Combining ecological, eco-cultural, and environmental justice parameters to create Eco-EJ indicators to monitor cultural and environmental justices for diverse communities around contaminated sites

Abstract

Assessing environmental quality often requires selection of indicators that can be employed over large spatial scales and over long time periods to assess the health and well-being of species, natural communities, and ecosystems, and to detect changes warranting intervention. Typically, the ecologic environment and the human environment are evaluated separately and selection of indicators and monitoring approaches are not integrated even though ecological indicators may also provide information on risk to human consumers from contaminants (e.g., eco-cultural indicators) or because of disease levels. This paper is a call for ecologists and managers to consider diverse cultural and environmental injustice disparities and health issues when selecting indicators for environmental assessment and monitoring. It is an opportunity for managers and community members to work together to preserve ecological and cultural resources and heritages. We propose a paradigm that selects indicators and monitoring approaches that lend themselves to the integration of human-diversity and uniqueness in the same manner that the selection of ecological indicators and monitoring approaches consider biological species diversity and uniqueness. The proposed paradigm builds on ecological risk assessment techniques, developing analogous endpoints for neighboring communities. For example, identification and protection of human communities, particularly culturally-diverse and environmental justice communities, identification of contaminant corridors (e.g. through water or green corridors) into communities, and eco-monitoring of vulnerable communities are not routine at contaminated sites. Green corridors refers to a width of wild habitat (forest, grasslands) that connects other similar habitat paths (usually a corridor runs through an urban or suburban habitat). We coin the term Eco-EJ indicators for these endpoints, including examination of 1) unique cultural relationships to resource, 2) connectedness of on-site and off-site resources and habitats, 3) health of threatened, rare and unique cultures and communities, and 4) linkages between ecological, eco-cultural, and public health for monitoring and assessment. We also propose that assessment and monitoring include these Eco-EJ indicators, especially for communities near facilities that have extensive chemical contamination. Developing these indicators to assess risk to culturally-diverse and environmental justice communities would be an equivalent goal to reducing risk for significant ecological resources (e.g., endangered species, species of special concern). These Eco-EJ indicators are complementary to the usual human health risk assessments, will include surveys of neighboring vulnerable communities, and will require time and re-organization of current data and additional data collection at site boundaries and in adjacent communities, as well as re-thinking the human component of indicators. This approach lends itself to addressing some diverse-cultural and environmental justice issues with current indicator selection and biomonitoring, and helps identify specific hotspots of unique ecosystem risk and environmental justice community risk. We briefly discuss ecological and eco-cultural monitoring already on-going at three Department of Energy sites to illustrate how the addition of these indicators might work and add value to environmental management and to their relationships with surrounding communities. We recommend that managers of contaminated sites convene people from culturally-diverse communities, environmental justice communities, local and federal government, Tribes, resource trustees, managers, and other stakeholders to develop appropriate site-specific indicators to address environmental inequities around contaminated facilities.

Introduction

Since 1970 when the Environmental Protection Agency was formed, the United States and other countries have devoted considerable time and resources to documenting and understanding the location and movement of contaminants in our environment and the potential adverse effects mainly on people, but also on eco-receptors, communities and ecosystems. Assessment of exposure of humans and the environment to radiologic and chemical contaminants and other physical disruptions is paramount to understanding how to reduce risk (NRC 1996a). Typically, human health risk assessment (NRC 1983, 1993) and ecological risk assessment (NRC 2000) have been conducted separately. While the paradigms and approaches are similar, ecological risk assessment deals with the health and well-being of numerous species within an ecosystem, while human health risk assessment focuses on one species (humans). Ecological risk determinations involve different levels of biological organization from individuals to ecosystems, as well as categories of legal concern (e.g., endangered/threatened species, unique habitats) (Burger 2006). In contrast, human health risk assessment deals with effects of radiation, chemicals, and other stressors on individual humans and their organs, and only indirectly on potential harm to human communities - the individual is the unit of concern. While public health deals with the health of communities of people, the emphasis is still on improving individual health within a specific community.

Human health risk assessment is a well-defined process often applied at contaminated sites, usually dealing with risks to hypothetically exposed individual humans (NRC 1983, 1993; Norton et al. 1992; EPA 1995, 1997a.b, 1999, 2020a). Similarly, another emphasis has been on examining pollutant levels in biota from sites that have water or soil contamination, and comparing levels to those in “control” or “reference” sites assumed to be uncontaminated (Burger and Gochfeld 2016; Gutierrez and Agudelo 2020; Ruaro et al. 2020). The objective is to determine whether a contaminated site poses a risk to humans and the environment, whether it should be cleaned up, and to what level (Lodeiro et al. 2020). Determining whether a site is contaminated or relatively “clean” and whether it has appropriate structure and function, requires environmental assessment and monitoring. To this end, monitoring schemes are developed and indicators, sentinels, and biomarkers are selected (Bartell 2006; Li et al. 2010; Codier et al. 2020). These endpoints, however, are usually directed at exposures (contaminant levels in tissues or other biomarkers), individual species (humans or biota), or population viability for eco-receptors. While there is parity in endpoints for exposure and effects for human and biota, there is not parity in other aspects of biological diversity. For example, ecologists have developed indicators of population, community, and ecosystem well-being that take into account several levels of community structure and function (e.g., group vulnerabilities because of habitat or group size, biodiversity, trophic transfer, interconnectedness of habitats). Ecologists frequently examine biotic health in terms of sustainability and resilience to natural stressors (e.g. hurricanes, storms, rainfall, Bunnell 2008, Cappuyns 2016, Harclerode et al. 2016).

In this paper, we propose a paradigm for the development and selection of indicators and monitoring plans that integrate environmental justice with ecological and eco-cultural monitoring. “Environmental justice” adds a community dimension to human health risk assessment with the recognition that exposure and vulnerability are not uniformly distributed, and that some communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards (Bullard 1990, Holifield 2001, Burger and Gochfeld 2011, Gochfeld and Burger 2011, Chakraborty 2016, EPA 2019a,b, DOE 2020a). EPA’s (2019a,b) definition of “environmental justice”, which references Executive Order 12898, refers to the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority and low income populations, and the fair and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, nation of origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.

Our paradigm includes analogies to endpoints associated with ecological environmental assessment, such as threatened and endangered species, unique communities, and rare and unique habitats (e.g., rare and unique human communities with unique/unusual exposure characteristics)(Riley et al 2006, Wendroff 2005, Gochfeld and Burger 2011). The planning and execution of environmental management requires the use of indicators, especially to determine contaminant trends and population (and health) trends (Harclerode et al. 2016, Burger 2019). The integration of complex ecological indicators and monitoring schemes, with research and development of a matrix of early warning indicators of degradation and toxic effects, were necessary steps in the development of environmental assessment (Parr et al. 2003). The integration of eco-cultural indicators into environmental management was an important enhancement. Now we should develop more complex ecological monitoring schemes for human dimensions using an inter-disciplinary approach (Chan et al. 2012, CDC 2020a, EPA 2020b). Although setting up such a system will require time and re-organizing data collection, some contaminated facilities may already have such data. Application of this paradigm clearly requires involvement of a wide range of community members, especially disadvantaged communities, as well as state and federal agencies (Chess and Purcel 1999; Burger 2011, 2020; EPA 2019a).

We propose some cultural and environmental justice indicators that would provide parity with ecosystem indicators; we propose a new term “Eco-EJ” for these indicators, and we briefly examine whether these indicators (and associated data) exist for three Department of Energy (DOE) sites. DOE has long been committed to protecting ecological resources on its sites (DOE 1994a,b), as well as to the protection of adjacent vulnerable communities (DOE 2020a). We are proposing that Eco-EJ indicators be one of three classes of environmental indicators that managers, regulators, and others use to evaluate environmental change. The three classes are ecological indicators, eco-cultural indicators, and environmental justice indicators (Eco-EJ). In this paper we define Eco-EJ to include indicators that examine 1) unique cultural relationships to resource, 2) connectedness of on-site and off-site resources and habitats, 3) health of threatened, rare and unique cultures and communities, and 4) linkages between ecological, eco-cultural, and public health for monitoring and assessment.

Methods and approaches

An important aspect of this research is that several authors have studied and published on indicator development and use for over 30 years on private, conservation, and state or federal lands. Our studies have concentrated on indicators that provide information about both human and ecological health, including threatened and endangered species, biota of concern, vulnerable human communities, and on complex food webs, including humans. All the authors have individually worked at Department of Energy (DOE) sites on DOE-related environmental, ecological, and remediation issues for more than 15 years and have collaborated with many different stakeholders, including communities of color and Native Americans. Our past experience with ecological and eco-cultural indicators formed the basis for our development of the Eco-EJ indicator paradigm.

Our background approach consists of reviewing the general literature on ecological indicators and ecocultural indicators, as well as reviewing the general literature concerning human and ecological health risk assessment, public health data and indicators, and the growing literature of environmental justice. Armed with this background and our experiences working with managers and regulators from contaminated sites, Tribes, and other communities, we developed a paradigm that integrates similar indicators for ecological and human communities (which we term Eco-EJ indicators).

The examples from the Department of Energy sites are meant to illustrate DOE’s current ecological monitoring and some of the ecological and eco-cultural indicators, temporal aspects of monitoring, and the current cultural aspects of monitoring and remediation planning (DOE 2013). Ecological resources on DOE sites are important to many federal, state, and local agencies (e.g., EPA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, state regulators), Native American Tribes (Butler and O’Connor 2004; Bohnee et al. 2011), and commercial, recreational, subsistence, and Native American fishermen (Landeen and Pinkham 1999; Harris and Harper 2000; Williams 2006; CRITFC 2013), and a range of other people living adjacent to these facilities. Many DOE sites are located adjacent to important and scenic rivers and contain valuable ecological resources (DOE 1994a; Dale and Parr 1998; Whicker et al. 2004). For example, the Columbia River runs through the Hanford Site, the Savannah River runs adjacent to the Savannah River Site, and the Clinch River is influenced by the activities at Oak Ridge Reservation. These are some of the largest DOE sites in terms of risks from radionuclides and other contaminants.

We first provide background on current thinking about selecting ecological and eco-cultural indicators, then provide our paradigm for integration of Eco-EJ indicators, and finally use three Department of Energy sites as case studies to illustrate the kinds of environmental indicators that are in use for sites with long-term cleanup missions (Peterson et al. 2011). The paradigm, however, works for other contaminated sites and could be applied to sites degraded by both environmental and anthropogenic stressors (e.g. habitat degradation, fires, hurricanes).

Background on ecological and eco-cultural indicators

Developing ecological biomonitoring plans usually involves clearly defining an issue (or problem), selecting indicators that can be measured, and determining the spatial and temporal scale for biomonitoring. The goal of monitoring plans overall is to assess health and well-being of humans and the environment. The defined problem may be broad (e.g., reducing risk to species and ecosystems from contaminants and physical disruption) or narrow (e.g., reducing the risk to consumers from methylmercury in fish). The primary objective of biomonitoring plans may be to assess environmental and ecological health, but biomonitoring plans also can be used to direct and evaluate the success of remediation, restoration, conservation, and agricultural-induced changes, as well as local and regional assessments and extreme events (Suter 1990; Bani et al. 2005; Bortone 2007; Bar and Loffler 2007; Ruaro et al. 2020). In addition to spatial scale, temporal scale is important. How often should biomonitoring be conducted? Annually? Every 5 years? And how long should monitoring be continued? Fixed number of years? Indefinitely? At an increased frequency in response to disastrous events? A change in an indicator should provide early warning of any impending ecological risks that can be partly mitigated or ameliorated.

Indicators should be selected based on the answers to three important questions: 1) What is the goal of the indicators and monitoring? 2) What are the factors to consider when selecting indicators to address that goal (or goals)? 3) Is the indicator of interest to the public, as well as managers, regulators, and scientists? The criteria for indicator selection usually include the following: 1) ability to detect meaningful, and significant biological change, 2) availability and suitability of data; 3) reliability of the data; 4) ease of data collection and/or need for trained personnel; 5) representativeness of the species, system, or ecosystem function, and 6) fundability (Cole et al. 1998; Burger 2006; Cordier et al. 2020; Godinez-Alvarez et al. 2009). The single most important criterion is an ability to indicate biologically significant change and provide early warning (Messer 2008). Indicators have largely been used for contaminants, such as heavy metals and PCBs, (Birge et al. 2000; Munteanu and Munteanu 2007; Burger and Gochfeld 2016; Colombo et al. 2018; Mehana et al. 2020). In our estimation, a biomonitoring plan must use a suite or matrix of indicators to address a range of assessment goals. The indicator matrix can also be appropriate for assessing the efficacy of remediation, restoration, and action plans (Mawdsley and O’Malley 2009).

The term indicator can be used in a number of ways. A species (e.g., a specific bird) or animal group (e.g., fish, mammals, or birds) can be considered an indicator (Wren 1986; Golden and Rattner 2003). However, tissues (e.g., feathers, eggs, blood) can also be indicators. Indicators of ecosystem health can also include composite indices, such as biodiversity indices (Lamb et al. 2009) and Indices of Biological Integrity (Astin 2007; Lee 2011; Riseng et al. 2011; Wilson et al. 2013). Additionally, sentinels (species similarly exposed to contamination as humans) have a clear role in assessing the risk to other biota, as well as to humans (Beeby 2001). Sentinels have been used for centuries – the classic example is the canary in the coal mine as an indicator of carbon monoxide before it reaches lethal levels in humans. In the 1950s, the dead and dying cats, birds, and fish provided an early warning of mercury-contaminated fish near Minamata, Japan (van der Schalie 1997). More recently, evidence of chemically-induced changes in endocrine function warned of the potential for similar effects in humans (Colburn 1994). Some species can serve both as indicators of exposure and effects to themselves (and their predators), as well as sentinels of exposure and possible effects for humans. Several authors have summarized the importance of wildlife as sentinels of human health effects (Rabinowitz et al. 1999; Fox 2001) and of the consistency of monitoring over time (Muller and Lenz 2006).

Indicator selection is inherently a human construct – although clothed in scientific constraints on what species or functions are selected. That is, even though there are general principles for indicator selection, and usually a number of viable candidates, in the last analysis, people make judgements about which species to select. For example, in selecting endangered/threatened species for monitoring, charismatic species are selected more often than non-charismatic species (e.g. eagles versus a small obscure fish)(Burger et al. 2015). When there are a number of endangered/threatened species that use the same, vulnerable habitat, it is easier to obtain continued support (fundability) for monitoring a charismatic species than a small bug, fish, or rat.

Similarly, indicators are often selected because of their “usefulness” to people for commercial interests, recreation, or subsistence; these indicators are termed eco-cultural. Fish and fisheries often fall into this category. For example, salmon in the Pacific Northwest are very important commercially, for recreational fishing, and for Native American Tribes that have used this resource for 9,000 years (NRC 1996b; Butler and O’Connor 2004; CRITFC 2013). Pacific salmon are also iconic of the Northwest, and many people who do not eat salmon, and never fish, are concerned for their well-being. Similarly, in the Northeast, people are concerned about striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and shad (Alosa sapidissima) because these fish play an important cultural and commercial role in these cultures as they have since Colonial times (MacKenzie 1992). The shad populations have crashed, and their take is very limited, but many places still have shad festivals each spring (Burger and Gochfeld 2000). Fish, especially top predatory fish, are often selected as indicators for rivers, lakes, estuaries, and the open ocean (Cunningham et al. 2019; Gutierrez and Agudelo 2020). In fact, the primary exposure of people to toxic methylmercury is from consumption of wild-caught fish (ATSDR 1999, 2013) – making them a good indicator of exposure. Other species, such as reptiles and birds, have been used extensively for both laboratory and field biomonitoring (Burger and Gochfeld 2016, 2021; Albert et al. 2019; Silva et al. 2020).

Indicators are often selected because they have medicinal uses to a Tribe or other indigenous group. Similarly, small sunfish are not usually selected as indicators (they are small and short-lived and unlikely to accumulate high levels of contaminants). However, sunfish could be selected as indicators of exposure for children (who catch and eat them). Indicators of ecosystem functions, goods, and services are also included in ecological or environmental assessment (de Groot et al. 2002; Costanza et al. 2014, 2017), as are some eco-cultural resources (Harris and Harper 2000; Burger et al. 2010) and social indicators (Cappuyns 2016).

Finally, state and federal agencies (EPA 1997b, 1999) require that sites examine the risk to site neighbors from radionuclides and chemicals located on contaminated sites. This mandate usually involves a human health risk assessment following prescribed guidance from both state and federal agencies. Chemicals of concern are examined and risk scenarios are examined for workers, neighbors, intruders, and often children (EPA 1997a,b, 1999, 2020a,b, Gochfeld et al. 2015). However, these are risk assessments of toxicity and risk to individuals, not to their communities, unique characteristics or qualities of their communities, or landscape scale features of environmental justice (or other) communities that can lead to health and well-being disparities. For example, how does the contaminated site contribute to changes in intact ecosystems (e.g. green spaces) in more urban contaminated sites, or to usable riparian habitat in more rural environments, or to clean, fishable streams in both types of human communities. Embracing the local community in Eco-EJ indicator selection will increase a sense of empowerment by local communities, thereby helping managers of contaminated sites implement their overall objectives of protection of human health and the environment.

A paradigm for including environmental justice communities in monitoring: developing Eco-EJ indicators

Indicators for understanding ecological risks from stressors (radiological, chemical, biological) are usually selected that provide information about the species itself, its food (or prey), and the organisms that eat it. In other words – they provide information for different nodes on the food web. Indicators of ecosystems health have also been developed. Many different types of indicators can be selected, including endangered/threatened species, species of special concern (to state or federal agencies), species assemblages (breeding frogs, neotropical migrants), and unique habitats (dunes, riparian), as well as ecosystem structure (e.g., species diversity) or function (energy transfer, predator-prey relationships). The indicator may be categorical (presence or absence) or numerical (number observed). These are the traditional aspects used to select ecological indicators. These aspects are then examined spatially for a particular area and are often compared to a non-impacted reference site. A temporal pattern of monitoring is established (e.g., monthly, yearly, every 5 years) (bottom left side of Fig. 1). Eco-cultural indicators have also been described; these relate directly to the cultural uses of ecological resources (see Table 1, lower middle section of Fig. 1). Eco-cultural indicators usually refer to goods and services that an ecosystem is providing to people or to features of the environment that are essential for the full value of a cultural experience—for example view-sheds, burial grounds, or other sacred places. View sheds refer to the importance of having a vista or view of a wide area that is essential for the cultural or religious experience (e.g. a wide, un-spoiled view of the Grand Canyon, or a view of shrub-steppe habitat without any structures).

Fig. 1.

A paradigm for inclusion of Eco-EJ indicators, as well as ecological and eco-cultural indicators. Categories within indicator types are not equivalent, but are equally important.

Table 1.

Examples of indicators and endpoints for assessing ecological health and well-being (after Burger et al. 2018, 2020) and our proposed addition of indicators for Eco-EJ communities. In the case of contaminated sites, contaminant levels, effects levels, and ecosystem (or community) effects are identified. These are meant as examples only and are not intended to be direct comparisons, but rather as more important aspects that have been ignored.

Usual ecological risk value	Ecological Indicators	Indicator for cultural and Eco-EJ Indicators
Threatened and endangered species	Population trend of any species that is listed on the Federal or State Endangered Species List (ESA 1973).	Local demographics. Population or communities of Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, or other ethnic groups living on lands around (or on) contaminated lands.
Species of special concern	Species that states or federal agencies feel are dwindling and are at risk of becoming threatened (and why).	Identification and population estimates of vulnerable communities living around contaminated sites (and why). Relating to particularly vulnerable populations. May also relate to low-income populations, minority populations unable to move elsewhere, or to populations who do not want to move (e.g. Alaskan Natives on remote oceanic islands).
Species groups of special concern	Number and diversity of neotropical migrant birds and number (sound volume) and diversity of chorusing amphibians.	Number and vulnerability of children and teens, or of elders. Number and diversity of farmers, fishermen, or other key groups in an adjacent community.
Keystone species, group of species, or function	Identification of a species whose role is critical to the functioning of ecosystems. What component is essential for the system to function? For example, a top level predator may influence directly or indirectly the food chain.	Particular concern for children, and especially vulnerable children or older adults. Subsistence foods coming from an area to a community. Church or community leaders, medicine men (women) of Native American tribes; identification of key occupations and positions; identification of civic or church leaders.
Rare and unique communities or habitats	Riparian habitats, Carolina bays, bogs, unique pine barrens	Trends in locally-grown foods or harvested foods. Unique medicinal and cultural plant habitats; unique ecological features of human communities (e.g., a unique pond or small pocket park). Monitoring chemicals in locally-grown food.
Landscape features	Inter-connections between important forest patches.	Availability of recreational or natural spaces. Inter-connections between communities or between key green spaces within EJ communities, or with contaminated sites. Inter-connections of wildlife with surrounding communities. Accessibility and mobility (proximity, transportation) to important resources (medical, food).
Tissue levels of contaminants of concern	Levels to be determined in different tissues, especially for endangered and threatened populations.	Levels to be determined in human tissues, especially for culturally-diverse and environmental justice communities or of minorities, but for the whole community as well.
Effects level for contaminants	Levels at which sublethal effects occur to be determined for threatened and endangered to keystone species. Which species are most vulnerable?	Levels at which sublethal effects occur to be determined for Native Americans, minorities, and low-income people, as well as the majority populations, while taking into account multiple stressors and cumulative risk (requires data from entire community for comparison). Which human groups are most vulnerable (not just what are the toxic thresholds)?
Effects level for contaminants by risk factors	Levels at which sublethal effects occur by age, gender, stage of development, habitat conditions, and special conditions for threatened and endangered to keystone species.	Levels at which sublethal effects occur by age, gender, stage of development, disease vulnerabilities, habitat conditions, and special pre-existing conditions for vulnerable populations, (e.g. Native Americans, minorities, low-income people, and the majority population) and to ascertain disproportionate effects.
Contaminant levels as a function of time and space	Contaminant levels for the indicator species, groups, or habitats as a function of location on a contaminated site (for 10 years or more).	Contaminant levels for the indicator human groups as a function of time and location with respect to contaminated site boundary. Also to include on-site workers.
Community stability	Index of Biological Integrity	Community integrity, social institutions, educational level, and occupational opportunities, migration in or out, and income distribution.
Biodiversity	Number of species; number of keystone species	Human racial, and ethnic diversity. Maintenance of eco-receptors within adjacent communities used for subsistence, recreation, aesthetics.
Landscape	Patch size of green habitats; interconnections among habitat patches; diversity of habitats expected with local environmental conditions.	Patch sizes of green spaces in adjacent communities; connections among these and with the contaminated site. Population density needed for human community sustainability and resiliency.

It is the bottom right side of figure 1 that requires our thought, consideration, and implementation. Environmental justice indicators usually include per capital income, the percent of a community that is minority, demographic shifts, health indicators, exercise rates, transportation inequities, and access to stores, medicines, medical care, and green spaces, among others (Holifield 2001, Chakraborty et al. 2016). Yet these environmental inequities concerns are rarely considered in the development of ecological indicators, although eco-cultural indicators include the use of ecological resources for cultural purposes as discussed above. We note that many different groups of people can have unique or important relationships and connections to ecological resources, and these should be developed as Eco-EJ indicators for any given site. For example, Native American communities may desire cleaner streams with more abundant edible fish coming from on-site rivers or streams of contaminated sites, others (Native American, Native Alaskan or others) may need to know the movements of fish on and off-site to ensure both abundance and safety of fish for consumption, and low-income or minority communities in urban areas may desire more green, open spaces with local-specific biota that connect to on-site resources.

We propose the addition of cultural and environmental justice components to the selection of indicators (Fig. 1) and suggest that multiple disciplines, agencies, and people must coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate to develop Eco-EJ indicators. This development would lead to greater integration between ecological and human health (e.g. CDC 2020a,b). The EPA EJSCREEN tool (EPA 2020b) lists a variety of potential indicators that can be measured as part of environmental justice, air quality (e.g., ozone, PM2.5), daily vehicle traffic within 500 m, lead exposure (age of housing as a surrogate), and chemical hazards (proximity, planned cleanup). Currently, EJSCREEN offers 11 human environmental health metrics and seven social and demographic ones. Hence, it is possible to examine the geographical dimensions of key environmental health metrics at scales including census tracts and known geographies. For example, the tool will produce a data set for Oak Ridge and the Tri-cities. In its latest report for 2019, EPA notes the intent to add additional variables. For example, the current database has no water supply or quality indicators, nor indicators of noise impacts. EJSCREEN is a work in progress. The centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2020b) has assembled a massive amount of geographical data as part of its 500 cities project. The user can profile Kennewick, for example, and again the intent is to allow more granular searching. For example, Nardone et al. (2020) examined the illegal practice of redlining, and noted that historically redlined areas in major American cities had notably worse health outcomes than nearby non-redlined areas. It is clear to us that in this era of big data, considerable effort is being devoted to gathering and making available human health data.

As in the cases of the human data sets that have been built, linked and made available, the opportunity exists to join ecological information. One goal includes determining the possible linkages of ecological and eco-cultural monitoring data with public health indicators. It is imperative that the approach to all indicator selection is multi-disciplinary, multi-ethnic (and multi-racial), and multi-dimensional, with substantial community input (Fig. 2). That is, instead of selecting indicators mainly for their indication of the health of the ecosystem, some indicators should be selected for their value in providing information about human community health and well-being. Further, the Eco-EJ indicators should also be examined for all communities surrounding a contaminated site to assure managers, regulators and the public that cultural health aspects are adequately considered. Eco-EJ indicator selection will require many considerations: local to global, coordination to collaboration, and a range of disciplines and communities to provide the knowledge necessary to develop them. We are not suggesting that the species indicators on the left side of Fig. 1 are less important, but that cultural and environmental justice factors also be considered. We acknowledge that development of Eco-EJ indicators will require considerable time and thought. Indicators have been a large part of the environmental assessment field for 30 years or more (Peakall 1991) – so it is a natural extension that it will take considerable time to develop Eco-EJ indicators as rigorously.

Fig. 2.

On the importance of continuity, coordination, collaboration, and cooperation in conducting research, amassing knowledge (especially traditional and community knowledge), and seeking advice in indicator selection. We acknowledge that the input from several disciplines and communities is necessary to adequately develop a suite of indicators (noted at the bottom).

While EPA (1997b, 1999, 2020a) documents and other guidance require managers of contaminated sites to consider the risk from contaminants (and other exposure) to site neighbors, the risk assessments are for individual humans (including pregnant women and children) or sometimes maximally-exposed individuals. The risks are not usually focused on communities with specific vulnerabilities (e.g., race, ethnicity, income, proximity) or with other stressors, resulting in the need for consideration of what EPA calls “cumulative risks” (EPA 2019b).

In ecological risk assessment, we consider vulnerabilities because of age and life cycle (e.g., tadpole stage of frogs in the water versus frogs living on land). For endangered and threatened species, specific vulnerabilities (besides age and gender) are often examined, such as density, disease potential, or increased exposure to a contaminant because of a behavior. All of these examples are studied intensely by ecologists, and solutions are sought to reduce impacts. Likewise, developing indicators that provide information on interactions between vulnerable human communities at risk and vulnerable biota or habitats (e.g., eco-EJ indicators) can be an important component of environmental assessment. For example, clear linkages between contaminated sites and local communities may relate to food sources (% hunting, fishing, herb gathering) and forms of recreation (e.g. hiking, mushroom gathering) that may lead to exposure. At the very least, Eco-EJ indicators require our consideration and discussion.

It would be useful to look for correlations between local contamination, known chemical toxicity thresholds, co-morbidity, and other public health indicators for local communities. Further, examining human vulnerability to chemicals (e.g., mercury) as a function of co-exposures to available green space or human density, or associations of ethnicity, race, or income (a “resource”) would be useful in future management decisions. In ecological risk assessment, we might consider over-crowding in a population and lack of resources (water, prey, nutrition, or lack thereof). We suggest that conceptual site models, normally used to diagram sources and exposure pathways (ASTM 1995), will be useful in diagramming exposures or vulnerabilities of unique, environmental justice communities to specific contaminants (Burger and Gochfeld 2011). We are suggesting that Eco-EJ indicators be selected and implemented in terms of environmental inequities in communities, including specific vulnerabilities or risk factors (Table 1). Table 1 provides EJ indicators in the right hand column. We are not suggesting there be exact consistency among ecological, eco-cultural, and Eco-EJ indicators. Rather, we suggest that concepts of importance of different components of human communities, the levels of organization of human communities, and the effects of contaminants on different components of human communities are similar to ecological organization. These concepts are equally important as indicators of the health of human communities as are these same characteristics of the health of ecosystems.

Managers would be well-served to place the ecological resources within the complete continuum from purely ecological receptors on-site, through eco-cultural, to human community health and environmental justice, rather than stopping at the fence-line (contaminated site boundary). For example, it may be equally important to protect endangered species and species groups on a contaminated site, corridors of habitat for these species from contaminated sites into adjacent human communities, the patches of these species in communities, and points of access on the edges of these corridors to community members. We emphasize that the development of Eco-EJ indicators extends into neighboring communities (at a distance to be determined collaboratively by all those shown in Fig. 2), not just slightly beyond the fence-line of a contaminated site. Effective use of resources (money and personnel) may not be complete cleanup to pristine conditions, but rather a balance of cleanup endpoints with community needs.

Finally, our paradigm is general, and can be applied to any environment that has been degraded or disrupted, and contaminated. It is not limited to any specific federal or state lands, or commercial lands. We use Department of Energy sites only because they have important ecological and cultural resources, have a long history of environmental remediation and restoration (thus the need for biological indicators), and can serve as a model for a matrix of ecological, eco-cultural, and Eco-EJ indicators. Below we describe briefly the types of ecological, eco-cultural, and Eco-EJ indicators (or aspects of engagement) at three Department of Energy sites.

Examples from the Department of Energy

Department of Energy (DOE) has large land facilities that have valuable ecological resources (Brown 1998, Dale and Parr 1998, Whicker et al. 2004) and are surrounded by a variety of neighborhoods, some of which may be of concern based on demographics and socioeconomic status. The sites were involved in the development and production of nuclear material and weapons during the Second World War and the Cold War (DOE 1994a, b, 2019a–c). In the late 1980s, DOE began an environmental management program aimed at remediation and restoration of their contaminated lands. Some DOE sites continue to have research and development missions, while others have mainly an environmental cleanup and restoration mission. We selected these three sites as examples because they have a long history of environmental protection, have had extensive environmental sampling and monitoring, and provide periodic detailed reports with some consistency in their reporting of results. On DOE sites, it is the DOE-Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) that conducts the cleanup and restoration of former nuclear defense production sites. We note that DOE sites were selected because they have exemplary biomonitoring plans and indicators that assess risks to species and ecosystems, as well as risk to eco-cultural resources (e.g. fish, game, medicinal plants) and significant cultural resources, and many of them have been monitored for 20 or more years. They are already responsive to community needs, and adding Eco-EJ indicators can improve relationships and the health of the surrounding communities.

DOE sites issue annual reports to inform the public, regulators, employees, and other stakeholders’ of environmental and operational performance, and environmental quality during the past year. The emphasis of these reports is on environmental performance metrics (DOE 2019a,b). However, the reports include key environmental monitoring descriptions and data on air and water quality, noise, water resources, hazardous waste materials, ecological resources, agricultural products, cultural and paleontological resources, worker and public safety, conservation, and environmental justice (DOE 2019a–c), but generally not demographics, or public health in the adjacent communities. Some large DOE sites have been designated National Environmental Research Parks (DOE 1994b), have other federal or state-designated conservation areas, or are part of the recently-created Manhattan Project National Historical Park (created in 2015, NPS 2017). For each of the three example sites, we list the site’s ecological indicators, eco-cultural indicators, and Eco-EJ interactions.

The Hanford Site (Washington):

The main ecosystem on the Hanford Site is shrub-steppe (sagebrush) adapted to an average annual rainfall of 8 inches. A more verdant riparian habitat occurs along the Columbia River. The Hanford Reach of the river is a unique 50-mile free-flowing stretch. Historically, Native Americans of the Wanapum People, Yakama Nation, Nez Perce, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation hunted, fished, and collected food and medicine on land within Hanford Site’s boundary. When the Site was acquired in the early 1940’s as part of the Manhattan Project, there were also apple orchards and small farming communities whose inhabitants were moved to make way for the site’s development. Three Tribes have Treaty rights on the Hanford Site (Bohnee et al. 2011, DOE 2019a). The Hanford Site has no future mission, except the environmental management of its hazardous and radioactive wastes. Site cleanup is not expected to be completed until almost the end of this century (DOE 2019d). Personnel conduct many forms of ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site using species, population, contaminants, and ecosystem indicators (DOE 2019a). Species of conservation concern are monitored regularly for population sizes: bats, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, yearly since 1991), Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis, since 1987), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Site personnel conduct roadside bird surveys for species diversity, abundance, and richness. Rare plant species and riparian vegetation are monitored, and personnel annually survey the nests of salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschia) and steelhead (O. mykiss) (Downs et al. 1993, DOE 2019a). These are indicators of ecosystem health and well-being.

Hanford Site personnel also monitor populations, radionuclides, and other contaminants in eco-cultural resources, including in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) (every 2-3 years), common carp (Cyrpinus carpio) (every 2-3 years), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (every 2-3 years), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) (every 2-3 years), California quail (Callipepla californica) (every 2-3 years), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), native vegetation on site (some with Tribal uses), and off-site vegetation (every 3-5 years). These indicators, including annual salmon surveys, serve both an ecological and eco-cultural indicator role.

Approved cultural activities on site include collecting and archiving artifacts, preserving traditional sites, and multimedia communication relating to prior Native American activities, protecting historic buildings, pre-DOE occupation, and protecting buildings and artifacts from the Manhattan Project and Cold War (DOE 2019a). As with all DOE sites, the DOE recognizes Native American Treaty rights and the need for multi-governmental interactions (DOE 2020a,b). The federally recognized Tribes are not residents on or immediately adjacent to the Hanford Site, although the Wanapum (a State-recognized Tribe) live very close. There are no temporal data on tribal activities, collections, or traditional sites. However, every year Hanford monitors historical and archeological sites to comply with federal laws, acts and DOE orders: there were 94 National Historic Places Act compliance reviews, 13 archeological sites were monitored for additional information in 2019 (DOE 2019). With existing data, Hanford could present trends data on the number of archeological sites on their overall list or archeological sites, the number and types of tribal interactions, and changes in salmon fishing on the adjacent section of the Columbia River (by ethnicity) as well as describe plans for connecting on site ecological and cultural resources with off-site habitats.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico):

The laboratory, located in north central New Mexico, has a current mission of addressing national security issues, science, and technology, and environmental stewardship, in addition to cleaning up contamination at the site (DOE 2019b). The average annual rainfall of 16” supports woodlands of primarily pines and junipers. Like the Hanford Site, the area is vulnerable to wildfires because of droughts and faces threats from invasive species after fires. The many canyons of the Pajarito Plateau guide seasonally ephemeral streams through Native American lands to the Rio Grande River. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) regularly monitors for contaminants in a wide variety of foods, including native vegetation, fruits, vegetables, grains, and milk (DOE 2019b). LANL reports a negligible increment above background levels from the LANL current activities and effluents (DOE 2019b). The public, particularly the Native Americans living downriver, fear their crops are contaminated from laboratory activities (Colorado College 2016).

Los Alamos’s approach to ecological assessment is to monitor conditions around specific buildings and to conduct site-wide (called “Institutional”) monitoring. Institutional monitoring includes on-site, perimeter, and selected reference sites (DOE 2019b). This monitoring is essential because of Los Alamos’s proximity to Pueblo Indians lands. Ecological indicators include threatened and endangered species (presence), avian egg monitoring for radionuclides and nest success, a recent Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) survey, and bird banding efforts since 2014 (DOE 2019b). They do not report any systematic long-term monitoring of biota population levels. LANL personnel view their monitoring as examining the effects of radionuclides and other contaminants on biota, humans, and ecosystems (DOE 2019b).

Eco-cultural monitoring is limited to surveys of native vegetation, off-site vegetation (every 3-5 years), small mammals off-site (2008-9), and opportunistic examination of roadkill carcasses (DOE 2019b).

Los Alamos important cultural resources include more than 1,800 prehistoric and historic sites that date throughout the last 10,000 years (nearly 80% are associated with Ancestral Pueblo peoples) (DOE 2019b). These resources include buildings, trails, agricultural features, and rock art, as well as cultural resources from the 19^th and 20^th centuries. DOE has significant on-going relationships with Pueblo members, committees, and leadership. Because of the close proximity of the Native American pueblos, the collaboration is significant (Colorado College 2016, DOE 2019b). Los Alamos could, for example, provide trends data on their discoveries of historical or archeological sites, interactions with tribes about ecological resources, and wildlife corridors onto pueblo lands, as well as providing trends data on their off-site monitoring of fish and wildlife of interest to the local Pueblo Tribes and others.

Oak Ridge Reservation (Tennessee):

The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), Tennessee, is the third DOE site in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Like Los Alamos, Oak Ridge Reservation has a continuing research and development mission. Unlike the Hanford Site and Los Alamos, ORR is a relatively wet environment averaging 53 inches of rain per year. It is mainly forested, with both deciduous and coniferous forests. Fires at ORR are less of an ecological threat. ORR has complex elevation gradients, with a ridge-valley topography and with abundant surface water. ORR has substantial biodiversity as well as locally and nationally rare species (Giffen et al. 2012a, b, DOE 2019c).

Much of Oak Ridge’s ecological monitoring is centered on mercury (and some PCBs, VOCs and uranium) remaining from spills and leakage in the 1950s, and ORR has been monitoring mercury levels in biota for decades (DOE 2017). Their ecological indicators include threatened and endangered species (monitored annually for presence), breeding bird surveys, fish species richness (since 1986), fish density and biomass (since 1987), whole body burdens in gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) for mercury and PCBs (since 1998), benthic macroinvertebrates taxa and richness (since 1988), density of pollution-tolerant macroinvertebrates, and a macroinvertebrate biotic index (DOE 2019c). They also examine radionuclides in white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), deer mice (P. maniculatus), and cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus).

Several ecological indicator species are also eco-cultural indicators related to hunting and fishing. These indicators include radionuclides in deer, geese, and turkey, sunfish and catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (downstream from ORR), large-mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) fish fillets (since 1986). Caged Asiatic clams (Corbicula fluminea) have been monitored since 1992 (DOE 2019c). Mercury remains a problem because of off-site movement into Poplar Creek (and potential exposure of biota and humans, DOE 2019c).

Although no Native American Tribes are present at the Oak Ridge Reservation (unlike the Hanford Site and Los Alamos), community cultural concerns are with adjacent towns (e.g., Scarboro). Oak Ridge Reservation’s community involvement is with town officials and residents (DOE 2019c). Scarboro community, within a half mile of the Y-12 plant, was built during segregation days to house African American workers. It is the closest community exposed to mercury and other releases from Y-12 resulting in estimates of increased cancer and non-cancer risks (ORHASP 1999). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Research (ATSDR) selected Scarboro to represent the highest potential exposure from ORR. The community’s history of concerns about uranium and mercury exposure were not allayed by this essentially negative Public Health Report (ATSDR 2004), which EPA scientists considered flawed (Aimaq 2005).

In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, ORR identifies, maintains, evaluates and protects historical and archeological resources. There are some 45 known prehistoric sites (mostly burial grounds), historic pre-World War II sites, and buildings remaining from the Manhattan Project (DOE 2019c). Oak Ridge could present trends of their increasing knowledge of their historical and archeological resources, as well as implementing a number of Eco-EJ indicators, especially with the Scarboro community. This could involve examining ecological corridors into the community, relationship of contaminant exposure to specifically vulnerable individuals and sectors of the community, and relationship of exposures to other income and demographic correlates within the community.

Discussion

Increasingly, Americans can access environmental health and health outcomes data from EPA and CDC sources. We suggest that managers and regulators responsible for cleanup, restoration, and management of contaminated sites develop Eco-EJ indicators of the health of nearby communities in a similar manner to those routinely developed for flora and fauna species, populations, and ecosystems on site. These indicators should also include connections (e.g. corridors) to off-site resources. Our main thesis is that environmental injustice and inequities should be considered when selecting a suite or matrix of indicators to assess and monitor environmental health and well-being adjacent to sites, as well as on-site. We regularly discuss intrinsic values and existence values when examining indicators of ecological resources and their ecosystem or commercial value (Davidson 2013), why not discuss Eco-EJ indicators as well? Indeed several “societal values” are often included in the selection of indicators of ecosystem well-being, integrity, and health, such as sustainability (Hickey and Innes 2008; Jama et al. 2008; Prior 2016). In a well-designed paper on rethinking ecosystem services to better address cultural values, Chan et al (2012) listed five categories of ecosystem service that are cultural: subsistence, outdoor recreation, education and research, aesthetics, and ceremonial. These are services or values often called eco-cultural (e.g. Harris and Harper 2000; Burger et al. 2008, 2010). We are proposing the addition of environmental justice and community indicators – indicators that are similar to biotic community indicators and well-being. Further, these indicators should be monitored over time and space (around contaminated sites) in the same manner that population and community parameters of fish, birds, or mammals are monitored (consistently and with care). As with other types of indicators, Eco-EJ indicators should be useful both to examine well-being from an individual to different levels of internal organization (cells and tissues), as well as from the individual though groups, communities, and even cities (Mander et al. 2005).

The case for Eco-EJ indicators

We suggest that Eco-EJ indictors be developed that are aimed at communities adjacent to, and potentially affected by, contaminated sites. In this paper, we presented a table of possible equivalencies and then used three DOE sites as examples. These examples illustrate that there are various ecological indicators and ecocultural indicators of health and well-being, but virtually no indicators of adjacent community health and well-being (Eco-EJ). Ecological indicators as a group often range from basic science and policy (Turnhout et al. 2007; Ives and Kendal 2014), yet a broadened version of ecological indicators that include human community well-being as well as biotic community will forge a closer relationship between science and policy. These may lead to indicators that are useful for understanding sustainability and resiliency (Kotwal et al. 2008; Mascarenhas et al. 2010). There is a clear need for inter-agency cooperation and inter-jurisdictional interactions to determine the appropriate indicator selection, sampling, and execution of monitoring plans around contaminated sites (Hickey 2008; Dantsis et al. 2010).

The indicators of human community diversity suggested in this paper will aid in improving community health and well-being by focusing attention on specific vulnerable communities and specific community vulnerabilities. At the very least, managers of any contaminated site should regularly conduct an environmental justice evaluation (EPA 2020a)(as ORR does). There are already indicators for society, emerging chemicals (Ludwig et al. 2007), climate change (Coulson and Joyce 2006), agricultural shifts (Barr and Loffler 2007; Cuadra and Bjorklund 2007), and sustainability (Bunnell 2008; Dantsis et al. 2010). We note that although there are EPA (2019a,b) definitions of environmental justice communities, others (not defined by EPA) may experience environmental inequities with respect to clean air or water, or access to ecological resources (including eco-cultural resources). That is, even high income communities near a contaminated site may experience exposures (say of air pollutants) that other, similar income communities do not.

Potential reasons for a lack of development of parity in Eco-EJ indicators.

There are a number of reasons why such Eco-EJ indicators have not been developed, including that federal law does not mandate the use of such indicators. Site managers are legally responsible for their site (and for contamination emanating from their site). Funds and personnel are not unlimited and must be directed at agreed-upon cleanup goals and milestones. The reasons for inaction are valid, but we suggest that Eco-EJ indicators are particularly important for sites with a continuing mission, where remediation is still expected to continue, and where community involvement and health are important (DOE 2019d). It would lead to a more integrated ecological and cultural view of the management of ecological and human resources, long-term stewardship, and adequate adaptation to changing climate and global conditions. Although the Hanford Site mission is limited to remediation (DOE 2019a), the other two sites have on-going missions (DOE 2019b,c); a more integrated approach to selection of an indicator matrix becomes even more important. This suggests that defining a future mission for the Hanford Site would lead to increased protection of ecological resources and community health.

DOE does take responsibility for off-site movement of contaminants and associated risk to humans and the environment. They perform human health risk assessments that use a range of scenarios to examine potential risks. These scenarios include adjacent residents, as well as intruders and even eventual onsite workers (EPA 1999). The scenarios, however, are for individuals and we suggest human health risk assessments have the following inadequacies: 1) they do not take into account differences in susceptibility as a result of population density, ethnic vulnerabilities, income, or other factors that affect health and well-being, 2) they do not examine the human community as a whole, 3) they do not take into account mobility of people, and 4) they do not integrate ecological indices and Eco-EJ issues. Why not address these for cultural and environmental justice communities, and for that matter, for all neighboring communities?

We maintain that the DOE has long-term data sets on the health and well-being of a range of biota (from macroinvertebrates to migratory birds). For the most part, these data are presented as annual snapshots, occasionally as trends. Further, some of the sites have contamination data off site that is regularly compared to on-site levels (as well as appropriate standards)(e.g. Los Alamos, Savannah River Site). The analysis of off-site vegetables, milk, and other produce (all three sites), represent potential exposure for humans. Why not develop long-term data sets for community vulnerabilities, such as demographics, ethnicity, pre-existing health conditions, income, green spaces, and corridors of ecological habitat from sites to communities? These Eco-EJ indicators have correlates in the biota they examine, including sub-species or population differences, vulnerabilities because of exposure to fungal diseases (e.g., in snakes), and food availability (which for humans is partly a function of income) that could easily be adapted for communities.

The example sites examined do not routinely collect data on off-site fishing, hunting, ethnic changes, and other demographic features that might affect how vulnerable the adjacent human population is to contaminants from the site (or to land use changes on site). Yet, all three sites have up to 30+ years of data on many ecological indicators, and these data are published annually in their environmental reports. However, the collected data do not make any connection, for example, between hunting rates on/or adjacent to sites and contaminant levels. Water resources flowing directly from the three sites are used for fishing, boating, and so on, and recreational rates could be connected to possible exposures in biota in these waters, but they are not at the three example sites. There is also a lack of a relationship provided between and among ecocultural indicators and environmental inequities or cultural indicators. Oddly enough, each annual environmental report for the three sites has a section on the number of artifacts, buildings, and cultural sites that are being monitored on site, but even these data are not put into the same temporal trends graphics that contaminant levels in fish are put into, for example.

These Eco-EJ indicators we suggest in no way diminish the importance of the vast field of human health risk assessment, risk management, worker safety analysis, or the other programs to protect workers and the public that have been implemented to protect human health and the environment. We are simply suggesting that individual humans are more than the calculated risk from individual exposures to contaminants; they also have the same vulnerabilities, susceptibilities, and effects for being part of a community as do biota. A bald eagle nesting on a contaminated site is not judged solely on the effects of a particular contaminant on itself but also is judged with a whole set of population and community indicators that include off-site exposures and other bald eagles nesting nearby.

All three DOE sites examined engage in complex and continuous coordination, collaboration, and cooperation with site neighbors, community leaders and members, and Tribal Nations (see Fig. 2 above). These interactions are important. However, they are largely limited to on-site collection of data on eco-cultural, cultural, or anthropological resources, lands, relics, or important places, not community-wide interactions. DOE is exemplary in collecting detailed biomonitoring data. However, any increases (or decreases) in awareness, discovery, and protection of artifacts and cultural sites are not presented in the environmental reports, and there is little current connection to the indicators of adjacent environmental justice communities. Presenting temporal data on discovery and protection of eco-cultural artifacts and cultural sites could be a first step for increasing awareness of cultural importance. Although the exact location of specific cultural resources or sites may be protected, the number of such sites is not. That is, DOE sites could take the data on artifacts, buildings, sites, and other cultural aspects that they record in each of their annual reports and tabulate them in a temporal graph to show their increase in interest and study (just like contaminant levels are illustrated to document decline over time).

Recommendations

We make five recommendations: 1) that sites examine their on-site ecological, eco-cultural, and cultural resources and ensure that there are connections with existing human communities offsite, especially environmental justice communities or those communities that previously occupied the site or used the site, such as Native Americans, 2) that sites examine their on-site ecological resources and the corridors to adjacent communities to evaluate the extent of continuity in ecological resources on and off-site, 3) that sites take an inventory of adjacent lands and their eco-cultural heritage in a spatial and temporal manner, 4) that all sites conduct an assessment and trend analysis of on-site workers, and of adjacent communities (i.e. cultural, ethnic, income, etc), and 5) that sites convene a panel to develop and agree on Eco-EJ indicators. The first two recommendations include a commitment to environmental justice communities of the past and present. They recognize that human communities living off-site can be considered part of the on-site environment (both ecological, current human activities, and past human activities). Recommendation 2 also recognizes that ecological communities on DOE sites are connected to ecological communities off-site (e.g., continuous forests or shrub-steppe communities). The last three recommendations demonstrate a willingness to add Eco-EJ indicators. Recommendation 5 ideally would involve development of DOE complex-wide indicators as well as site-specific indicators.

The Eco-EJ indicators panel (or group of committees) should include representatives of the local communities adjacent to and affected by the activities of the contaminated site, as well as a range of other stakeholders, to discuss how to develop and implement human community Eco-EJ indicators that are as important to human community well-being as similar indicators are to ecological community health and well-being. Contaminated sites do not exist in a vacuum but are located within a larger ecological system, for both biota and humans. Such a panel could include Tribal and community members, managers, regulators, ecologists, anthropologists, health professionals, and others deemed relevant. It is a matter of broadening our perspective, just like concepts of sustainability, climate change responses, and disaster responses have become part of examining ecosystems and human communities, so should Eco-EJ indicators be developed as a key part of overall ecosystem health and well- being.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request