science and practice of cumulative impact, including the following: What are the stressors today and how will they change in the future? What makes a community more vulnerable to stressors? What are barriers to strengthening a community’s ability to respond to stressors? And what would improved community and health and well-being look like? Chiu explained that the input from the virtual Town Hall, along with other public meetings, will help the committee review the evidence in a way that is mindful of the challenges that communities face. With this input, future cumulative impact assessments can better reflect the perspectives and needs of communities.
STRESSORS IMPACTING HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
For the first interactive session, participants divided into small groups to discuss stressors that impact communities’ health and well-being. These discussions centered on the following questions:
- What are the main stressors experienced in your community now?
- What will be the main stressors in the future (in the next 10–20 years)?
- What makes your community more vulnerable to stressors?
- What are the barriers to strengthening your community’s ability to respond to stressors?
Following the discussions, participants reconvened and rapporteurs summarized the points raised during each of the five break-out groups.
Group 1
Rima Habre (University of Southern California) reported on discussions in her group, which included individuals from New Jersey and Oregon. A key area of focus was pollution, with participants highlighting concerns about lead and other contaminants from industrial sites, illegal dumping, and Superfund sites with heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) contamination. Some participants stated their concerns about linkage of pollution exposure with low life expectancy, effects on school performance, higher asthma rates in children, early cardiovascular disease issues in mid-adulthood, higher rates of crime and imprisonment, and poor mental health outcomes. Another impact highlighted by participants from Oregon is the threats to salmon populations because their habitat along rivers is highly contaminated.
Given the levels of pollutants already present in and around communities, some participants posited that a major concern over the next 10 to 20 years is the risk of a redistribution of pollutants that have not been cleaned up from contaminated sites during climate-related disasters or earthquakes, posing long-term risks to future generations. Hazards such as wildfire and drought that are related to climate change are themselves a stressor for communities, and these stressors can be exacerbated by a perceived lack of sufficient planning and evacuation routes to allow residents to get out of harm’s way. Legacy pollution in combination with such disaster scenarios could pose a significant stressor for communities in the coming decades.
Participants also pointed to concerns around infrastructure and transportation, including housing issues, water infrastructure problems, oil and gas infrastructure, heavy truck traffic, and trains carrying hazardous materials through densely populated areas. Some participants described a variety of housing issues in both Oregon and New Jersey. They noted that housing-related stressors affect many people, especially lower-income individuals, seniors, and renters, and rising prices can mean that more people end up in lower-quality housing, which can carry risks.
Other participants expressed concern about nuclear power plants, particularly in Oregon, positing that conversations about the role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions may sometimes ignore the life-cycle impacts of these plants for communities living nearby. Although nuclear power is viewed as a way to provide energy to support the demands of emerging artificial intelligence and computational activities, some participants cautioned against “green-
washing”1 and stressed the need to consider the potential drawbacks along with the potential benefits of nuclear power.
Although there is a lot of discussion of climate action plans at a high level, community members said that these plans are not necessarily being implemented, and perceptions can be misaligned with realities. For example, people may move to Oregon because of its reputation for being water-rich, green, and climate-friendly while potentially overlooking important concerns such as legacy environmental justice issues. The influx of people can also drive up house prices, which can make it more difficult for residents to afford to stay in their homes and can lead to increased unhoused populations, straining resources for the community.
In terms of what makes communities more vulnerable to stressors, some participants suggested that there is a legacy of neglect, racism, and segregation, along with a general feeling of not having any real power to do anything about the persistent issues they face. They perceived a greater ability to make meaningful changes at the municipal or local government level than at other levels, because it is easier to generate visibility around local issues. However, even when communities engage with local officials and the government, they may feel as though no results come from these interactions. Some participants said that this lack of empowerment and a general feeling that the system will never work for them can be a significant barrier to strengthening communities’ ability to respond to stressors.
The uneven distribution of wealth is another important barrier discussed by some participants. Legacy contamination issues persist even in and around historically rich communities, and some participants posited that the wealth is not adequately invested into the community. Some participants said that exclusion of people’s voices from government and local representation can prohibit the ability to respond to stressors. Other participants expressed support for community-based organizations and the power of community members coming together to address some of these issues.
Group 2
Julia Brody (Silent Spring Institute) summarized the discussion among her group, which included residents of California, Oregon, and Texas. Community members described a range of stressors, including pollution, industrial and resource extraction activities, climate-related risks, and barriers to accessing resources. They expressed concern about the impacts on air, soil, and water from heavy industry contamination as well as small-area sources such as cement plants, vehicles, and marine ports, noting, for example, that the presence of toxins in waterways can threaten the ability to use the land to grow food. Participants also described how a proliferation of new pipelines, injection wells, fracking wells, and oil and gas extraction wells may negatively impact community health and well-being. Climate risks such as drought, wildfire, and heat islands also pose a concern. In general, many participants note that there has been a lack of investment in communities where historical policies have led to racism, homelessness, displacement of cultural practices, and barriers to participating in environmental decision-making. As a result of these issues, they said that some communities lack access to resources such as health centers, pharmacies, and healthy food, and some see weaknesses in zoning and permitting processes and lack of enforcement as additional problems.
___________________
1 See https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/greenwashing.
Regarding stressors that their communities may encounter in the coming decades, participants discussed how some of the shifts that are now under way could result in unintended consequences. For example, electric vehicles offer environmental benefits such as reduced diesel-related emissions but can also change the composition of pollutant mixtures near highways, potentially leading to new concerns about pollutants from metals, plastics, and rubber. Another example is plastics and advanced recycling, which can also change pollutant mixtures.
Looking ahead, some participants noted the importance of waste management, particularly hazardous waste management, and greater challenges with maintaining fresh drinking water supplies in the face of pollution challenges. They also noted that climate-related impacts can be felt by industry as well as communities, with some participants suggesting that insufficient investment in green infrastructure could have negative impacts in the future. Some participants also expressed concern about potential backsliding on past gains, suggesting the benefits of national support in local organizing and greater inclusion of the younger generation in shaping the future.
Regarding the stressors that make a community more vulnerable, many participants highlighted how various headwinds can make it difficult for people to effectively engage in decision-making. Examples include permitting rules that are not rooted in public health values, industrial interests having undue influence over regulatory agencies, and unincorporated communities that lack natural avenues for local participation. Other barriers include built-in racism, a lack of affordable insurance, language barriers, and a perception among some groups, such as immigrants, that it would be unsafe for them to engage in political discussions or report violations. In addition, people who may be most acutely affected by stressors, for example, those living near a point source for pollution, may become sick or die sooner, undermining their ability to attend public meetings or run for office.
Other participants highlighted gaps in data and the benefits of greater investment in high-quality, consistent data collection, particularly at the community level. They encouraged the same access for community members as researchers and policymakers—both the access to the same data, and the ability to analyze it. In addition, they said data could be translated into clear, accessible insights so that the broader public can understand its implications.
Group 3
Debbie Cory-Slechta (University of Rochester) summarized the discussion among her group, which included individuals from Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, and Texas. The group discussed a number of social and infrastructure challenges that they experience in their communities. Pointing to underemployment, homelessness, and poor housing infrastructure as key stressors, many participants underscored how a lack of access to resources, transportation, and mental health care services can contribute to housing deterioration and homelessness.
Noting that little has changed over the past two decades, many participants believed that future stressors would likely be very similar to current ones. They said that housing pressures and infrastructure issues are not being solved and may likely persist and also stressed the importance of services for the aging population and children. Climate issues were also mentioned as a future stressor. Based on experiences with past hurricanes and other events—from which residents are still struggling to recover—participants suggested that property loss will likely be an issue in the future.
In terms of what makes a community more vulnerable to stressors, some participants highlighted how demographic shifts toward a higher percentage of people under age 5 and over age 65 can create a more vulnerable population distribution. Many communities also struggle with a lack of quality educational services for children. Several participants also noted that people are often in survival mode, just trying to maintain the income needed to support a family, which means they often lack the bandwidth to advocate for solutions to the problems their communities face. Housing access also remains a challenge to communities’ ability to respond to stressors, several participants said.
Looking at the challenges more broadly, participants discussed how political divides and a lack of social cohesion can undermine the ability to respond to stressors, and they explored the idea that fostering empathy and a sense of shared identity could help communities address many of these issues. The group also highlighted the importance of incorporating community input into the design of interventions and adequately informing community members about the best ways to become involved.
Group 4
The group discussion facilitated by Lauren Zeise (California EPA, retired) included individuals from Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. Several participants noted the importance of location—where pollution happens and who is exposed to it—in determining the stressors that communities face. In addition to what is happening in the community broadly, they talked about the need to consider what is happening in the home, recognizing that building materials, indoor air, and consumer products can contribute to pollution exposures. Stressors and exposures experienced by specific communities such as fishers and indigenous people are also important considerations.
Participants in this group also highlighted the fact that many stressors center on governance. For example, in Houston, Texas, less expensive residential areas are attracting (and allowing) more industrial development, which can increase pollution exposure to residents at home, work, and school. Goods movement and train derailments also pose a risk in certain communities. Ineffective community engagement around permitting and zoning can add to the barriers that people face and the stress that they experience, several participants said.
Governance is also an issue for consumer products. Given the plethora of agencies that oversee risk assessment, regulation, and enforcement for different types of products—such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—some participants expressed concern that important sources of exposure might fall through the cracks. There is also a perception that the onus is on consumers to avoid exposures rather than on the agencies that are in a position to regulate what goes into products. This situation places the burden of avoiding exposures on the consumer rather than the producer, and several participants noted that safer products often cost more, so people with lower incomes may bear the greatest burden when products are unsafe.
The group also discussed a variety of issues related to climate change. One concern relates to the episodic exposures that follow disasters. For example, wildfires can lead to spikes in air pollution and other hazards, while flooding can often lead to exposure to mold, sewage, and contaminated water. After events such as floods or wildfires, industrial facilities may engage in venting
or flaring—the controlled release or combustion of gases—due to system shutdowns, damage, or safety protocols. These actions can add even more pollution to the area. The rebuilding process can also pose risks; for example, participants noted that rapid construction after Hurricane Katrina led to issues such as formaldehyde exposure from temporary housing trailers.2 Several participants emphasized the need to manage and minimize such exposures in future recovery efforts.
Looking ahead, some participants expressed the view that access to housing may be a continuing and worsening issue that could involve many incidental stressors, and discussed the benefits of better infrastructure. They also highlighted a lack of data as another key problem, providing the example of a coal-fired power plant located near a neighborhood where residents lacked access to information about what pollutants the plant might be releasing. Finally, the group discussed how community organizations and individuals who work within or alongside government, as well as partnerships between the two, can strengthen community resilience.
Group 5
The discussion facilitated by Zhen Cong (Chapman University) included individuals from California, Illinois, and Texas. In terms of stressors, many participants said that Houston is experiencing significant impacts from air pollution, especially in less affluent neighborhoods, which endure higher levels of industrial pollution and have fewer resources than more affluent neighborhoods nearby. As was noted by participants in other groups, pollution challenges in this area of the country are also compounded by disasters such as hurricanes, which can cause the release of contaminants from industrial facilities. Referring to Chicago, participants explained that significant industrial and warehouse development around large inland container ports and intermodals has increased pollution, especially from increased truck traffic in these areas and through neighboring communities. For California, water quality was highlighted as a problem interconnected with air pollution, wildfires, and climate change. Water quality and air pollution are also linked to food quality, which is an important issue in California because of its agricultural exports.
Participants commented that communities that have experienced disasters are not always heard, which can make them more vulnerable to stressors. Looking to the future, several participants said that understanding and addressing the root causes of fundamental inequities by gender, race, immigration status, and income is key to strengthening the ability to respond to stressors.
The group also underscored the significant influence of climate change on future vulnerability and highlighted particular issues related to disaster-resilient infrastructure and energy systems. Liaisons from Houston highlighted continuous urban sprawl, which is forcing people to build in places that should not be developed, such as flood-prone zones or environmentally sensitive areas. This sprawl has also reduced green space and made it more difficult to provide adequate transportation. These participants posited that future growth may further exacerbate these issues. Participants from Chicago noted that the future will likely include increasingly intense rainfall and more weather events such as tornadoes. The growing number of warehouses and heavy industry sites can also exacerbate urban heat island effects. These participants raised a particular concern around a quantum computing hub under development. Although the project could bring economic growth and thousands of new jobs, its environmental impact may burden local resources and-
___________________
communities. For example, the hub is expected to require extremely high amounts of electricity, which will likely stress the city’s electricity infrastructure. Electricity is also a concern in California, where planners are trying to determine how to deliver electricity with a unified smart grid. This effort will require building infrastructure in communities, these participants noted, raising the challenge of finding appropriate places to build this infrastructure.
Several participants in this group discussed a variety of factors that can contribute to community vulnerability in the face of disasters. One issue is a lack of education on the importance of preparing for disasters and the best ways to prepare, an issue that can be amplified by fundamental social vulnerabilities and disparities. Some participants said that in many cases the systems in place to protect communities are inadequate, and in some cases the systems in place may actually perpetuate inequality, particularly in terms of mental health and chronic health issues. As other groups had noted, families in vulnerable communities already experience a lot of strain, with many dealing with both physical and mental health issues and concerns about life expectancy. These challenges can make it difficult to address additional burdens, which are exacerbated by issues such as food deserts, poor air quality, and lack of reliable health care. Finally, the group highlighted a lack of data and a lack of education on how to interpret data as key problems that can make communities more vulnerable.
COMMUNITY GROUP PRESENTATIONS
For the second part of the Town Hall event, representatives from community groups shared issues, insights, and activities under way related to addressing cumulative impacts in two geographic areas: Houston, Texas, and Portland, Oregon.
Houston Area Issues and Perspectives
Jennifer Hadayia (Air Alliance Houston) presented on some of the unique conditions and cumulative impacts occurring in the Houston-Galveston area along with Grace Tee Lewis (Environmental Defense Fund), Jackie Medcalf (Texas Health and Environmental Alliance), and Inyang Uwak (Air Alliance Houston).
Hadayia, who is from a third-generation Houston Ship Channel family, said that she has seen firsthand the cumulative and intergenerational impacts of pollution. The area’s residents experience many stressors, including pollution from active and legacy sources, Superfund sites and brownfields, traffic through Houston’s port and ship channel, and transportation-related pollution and displacements. They also face challenges from extreme weather, an unreliable electric grid, urban sprawl, and issues with zoning, public transit, insufficient safe housing, and barriers to accessing health care. Social stressors are another key issue, with historically marginalized populations subjected to redlining and community disinvestment. Health issues related to these stressors include cancer clusters, high rates of chronic disease, and disparities in life expectancy. “I have often called the Houston area […] the perfect storm of cumulative impacts and stressors,” said Hadayia.
To illustrate the residential proximity to industrial pollution, the presenters shared a short video created by a local videographer profiling areas along the Houston Ship Channel where large industrial facilities are clustered. A second video showed the proximity of a community in nearby
Baytown to a petrochemical facility. The community is separated by only rail yards, and the community park is across the street from the industrial facility.
Expanding on Hadayia’s comments, Uwak pointed to EPA’s Interim Framework for Advancing Consideration of Cumulative Impacts3 and shared maps that highlight how certain predominantly African American and Latino neighborhoods are disproportionately exposed to environmental stressors. Other maps presented to participants illustrated how people with low incomes and people of color are more likely to experience a variety of adverse health and quality-of-life impacts, including higher asthma rates, increased mortality from heat, lost work hours, and extended commute times due to flooding—especially under worsening climate conditions.
Lewis and Hadayia also discussed a series of maps that illustrate what is known as the “Houston Arrow,” a term used by researchers and environmental justice advocates to describe a corridor of Houston that is shaped like an arrow that stretches from the industrial east side of the city toward the wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods on the west side of the city. They explained that this stark division within the city occurred because of deliberate disinvestment policies such as redlining, which made historically Black and brown neighborhoods less desirable. As land in these areas became cheaper, industrial pollution increased.
The presenters noted that, in their view, residential communities in places like Baytown were established before heavy industry moved in, exploiting disinvestment and limiting civic participation. This has led to disproportionate pollution exposure and higher rates of chronic diseases such as asthma, heart disease, and cancer in affected communities, they said. The same pattern can be found in climate vulnerability, access to health care, and ultimately, life expectancy. In Harris County, where Houston is located, life expectancy can drastically differ from one block to the next due to socioeconomic, environmental, and infrastructural disparities. For example, Hadayia said that children living within 2 miles of the Houston Ship Channel face a 56 percent higher risk of leukemia compared with children living more than 10 miles from the channel.4 Recent incidents, such as a train derailment that spilled plastic pellets into a drinking water canal, further highlight ongoing environmental threats and a lack of accountability on the part of polluters, Medcalf added.
Portland Area Issues and Perspectives
Cassie Cohen (Portland Harbor Community Coalition) described cumulative impacts in the Portland metropolitan area and her coalition’s efforts to collaborate and learn from others to address these impacts. The Portland Harbor Community Coalition is an environmental justice group working to elevate the voices of communities disproportionately impacted by the Portland Harbor Superfund site, with a goal of securing community benefits and robust, equitable cleanup of the Superfund site. The group has been coordinating conversations with public health agencies and higher education institutions in the region about ways to address cumulative impacts, which has not been done yet in Oregon. They plan to conduct this work through a new project called the Cumulative Health Impacts and Resilience Plan (CHIRP).
Portland area residents face a broad range of environmental exposures across their lifespan, as well as intergenerational and systemic impacts. Individual experiences, institutional racism,
___________________
3 See https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-11/epa-interim-cumulative-impacts-framework-november-2024.pdf.
and layers of oppression—shaped by policy and power structures—can contribute to long-term health outcomes, Cohen said.
To address these issues, local coalitions are conducting community-driven, community-based outreach and facilitating qualitative and quantitative data gathering aimed at capturing the different exposures experienced in this area. In addition to current and ongoing exposures, Cohen noted that they plan to factor in forced displacements and moves occurring over generations.
A Superfund site and a critical energy infrastructure hub located on liquefiable sediment along the banks of the Willamette River pose particular concerns. This area stores 90 percent of Oregon’s oil, fuels, and gas, as well as other flammable materials. The energy hub alone poses significant risks because of its proximity to houses and schools. In addition, if a major earthquake were to hit the hub, the resulting release of pollution would likely affect the many communities that are downstream—a catastrophe with the potential to undo any progress made on cleaning up the Superfund site and with significant impacts to the area’s economy and environment.
FUTURE VISION OF IMPROVED COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
For the second set of break-out discussions, groups focused on questions about their vision for the future, considerations for children, and any other critical factors the committee may consider in its deliberations. The questions guiding the discussions were as follows:
- What is your future vision of improved community health and well-being?
- What are special considerations or concerns that should be highlighted to ensure children are properly included in cumulative impact assessments?
- What is the most important aspect for our committee to consider?
Participants were sorted into different groups than they had joined in the first break-out session. Following the session, rapporteurs summarized the discussions from each group.
Group 1
For their future vision of improved community health and well-being, Habre’s group, which included participants from Illinois and Texas, highlighted the importance of regulatory oversight and a regulatory decision-making process that integrates and acknowledges community input before permits are approved. In addition, they discussed the myriad benefits of better public transport, including improving air quality; alleviating the reliance on cars and reducing the need for highway expansion projects; enhancing community connections; and improving access to health care, food options, and essential amenities. Curbing community displacements (such as those caused by highway expansions) was noted as especially impactful because displacements can force families into lower-quality or more polluted housing and leave businesses without their customer base, often requiring them to start over entirely.
Participants also stated that inadequate zoning laws can allow industry to move into existing residential areas and build along fence lines and next to schools. This situation can cause housing values to plummet and may prevent people in polluted communities from moving out.
In terms of special considerations and concerns for children in cumulative impact assessment, several participants noted that in addition to being more impacted by air pollution and contamination, children are at risk for multiple health outcomes such as asthma and neurological and cognitive effects.5 Because of the nuances pertinent to this population, several participants emphasized the benefits of filling data gaps and suggested treating children as a separate category in cumulative impact assessment. They also suggested consideration of proximity to schools in regulations and permitting decisions for new industrial facilities, as well as the impacts of pollution from idling diesel buses and trucks.
Members of the group noted that the interconnectedness of air, water, soil, land, and housing issues adds to the challenge of focusing on any single aspect in cumulative impact assessment. In addition, interactions among various stressors can combine to cause even more harm. They also mentioned the value of incentivizing industry to make improvements. In efforts to advance solutions, many participants strongly emphasized the importance of incorporating community voices into the policymaking process. Finally, they underscored the importance of facilitating equitable access to health and health-promoting conditions, especially for incarcerated individuals, who are often overlooked, along with other marginalized groups.
Group 2
Brody’s group, which included individuals from California, Oregon, and Texas, outlined their vision for a future in which everyone has fair access to affordable and nutritious food, health care, and a clean environment. The participants stressed that individuals should not have to shoulder the burden of ensuring their own safety, suggesting instead the need for stronger community protections, such as clear chemical regulations and safe products on store shelves.
The group also reflected on how broader economic structures affect community health. They suggested that shifting away from a purely profit-driven economy could help reduce exploitation, particularly from polluters. Recognizing that financial well-being is closely connected to community well-being, they raised ideas like reparations and universal income as possible ways to address longstanding racial and economic disparities. They also discussed change in the power structures that lead to poor health in communities; for example, putting a price on carbon can help reduce the benefits for polluters who continue to profit at the expense of community well-being.
Participants in this group also suggested centering zoning policies around equity and justice, transitioning to sustainable practices, enforcing right-to-know laws, and creating systems that are responsive to community engagement. Positing that engagement alone is not enough, they said that to truly make a difference, engagement should take place within a responsive system wherein community victories persist so that people are not constantly strained from generation to generation. Union-based models were raised as a source for learning about organizing that addresses power imbalances.
Like other groups, this group noted special considerations for children because of their biological susceptibility to pollution and unique exposure pathways that could be missed in cumulative assessments. For example, children exposed to lead in homes have unique needs. They also talked about including young people in discussions and asking children about the social stressors that they face so that these can be included in impact assessments. Several participants noted a
___________________
5 See https://www.who.int/health-topics/children-environmental-health#tab=tab_1.
lack of data on children as another issue, adding that families with various structures, such as single-parent families and children raised by grandparents, must be considered.
Children also may be affected in unique ways by policy decisions. For example, if a disaster or chemical release event leads to a shelter-in-place order, children at school must remain there even if it is not the safest place for them. On the other hand, if they were sent home, adults may not be able to leave work to be at home with them. Participants suggested that policies on disaster response and shelter-in-place orders could be examined through the lens of children and families. More generally, some participants also noted that inadequate paid family leave can be a stressor in many communities.
In terms of the most important aspects for the committee to consider, participants commented that not all cumulative impacts are place-based. Impacts can also arise from products in housing and indoor environments. The distribution of exposures, especially in quantitative models, could be considered, particularly the upper end of exposures and uniquely high individual exposures that can get lost in statistics. The group also stressed the importance of accounting for the lived experiences of people when identifying conclusions and action items.
The group also emphasized the persistent gaps in data, noting that existing data systems are rooted in a history of discrimination and inequity. They suggested expanding these databases to enable more accurate assessments of cumulative impacts beyond industry’s self-reported pollution data, which currently serve as the primary source of information. They also suggested that the committee recognize environmental pollution as a contributing factors to illness and follow a more comprehensive approach to measuring health outcomes. In addition, they urged greater attention to Native peoples who are not part of federally recognized tribes and are often underrepresented in the U.S. census. Finally, participants highlighted the importance of capturing the effects of intergenerational trauma—the lasting psychological and emotional harm passed down through generations due to historical injustices.
Group 3
Cory-Slechta’s group, which included participants from New Jersey and Oregon, discussed a vision for a future with better housing; environments free from industrial discharge and toxins such as lead; and access to clean water for all, including rivers safe enough for swimming and fishing. To achieve this vision, participants emphasized the importance of collaboration among community members, industry leaders, and environmental regulators at the county, state, and federal levels.
In terms of special considerations for children, several participants highlighted place-based education to teach children about their environment, including potential dangers in that environment. In this context, they stressed the need to advance understanding of how other stressors in children might interact with toxic exposures.
The group underscored several aspects for the committee to consider, including issues related to housing, the importance of making information digestible and understandable to non-scientists, and working together through community groups.
Group 4
Levy’s group included participants from California and Texas. They outlined a future vision of improved community health and well-being centered on fortifying and strengthening the public health and health infrastructure to ensure that communities have access to services. This work involves addressing gaps in pharmacy access, increasing the number of community health workers and community health centers, and improving coordination among the various sectors that influence the health of communities.
The group also discussed community engagement and empowerment as a pathway toward improved community health. As part of this, they highlighted for example, measuring air quality within communities to fill data gaps. Some of this work could be accomplished through academic and community partnerships or other stakeholder-community partnerships. However, building trust among groups will be a key to these efforts to be successful.
Several participants also highlighted the importance of supporting communities’ response to lengthy environmental impact assessments, especially when the cumulative impacts covered in these assessments are often modest and do not sufficiently reflect community concerns. They noted that areas that face cumulative burdens and a high prevalence of chronic disease are often stigmatized, which can overshadow their resilience and strengths. The conversation emphasized the importance of acknowledging these strengths and shifting away from deficit-based narratives. It also highlighted building trust and relationships between communities and other stakeholders to foster more effective and collaborative efforts.
In terms of special considerations for children, participants suggested that children’s exposure could be better characterized by monitoring air at sensitive sites such as schools, as well as indoor air, which is a particularly concerning source of exposure for children. Also needed are data that reflect children’s exposures specifically, instead of assuming that their exposures are the same as adults. Several participants stated that data access and reporting should be improved. For example, it used to be possible to acquire data on childhood blood lead from health departments, but these data are no longer available.
In addition, states collect and report different types of data on maternal and child health, complicating efforts to combine and compare data across states. This inconsistency highlights the need for more systematic data collection and nationwide systems so that data can be leveraged to better understand exposures and health issues tied to children. In addition, although important for everyone, social determinants of health are especially key for children. Factors such as a child’s nutrition, access to healthy foods, access to the internet, and health insurance status can all potentially influence cumulative impacts.
This group emphasized the importance of considering ways to encourage engagement and empowerment, including better mechanisms for communities to learn from one another and share best practices. Strong partnerships in which nongovernmental organizations or academic researchers provide scientific guidance and support for data collection efforts led by the community can help empower the community to apply for its own grants and launch its own data collection efforts. Several participants also stated that impact assessments will be more realistic and meaningful if lived experiences are considered, and they encouraged a systems approach to account for upstream factors and their interactions.
The discussion also brought up the use of a broader cumulative impact assessment framework that includes not only the EPA but also other key agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Defense and those involved in determining facility citations and other aspects of community health. Finally, many participants stressed the importance of capturing exposures among high-risk populations, including those experiencing the highest levels of exposure and those in vulnerable geographic areas, while highlighting the positive aspects of communities, such as sources of hope and strength that can support civic engagement and long-term resilience.
Group 5
The group facilitated by Zhen Cong included individuals from California, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington and discussed a future vision in which solutions, policies, infrastructure, and resource allocation decisions are community led rather than predetermined. For example, they pointed to investments in community-based solutions and community-based monitoring to achieve cleaner air. They also envisioned pathways toward cleaning up aquatic and marine environments so that there are no more fishing advisories and remediating Superfund sites so that they can ultimately be removed from Superfund site lists.
Participants also discussed the importance of restoring salmon populations so that tribes can have thriving first foods. They also highlighted the importance of full treaty rights on their land. They explored the value of biodiversity more broadly and highlighted the need to better understand the effects of biodiversity change on ecosystems and wetlands. They emphasized fair and equitable research funding in this area, and proposed the development of policies and infrastructure that support access to biodiversity as part of efforts to improve community well-being.
To achieve community-led wellness and health, it may be necessary to confront the widespread misconception that economic growth must come at the expense of public health, some participants noted. The group’s future vision also encompasses integrative care systems that account for both the environment and human health and bring together health care providers, social services, agencies, and community centers to collaborate in the provision of day-to-day living support for individuals and the community.
Regarding special considerations for children, this group, like others, brought up the fact that children are not simply “little grownups” and therefore the impacts they experience can differ from those of adults in meaningful ways. Several participants said it is important to clarify whether exposures that occur in the womb are factored into assessments related to children’s early life exposures. In addition, because children are not decision-makers, many participants said it is important to consider ways to protect them within a cumulative impact assessment framework. Some participants suggested that children or young people could be part of the assessment process by participating in a future Town Hall event or by contributing ideas about how they should be integrated into research and decision-making on cumulative impacts.
The group said it will be important for the committee to consider approaches to support and uplift others who may be doing work on cumulative impacts, find ways to leverage the collective expertise in this area, and identify best practices. For example, other relevant frameworks, including EPA’s interim cumulative impacts framework and a community-led framework from the Union of Concerned Scientists, could be incorporated into these efforts to help ensure that every-
one working in this area is moving forward in the same direction. In addition, several participants emphasized the importance of identifying resources to support those doing on-the-ground work. They suggested that the committee include information on resources to support field visits and develop action steps or plans that help communities with accountability.
CLOSING REMARKS
Closing the Town Hall, Chiu expressed appreciation for the event’s organizers and participants for sharing their experiences and perspectives to help inform the committee’s process and the future of cumulative impact assessment. Chiu stressed the important role of community input and information-sharing. “This virtual town hall has been really an incredibly valuable experience for the committee; it has been very helpful to have the opportunity to dialogue with the liaisons,” Chiu said. “We are grateful to everyone for making this event really a great success.”
