SHC STAR Cumulative Impact Assessment RFA_ FINAL June.pdf

OVERVIEW INFORMATION

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement Office of Research and Development Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program

COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH FOR EFFECTIVE

PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND DECISIONS TO

MITIGATE CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS AND

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DISPARITIES IN

UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

This is the initial announcement of this funding opportunity.

Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-G2023-STAR-G1

Assistance Listing Number: 66.509

Solicitation Opening Date: June 20, 2023 Solicitation Closing Date: August 31, 2023: 11:59:59 pm Eastern Time

Table of Contents

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Introduction

B. Background C. Authority and Regulations D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes E. References F. Special Requirements G. Additional Provisions for Applicants Incorporated into the Solicitation

II. AWARD INFORMATION

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing C. Other

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Grants.gov Submittal Requirements and Limited Exception Procedures B. Application Package Information C. Content and Form of Application Submission D. Submission Dates and Times

E. Funding Restrictions F. Submission Instructions and Other Submission Requirements

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

A. Peer Review B. Relevancy Review C. Past Performance History Review D. Human Subjects Research Statement (HSRS) Review E. Evaluation of the Scientific Data Management Plan F. Funding Decisions

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Award Notices B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

For Updates and Additional Information see https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities.

View research awarded under previous solicitations at https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas.

A. Introduction

Environmental Justice (EJ) is an integral part of EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. The goal of EJ may be achieved when all people have the same degree of protection from environmental and human health risks or hazards and have equitable access to decision-making processes to maintain a healthy environment. Underserved communities1 are often faced with disproportionate cumulative impacts from environmental stressors.

In January 2021, President Biden signed Executive Orders (EO) 13985 and 14008 to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities and to address the climate crisis. These EOs provide a framework for stimulating action across the federal government to achieve environmental justice for all by addressing disproportionate and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on communities; especially communities with environmental justice concerns that may often suffer poorer health outcomes and have lower life expectancies because they are underserved as compared to individuals in

1 When EPA uses the term “underserved communities” it has the meaning defined in Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, which defines “underserved communities” as “populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life….”

Underserved communities may include people/communities of color, low income, tribal and indigenous populations, and other vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those who have pre-existing medical conditions.

https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-funding-opportunities https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/research-grant-areas https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/ other communities. Recognizing the need to bolster the scientific basis for identifying actions that can improve community health and well-being, and to select, implement, and evaluate these actions, EPA has made cumulative impacts research a priority.

Environmental health disparities or inequities caused by cumulative impacts from disproportionate exposures to pollutants (chemical stressors) and various environmental, social, economic, and psychological non-chemical stressors2 in underserved communities are of particular concern. There is substantial scientific evidence indicating that non-chemical stressors such as social determinants of health [1] (e.g., socioeconomic status, education access and quality, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, social and community support) and racial/ethnic factors (e.g., discrimination, marginalization) significantly modify the health impacts (e.g., diseases, premature aging, increased allostatic load) from exposure to pollutants [2-23]. For example, racial/income disparities in access to municipal water supplies have been documented [24, 25] along with the impacts of exclusion from municipal water service on water availability and childhood blood lead levels [26-29]. The EPA Report, Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, confirms evident environmental exposure and health disparities for PM2.5 in underserved communities of predominantly minority populations with low socioeconomic status [30].

EPA has identified cumulative impact assessment as one means to address environmental injustice. Chemical and non-chemical stressors may accumulate over time, from one or more sources in the built, natural, and social environments, affecting individuals and communities in positive, negative, or neutral ways (Fig. 1) [31]. Solving longstanding, persistent environmental health problems, including health disparities exacerbated by racial and social injustices, will require sound and thorough scientific understanding of the combined effects of key stressors on health outcomes. This understanding will serve as the basis for accurate cumulative impact assessments that can be used to shape effective policies, programs, or decisions at tribal, state, local, and community levels, all in the context of eliminating environmental health disparities.

For example, explicit inclusion of cumulative impact assessments in decision-making to support regulatory, permitting, equitable development, compliance monitoring and enforcement activities are necessary to achieve equitable health outcomes across communities and tribes. Another example may be targeted place-based and proactive policy making in which cumulative impact screening is used to map, characterize, and target underserved communities for interventions that improve existing conditions and prevent future harm [32].

Figure 1 represents the complex interrelationships among components describing cumulative impacts [31]. The linked and overlapping circles suggest that all components are multidirectional and interactive within the total environment. Health, well-being, and quality of life at each life stage throughout the life course are influenced by all other components.

2 Non-chemical stressors cannot be considered alone, but applicants are asked to include them as secondary or modifying variables to the primary contaminant(s)/chemical stressor(s).

Chemical and non-chemical stressors can come from the built, natural, and social environments, collectively referred to as the total environment. Additionally, activities, behaviors, and lifestyle considerations, as well as systems biology (to include genetic and epigenetic considerations), interact with the stressors to influence health, well-being, and quality of life. Figure 1 also shows that factors we control and don’t control should be considered in understanding how cumulative impacts influence health, well-being, and quality of life at the individual, geographically defined community, or definable population group levels [31].

Figure 1. Combined influences on the total (built, natural, social) environment for individuals, geographically defined communities, or definable population groups [31].

To the extent possible, the research results should produce innovative yet practical outputs that are applicable or generalizable to other underserved communities across the nation. All research projects will be required to include a Community Engagement Plan to address community-engaged problem identification (such as community-led assets and vulnerabilities mapping), translation, and community-driven solutions to bring about desired outcomes. The description of the Community Engagement Plan is provided in Sections I.D and IV.C.5.iii.e.

The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program’s goal is to stimulate and support scientific and engineering research that advances EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment.

It is a competitive, peer-reviewed, extramural research program that provides access to the nation’s best scientists and engineers in academic and other nonprofit research institutions.

STAR funds research on the environmental and public health effects of air quality, environmental changes, water quality and quantity, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides.

EPA recognizes that it is important to engage all available minds to address the environmental challenges the Nation faces. At the same time, EPA seeks to expand the environmental conversation by including members of communities which may have not previously participated in such dialogues to participate in EPA programs. For this reason, EPA strongly encourages all eligible applicants identified in Section III, including minority serving institutions (MSIs), to apply under this opportunity.

For purposes of this solicitation, the following are considered MSIs:

1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1061(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Historically Black Colleges and Universities;

2. Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(3) and (d)(1)). A list of these schools can be found at American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities;

3. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1101a(a)(5)). A list of these schools can be found at Hispanic-Serving Institutions;

4. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; (AANAPISIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1059g(b)(2)). A list of these schools can be found at Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions; and

5. Predominately Black Institutions (PBIs), as defined by the Higher Education Act of 2008, 20 U.S.C. 1059e(b)(6). A list of these schools can be found at Predominately Black Institutions.

https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred-and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/tribal-colleges-and-universities/ https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis/ https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1XVkOWKMDORm53pvU0L8EPsrJC94&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&z=3&source=embed&ll=40.58644586187277%2C-148.28228249999984 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1wlIi3j7gtlNq_w-0NKAb2bF2VmY&ie=UTF&msa=0&ll=37.35160769312532%2C-96.17229800000001&z=4

B. Background

There have been considerable research efforts and progress to understand the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental stressors on health and their implications for environmental and public health policies. Many past and current policies have not factored in the cumulative impacts of disparate exposure and health effects and might have exacerbated the inequalities.

Past institutional practices and policies might have created conditions that fostered health disparities in underserved communities. For example, a growing body of literature has shown a link between historical redlining practices and present-day disproportionate exposures to environmental contaminants [31-39]. In recent years, several states, such as New Jersey and California, have begun to factor in cumulative impact assessments in their environmental decisions [40-41]. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Healthy People 2030 focuses on the social determinants of health to reduce health inequalities [1]. However, fit-for-purpose, systematic and practical methods for application of cumulative impact assessment to inform local policies, programs, and decisions are needed.

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has published the final report, Cumulative Impacts Research: Recommendations for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, to inform the agency’s strategic research actions [31]. It defines “cumulative impacts” and “cumulative impact assessment” as follows:

Cumulative Impacts are defined as the totality of exposures to combinations of chemical and non-chemical stressors and their effects on health, well-being, and quality of life outcomes.

Cumulative impacts include contemporary exposures to multiple stressors as well as exposures throughout a person’s lifetime. They are influenced by the distribution of stressors and encompass both direct and indirect effects to people through impacts on resources and the environment. Cumulative impacts can be considered in the context of individuals, geographically defined communities, or definable population groups. Cumulative impacts characterize the potential state of vulnerability or resilience of a community.

Cumulative Impact Assessment is defined as a process of evaluating both quantitative and qualitative data representing cumulative impacts to inform a decision. Cumulative impact assessment requires a systematic approach to characterize the combined effects from exposures to both chemical and non-chemical stressors over time across the affected population group or community. It evaluates how stressors from the built, natural, and social environments affect groups of people in both positive and negative ways. The posited elements of a cumulative impact assessment include: the role of the community throughout the assessment, such as identifying problems and potential intervention decision points to improve community health and well-being; combined impacts across multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors; multiple sources of stressors from the built, natural, and social environments; multiple exposure pathways across media; community vulnerability, sensitivity, adaptability, and resilience; exposures to stressors in the relevant past and future, especially during vulnerable lifestages; distribution of environmental burdens and benefits; individual variability and behaviors; health and well-being https://www.epa.gov/healthresearch/cumulative-impacts-research#Cumulative%20Impacts%20Report https://www.epa.gov/healthresearch/cumulative-impacts-research#Cumulative%20Impacts%20Report benefits/mitigating factors; uncertainty and variability associated with the data and information;

and approaches for how to integrate data and information to assess cumulative impacts.

This RFA aims to further advance the scientific knowledge essential for obtaining an accurate and realistic assessment of the cumulative impacts from multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors, exacerbated by environmental factors, including racial and social injustices in underserved communities. It seeks applications for community-based scientific research to assess cumulative impacts from multiple combined and interacting environmental (chemical [pollutants/contaminants] and non-chemical) stressors upon human health in underserved communities. This RFA is a follow-up to the EPA STAR RFA, “Cumulative Health Impacts at the Intersection of Climate Change, Environmental Justice, and Vulnerable Populations/Lifestages: Community-Based Research for Solutions” in terms of making progress toward developing and evaluating practical approaches or methods to conduct cumulative impact assessments that incorporate key environmental justice factors into solutions. While many environmental issues may be common across communities, each community is also unique in terms of its people and the issues they face. A program or policy that works for one community may not work for another. Therefore, for the solution to be effective, it must reflect and address the community’s needs to eliminate environmental health disparities. The goal is not only to understand cumulative impacts from a community perspective, but also to consider community dynamics and variability in the development of solutions. The RFA will seek research proposals to (1) improve health, well-being, and quality of life outcomes by assessing and addressing cumulative impacts resulting from combinations of chemical and non-chemical stressors in underserved communities and investigate how the scientific information can be used to develop effective cumulative impact assessment approaches and/or methods; and (2) investigate how cumulative impact assessment approaches and/or methods can be used to shape better informed practical programs, policies, and decisions to eliminate environmental health disparities. The applicants are asked to identify and work with specific communities, state, tribal, and/or local programs and policies that cumulative impact assessment can improve and inform explicitly where in the decision-making process the cumulative impact assessment can be applied.

C. Authority and Regulations

The authorities for this RFA and resulting awards are contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-1, Section 1442, the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1254, Section 104(b)(3), the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2609, Section 10, as amended by P.L. 106-74, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136r, Section 20, as amended by P.L. 106-74, the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7403, Section 103(b)(3), and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6981, Section 8001.

For research with an international aspect, the above statutes are supplemented, as appropriate, by the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102(2)(F).

Note that a project’s focus is to consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA’s financial assistance authorities; specifically, the statute(s) listed above. Generally, a project must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of air pollution, water https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/shc-climate-change-and-ej-rfa_-final.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/shc-climate-change-and-ej-rfa_-final.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/shc-climate-change-and-ej-rfa_-final.pdf pollution, solid/hazardous waste pollution, toxic substances control, or pesticide control depending on which statute(s) is listed above. Further note that applications dealing with any aspect of or related to hydraulic fracking will not be funded by EPA through this program.

Additional applicable regulations include: 2 CFR Part 200, 2 CFR Part 1500, and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants).

D. Specific Research Areas of Interest/Expected Outputs and Outcomes Note to applicant: The term “output” means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. The term “outcome” means the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective.

The activities to be funded under this solicitation support EPA’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan (https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan). Awards made under this solicitation will support Goal 2: Take Decisive Action to Advance Environmental Justice and Civil Rights, Objective 2.1: Promote Environmental Justice and Civil Rights at the Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Levels, of the Plan. All applications must be for projects that support the goal and objective identified above.

Awards made under this announcement will further EPA’s priorities to protect the health of underserved communities and to advance environmental justice by reducing environmental health disparities. The proposed research awards support the STAR program’s goal of stimulating and supporting scientific and engineering research that advances EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment in relation to environmental justice. The research will provide the scientific foundation for the use of cumulative impact assessment to inform solutions to be used by state, tribal, local governments, and communities to protect the health of underserved communities from the risks posed by pollutants and other stressors.

EPA also requires that grant applicants adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under assistance agreements (see EPA Order 5700.7A1, Environmental Results under Assistance Agreements, https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements). Applicants must include specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will demonstrate how the project will contribute to the goal(s) and objective(s) described above.

As part of its STAR program, EPA is soliciting the scientific community to propose innovative community-based research to (1) better understand the cumulative impacts from key chemical and non-chemical stressors in underserved communities so that the scientific evidence and knowledge can lead to effective cumulative impact assessment and (2) develop and use a cumulative impact assessment approach and/or method to improve existing or to propose new specific and practical programs, policies, and decisions (at state, local, or community level) to https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-order-57007a1-epas-policy-environmental-results-under-epa-assistance-agreements mitigate adverse health outcomes and to eliminate environmental health disparities in underserved communities.

Applications that integrate a diverse field of disciplines and methodologies (social sciences [such as economics, sociology, anthropology, etc.], environmental health, public health, community-based participatory research, epidemiology, engineering, environmental science, biology, statistics, toxicology, chemistry, etc.) to address the complexity of the research problem are strongly encouraged. Note that non-chemical stressors (e.g., social determinants of health such as nutrition, social conditions, stress, socioeconomic status and cultural factors) cannot be considered alone, but applicants are required to include them as secondary or modifying variables to the contaminant(s)/chemical stressor(s).

Applicants are strongly recommended to incorporate existing data (e.g., epidemiological, environmental, social, biological, healthcare, public health) and use mixed methods approaches.

The proposed research should be comprehensive and include quantitative and qualitative data to characterize specific cumulative impacts from pollutants, non-chemical environmental stressors, and modifying factors that exist in specific underserved communities in the United States. The proposed research should also describe how results could inform effective decision making leading to potential preventive measures, programs, educational or practical community outreach, risk communication messages, platforms, tools, or engagement efforts. The goal is to provide solutions and tools to practitioners in the field of environmental justice, including state and local agencies, community organizations, environmental planners, and policymakers.

The research results must identify practical, real-world solution(s) which would lead to improved or new community-level initiatives, state and local policies, and commercial/private incentives for reducing exposures to chemical and non-chemical stressors, mitigating cumulative impacts, and building adaptive capacity with particular attention paid to underserved communities.

Applications must address the two research areas of interest outlined below. Applications that do not address and integrate both research areas of interest described below may not be rated as highly as those that do. Applicants are strongly recommended to consider the example research questions listed under each research area in shaping their research project. Applicants are not required to include all the research questions or limit their research scope to these examples.

Research Areas of Interest and Example Research Questions

1. Propose cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research to improve health, well-being, and quality of life outcomes by assessing and addressing cumulative impacts resulting from combinations of chemical and non-chemical stressors in underserved communities.

Investigate how the scientific information can be used to develop effective cumulative impact assessment approaches and/or methods. Identification of specific health outcomes and key stressors (both chemical and non-chemical) are required.

• What are the key chemical and non-chemical stressors associated with the cumulative exposures and effects under investigation?

• What quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to chemical, biological, and environmental (built, natural, and social) factors are necessary for effective cumulative impact assessment? How can key non-chemical stressors identified for underserved communities be successfully accounted for within a given decision context?

• How can social, cultural, and historical context be included in cumulative impact assessment?

• How can forms of knowledge including traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and community concerns be included in cumulative impact assessment?

• What effective methods or approaches can be used to combine quantitative and qualitative data, such as quantitative and qualitative information on non-chemical stressors?

• What holistic approach and/or method can be used for:

integrating quantitative and qualitative data?

identifying health pathways? (One key step in proposing and evaluating solutions is to identify health pathways and then evaluate, with the available data, how the proposed solutions might impact those pathways.)

characterizing environmental exposure disparities or inequalities?

characterizing environmental health disparities or inequalities?

2. Propose research to investigate how cumulative impact assessment approaches and/or methods can be used to shape better informed practical programs, policies, and decisions to eliminate environmental health disparities.

• How can existing programs or policies effectively be improved by accounting for key non-chemical stressors?

• How can cumulative impact assessment help prioritize necessary programs, policies, and decisions to eliminate environmental health disparities in underserved communities?

• What evidence-based process may be most effective for evaluating solutions that most benefit the community?

• How can communities be effectively involved in cumulative impact assessment processes and decision making to reduce environmental health disparities? Which stakeholders from public, private, and commercial sectors should be included?

Expected Outputs and Outcomes The expected outputs from this research will be novel and comprehensive scientific information, publications, data, and knowledge about how exposures to multiple pollutants and other environmental stressors in underserved communities are quantitatively and/or qualitatively linked to specific health outcomes. Research results will also include important information on non-chemical environmental stressors and modifying factors that significantly affect vulnerability to both exposure and health effects among underserved communities within the United States. The desired outputs should result in more accurate cumulative health impact assessments leading to more effective, practical, and efficient reduction, mitigation, and prevention measures at tribal, state, local, and community levels.

The expected outcomes include reductions in environmental health disparities in underserved communities in the United States; reductions in adverse impacts to health and well-being from exposure to chemical and non-chemical environmental stressors; and improved prevention and/or mitigation policies and programs to improve the health and well-being of underserved communities. The proposed research should improve decision-making to achieve environmental justice and health equity in underserved communities across the United States.

Environmental Justice To the maximum extent practicable, applicants should demonstrate in their application how they will advance environmental justice for underserved communities, as defined below. EJ is the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, income, Tribal affiliation or disability, with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the adverse environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process; and decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. For purposes of this competition and the evaluation of applications, “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, and underserved communities may include people/communities of color, low income, tribal and indigenous populations, and other vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those who have pre-existing medical conditions.

Underserved communities are often affected by disproportionate impacts. Disproportionate and adverse environmental, human health, climate-related and other cumulative impacts, as well the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts, may result when greater pollution burdens and/or consequences, and the impact of them, are more likely to affect or have affected the underserved communities described in this solicitation. The impacts may result from various factors including but not limited to being a function of historical trends and policy decisions.

Factors that may indicate disproportionate and adverse impacts as referenced above include:

differential proximity and exposure to adverse environmental hazards; greater susceptibility to adverse effects from environmental hazards (due to causes such as age, chronic medical conditions, lack of health care access, or limited access to quality nutrition); unique environmental exposures because of practices linked to cultural background or socioeconomic status (for example, subsistence fishing or farming); cumulative effects from multiple stressors;

reduced ability to effectively participate in decision-making processes (due to causes such as lack of or ineffective language access programs, lack of programs to make processes accessible to persons with disabilities, inability to access traditional communication channels, or limited capacity to access technical and legal resources); and degraded physical infrastructure, such as poor housing, poorly maintained public buildings (e.g., schools), or lack of access to transportation.

In addressing the research areas described above in applications, applicants should demonstrate how their project will address the disproportionate and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts, resulting from industrial, governmental, commercial and/or other actions that have affected and/or currently affect the underserved communities. Applicants should also demonstrate how the project benefits the underserved communities including those that have experienced a lack of resources or other impediments to addressing the impacts identified above that affect their community.

Innovation and Sustainability To the maximum extent practicable, research applications must embody innovation and sustainability. Innovation for the purposes of this RFA is defined as the process of making changes; a new method, custom, or device. Innovative research can take the form of wholly new applications or applications that build on existing knowledge and approaches for new uses.

Research applications must include a discussion on how the proposed research is innovative (see Section IV.C.5.iii.a). The goal of sustainability, derived from the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), is to “create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” Research applications must include a discussion on how the proposed research will seek sustainable solutions that protect the environment and strengthen our communities (see Section IV.C.5.iii.a). Reviewers will draw from all of the above-mentioned innovation and sustainability definitions in the review/evaluation process of research applications (see Section V.A).

Community Engagement Plan A community engagement plan is required. See Section IV.C.5.iii.e. Researchers should involve underserved community(ies) or community-based organizations (see definition below) in the formulation of research objectives and in clarifying their real-world exposures and/or health effects. Researchers are strongly encouraged to partner with underserved community(ies).

Applications should, at minimum, describe how: a) applicants will work in partnership with appropriate partners (e.g., MSIs, states, tribes, academia, industry groups, non-profit organizations, associations, and local communities/community-based organizations) to effectively design and implement the proposed project; b) to the extent possible, coordinate with and/or complement other projects or activities being performed by others that will result in a greater positive impact; and c) demonstrate how the proposed project will address the needs and concerns of underserved communities including how community-based organizations (as defined below) and/or other appropriate parties will be engaged to enhance the project’s effectiveness and/or efficiency.

For the purpose of this announcement, a “community-based organization” generally means a nongovernmental organization that has demonstrated effectiveness as a representative of a community or a significant segment of a community and that helps members of that community obtain environmental, educational, or other social services. A community-based organization must be a nonprofit or not for profit corporation in good standing under State or Tribal law with authority to enter into binding legal agreements. The community-based organization need not be tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code but may use documentation of tax-exempt status to demonstrate that it is a nonprofit.

Applicants may utilize a Community Engagement Research (CEnR) framework, defined as a collaborative process of research involving researchers and community representatives, to meet this requirement. The CEnR process of scientific inquiry requires that community members or other key community stakeholders be included in the identification of research problems and objectives and in the formulation of community-driven solutions. Although a range of levels of community involvement can be considered CEnR, CEnR is characterized by substantial community input and involvement in the project. The applicant will need to justify the level of community involvement that is proposed in the application. While not required, each applicant is encouraged to form a CEnR framework to meet the requirement for community involvement in the project that may include relevant community leaders and a committee or an advisory group.

The Community Engagement Plan should:

• Describe the type of collaboration/engagement proposed and what role it will play in the overall project including the degree of partner/community input or engagement in the conceptualization, hypothesis/question development, design, methods, analyses and implementation of the research. This includes describing how the project addresses engagement with underserved communities, especially local residents in these communities who will be affected by the project, to ensure their meaningful participation with respect to the design, project planning, and performance of the project.

• Describe how the collaboration/engagement will enhance the overall impact of the project such that the project results are applicable and useable by impacted communities and address the needs and concerns of underserved communities. This includes the capacity of the project to more effectively communicate risk and translate scientific results into easily understandable outreach and education materials.

• Describe how activities of the project will be coordinated with related or complementary projects and studies.

• Describe how the collaboration/engagement will materialize during project performance.

Describe the partner(s)’ intent to participate in the proposed research including evidence of community support of an active partnership with a community engagement research committee, a community-based organization or advisory group members (e.g., letter(s) of intent or support from MSIs, community leaders, state or local government agencies, non-government organizations, public health professionals, community emergency planners or responders, social workers, child serving organizations, assisted living and nursing homes, utility managers, site managers or operators, decision makers or policy planners). Any letters demonstrating evidence of collaboration and support should be included as part of section IV.C.5.viii.a. Letters of Intent/Letters of Support.

E. References

1. Healthy People 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health.

2. Evans G.W. and E. Kantrowitz, (2002), Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health. 23: 303–31.

3. Amadi C. (2017) Money as Health: A Study of Health Status Disparities among African Americans of Flint, Michigan. J Psychol Clin Psychiatry 8(3): 00484.

DOI: 10.15406/jpcpy.2017.08.00484.

4. Downey L. and M. Van Willigen, Environmental stressors: the mental health impacts of living near industrial activity. J Health Soc Behav. 2005; 46(3): 289–305.

5. Martine Vrijheid, (2000), Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: A Review of Epidemiologic Literature, Environ Health Perspect 108 (suppl1):101-112.

6. Maheshwari R, S. Gupta, and K. Das, (2015), Impact of Landfill Waste on Health: An Overview, Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, Vol. 1 Issue.

4:17-23.

7. Landrigan P.J. (2010), Environmental Justice and the Health of Children, Mt Sinai J Med.

77(2): 178–187. doi: 10.1002/msj.20173.

8. Seeman T, S.S. Merkin, E. Crimmins, B. Koretz, S. Charette, and A. Karlamangla, (2008), Education, income and ethnic differences in cumulative biological risk profiles in a national sample of US adults: NHANES III (1988-1994). Soc Sci Med. 66(1):72 -87.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.027.

9. Crimmins E.M., J.K. Kim, and T.E. Seeman, (2009), Poverty and biological risk: the earlier “aging” of the poor. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 64(2):286–

92. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gln010.

10. Beckie T.M. (2012), A systematic review of allostatic load, health, and health disparities. Biol Res Nurs.14(4):311–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1099800412455688.

https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2017.08.00484 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.027 https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gln010 https://doi.org/10.1177/1099800412455688

11. Schulz A.J., G. Mentz, L. Lachance, J. Johnson, C. Gaines, and B.A. Israel, (2012), Associations between socioeconomic status and allostatic load: effects of neighborhood poverty and tests of mediating pathways. Am J Public Health.102(9):1706–14.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300412.

12. Zota, A.R., A.M. Riederer, A.S. Ettinger, L.A. Schaider, J.P. Shine, C.J. Amarasiriwardena, R.O. Wright, and J.D. Spengler, (2016). Associations between metals in residential environmental media and exposure biomarkers over time in infants living near a mining impacted site. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 26(5): 510-519.

13. Senier L., P. Brown, S. Shostak, and B. Hanna, (2017), The Socio-Exposome: Advancing Exposure Science and Environmental Justice in a Post-Genomic Era, Environ Sociol. 3(2): 107–

121. doi:10.1080/23251042.2016.1220848

14. Rodriquez E.J., E.N. Kim, A.E. Sumner, A.M. Nápoles, and E.J. Pérez-Stable, (2019), Allostatic Load: Importance, Markers, and Score Determination in Minority and Disparity Populations, Journal of Urban Health volume 96, pages3–11.

15. Juarez1, P.D., D.B. Hood, M. Song, and A. Ramesh, (2020), Use of an Exposome Approach to Understand the Effects of Exposures From the Natural, Built, and Social Environments on Cardio-Vascular Disease Onset, Progression, and Outcomes, Frontiers in Public Health.

(https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00379).

16. Janet Currie, (2011), Michael Greenstone, and Enrico Moretti, Superfund Cleanups and Infant Health, Am Econ Rev. 101(3): 435–441. doi:10.1257/aer.101.3.435.

17. Zota, A., L. Schaider, A. Ettinger, R.O. Wright, J.P. Shine, and J.D. Spengler, (2011), Metal sources and exposures in the homes of young children living near a mining-impacted Superfund site, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 21(5): 495–505.

18. McEwen B.S. and P.J. Gianaros, (2010), Central role of the brain in stress and adaptation:

links to socioeconomic status, health, and disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci.1186:190–222.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05331.x.

19. Szanton S.L., J.M. Gill, and J.K. Allen, (2005), Allostatic load: a mechanism of socioeconomic health disparities? Biol Res Nurs.7(1):7–15. DOI: 10.1177/1099800405278216

20. Gustafsson P.E., U. Janlert, T. Theorell, H. Westerlund, and A. Hammarstrom, (2011), Socioeconomic status over the life course and allostatic load in adulthood: results from the Northern Swedish Cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health. 65(11):986–92.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2010.108332.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300412 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00379 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05331.x https://doi.org/10.1177/1099800405278216 https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2010.108332

21. Colen, C. G., Addressing racial disparities in health using life course perspectives - Toward a constructive criticism, (2011), In: Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, Volume 8, Issue 1: Special Issue: Racial Inequality and Health, pp. 79 – 94.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000075.

22. Stillo F. and J.M. Gibson, (2017), Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water and Health Disparities in North Carolina, Am J Public Health.107:180–185.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303482.

23. Marmot M., (2015), The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World, Bloomsbury Press, New York, NY.

24. Patel, A.I. and L.A. Schmidt, (2017), Water Access in the United States: Health Disparities Abound and Solutions Are Urgently Needed, American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303972.

25. Stillo, F., and J.M. Gibson, (2018), Racial disparities in access to municipal water supplies in the American South: Impacts on children’s health. International Public Health Journal 10(3):309-323.

26. Hanna-Attisha M, J. LaChance, R.C. Sadler, and S.A. Champney, (2016), Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the flint drinking water crisis: a spatial analysis of risk and public health response. Am J Public Health. 106(2): 283–90.

27. Lockhart, S., E. Wood, and J.M. Gibson, (2020), Impacts of exclusion from municipal water service on water availability: a case study. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 30(2):127-137. DOI: 10.1177/1048291120932913.

28. Gibson, J.M., M. Fisher, A. Clonch, J.M. MacDonald, and P. Cook. (2020), Children drinking private well water have higher blood lead than those with city water. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(29):16898-16907.

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002729117.

29. Clonch, A. C., M. Fisher, and J.M. Gibson, (2019), Water infrastructure and childhood blood lead levels: characterizing the effects of exclusion from municipal services in Wake County (NC, USA). International Journal of Child Health and Human Development 12(4).

30. U.S. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (2022), Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/635/R-22/028.

31. U.S. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency (2021), Cumulative Impacts Research:

Recommendations for EPA’s Office of Research and Development (pdf). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-22/014a.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/volume/D5011ADC10130EADD9EC3D738193A8EA https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/volume/D5011ADC10130EADD9EC3D738193A8EA https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/issue/8FE3880B9A76C3E535D65AA51A552700 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000075 https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=354490 https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=354490 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Cumulative%20Impacts%20Research%20Final%20Report_FINAL-EPA%20600-R-22-014a.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-09/Cumulative%20Impacts%20Research%20Final%20Report_FINAL-EPA%20600-R-22-014a.pdf

32. Morello-Frosch R., M. Zuk, M. Jerrett, B. Shamasunder, A. D. Kyle (2011), Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy. Health Affairs 30(5): 879-887.

33. Lee, C. (2021), Confronting disproportionate impacts and systemic racism in environmental policy, Environmental Law Reporter 51(3): 10207-10225.

34. Yee, SH, Bradley, P., Fisher, W., Perreault, SD, Quackenboss, J., Johnson, ED, Bousquin, J., and Murphy, PA. (2012), Integrating Human Health and Environmental Health into the DPSIR Framework: A Tool to Identify Research Opportunities for Sustainable and Healthy Communities, EcoHealth 9, 411–426, DOI: 10.1007/s10393-012-0805-3.

35. Zhuang, S.; Bolte, G.; Lakes, T. (2022), Exploring Environmental Health Inequalities: A Scientometric Analysis of Global Research Trends (1970–2020). Int. J. Environ.

Res. Public Health,19, 7394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127394.

36. Gupta, J., Scholtens, J., Perch, L., Dankelman, I., Seager, J., Sander, F., Stanley‑Jones, M., and Kempf, I. (2021), Re‑imagining the driver–pressure–state–impact–response framework from an equity and inclusive development perspective, Sustainability Science, 15:503–520.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00708-6.

37. Hodgson, EE, Halpern, BS, and Essington TE, (2019) Moving Beyond Silos in Cumulative Effects Assessment. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7:211. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00211.

38. Van Horne, YO, Alcala, CS, Peltier, RE, Quintana, PJE, Seto, E, Gonzales, M, Johnston, JE, Montoya, LD, Quirós-Alcalá, L, and Beamer, PI. (2023), An applied environmental justice framework for exposure science, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 33:1–11; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00422-z.

39. Lane, H.M., MOrello-Frosch, R., Marchall, J.D., and Apte, J.S. (2022). Historical redlining is associated with present-day air pollutio disparities in US cities, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 9(4), 345-350.

40. Cumulative Impacts Subcommittee, Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Report (2009), Strategies For Addressing Cumulative Impacts In Environmental Justice Communities.

http://hdl.rutgers.edu/1782.1/rucore00000002074.Document.000055986.

41. Alexeeff, GV, Faust, JB, August, LM, Milanes, C., Randles, K., Zeise, L., and Denton, J.

(2012), A Screening Method for Assessing Cumulative Impacts, Int. J.