SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Sustainable and Healthy Communities
STRATEGIC RESEARCH
ACTION PLAN 2012-2016
Office of Research and Development
Sustainable and Healthy Communities
-------
EPA 601/R-12/005
Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
Strategic Research Action Plan 2012 - 2016
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
June 2012
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 7
Research Supports EPA Priorities 9
Program Design 12
Research Themes and Priority Science Questions 15
Conclusion 30
Appendix A: EPA Community Based Programs 31
Appendix B: Summary of SHC Stakeholder Engagement Activities 32
Appendix C: Acronyms and Definitions in Context of SHC's Strategic Plan 34
-------
Executive Summary
From its inception in 1970, EPA's mission has been to "protect human health and to safeguard
the natural environment—air, water and land—upon which life depends." Early on, EPA
established the global benchmark for environmental protection through its implementation—in
partnership with state and local governments—of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Control, and Liability Act. For each of these statutes, ORD carried out pioneering
environmental research needed to support policies and regulations to protect human health and
the environment by protecting the Nation's air, water, land and ecosystems.
Despite these successes, current trends in population and in the use/production of energy,
food, and materials have strained our natural resource base and compromised the ability of the
environment to respond resiliency to increasing levels of pollution. Human health and essential
ecosystem functions have been negatively affected by cumulative exposures to multiple toxic
pollutants and a changing physical environment. These impacts also have economic costs,
such as increased costs to heat and cool homes;
to commute to work or transport goods; to access
and treat drinking water; to maintain supplies of
raw materials and renewable resources needed for
industry, commerce, and food production; and to
dispose of wastes. There are societal impacts as
well, such as disparities in health risks due to locally
impaired air, water, and/or land quality, and due to
inadequate access to needed infrastructure, including
municipal services, or to natural areas for healthful
recreation. Although these trends are evident
world-wide, their impacts are experienced most directly by residents of local communities and
neighborhoods.
EPA draws upon the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 for its operational definition of
sustainability: "to create and maintain
conditions under which humans and
nature can exist in productive harmony,
[and] that permit fulfilling the social,
economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations."
These trends raise the question: How can we meet today's needs without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their needs? More specifically, how can we protect our
shared environment—air, water, land, and ecosystems—in ways that are economically viable,
beneficial to human health and well-being, and socially just?
Providing the scientific foundation to answer these questions is at the heart of EPA's Sustainable
and Healthy Communities research (SHC). The SHC is expressly focused on the growing
interest of U.S. communities1 in sustainable practices.2 Agency researchers and their partners
are working together to better understand the balance among the three pillars of sustainability:
the environment, society, and the economy. The transdisciplinary work conducted through SHC
will provide decision tools and data that communities need to make strategic decisions for a
prosperous and environmentally sustainable future. The SHC research program also conducts
1. SHC defines communities as those people that reside within the jurisdiction of one or more local governments or
tribal nations; stakeholders include community decision makers and other groups that share interest in SHC research
topics.
2. International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 2010. Sustainability Survey Results, http://icma.org/
en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/301646/ICMA_2010_Sustainability_Survey_Results
-------
research to seek more cost-effective means of accomplishing EPA's mission—means that will
maximize the benefits of multiple approaches to environmental protection, recognize synergies
between protecting human and ecosystem health, and reduce the likelihood that policy deci-
sions will have unintended consequences.
The design of this research program was truly collaborative, as is its implementation. EPA sci-
entists held a series of meetings with internal EPA partners in the policy and regional offices and
conducted listening sessions with community officials, tribal representatives, academic experts,
and non-profit organizations. These discussions highlighted community and local government
approaches for managing their financial and natural resources and for providing services that di-
rectly affect their local economies, environment, and the health and well-being of their residents.
These community approaches require decisions
about options for how to provide solid waste collec-
tion and disposal; maintain and diversify transporta-
tion options; develop building codes and zoning for
land use planning; and implement shared public/
private responsibilities for meeting infrastructure
needs, including distribution of water and power.
Not only are these decisions the focus of cutting-
edge research on sustainability, they are also the
same decisions that communities identified as their
highest priorities for sustainable practices. Commu-
nities repeatedly asked SHC for new ways to better
account for the full suite of impacts and outcomes
associated with their decisions on how to provide
these services.
Working in collaboration with agency partners and
community stakeholders, SHC developed a prob-
lem statement and vision statement to guide SHC
research (see text box); both emphasize the need
for methods to integrate and weigh trade-offs inher-
ent in community decision-making. The SHC builds
upon EPA's existing community-based programs3
and extensive use of voluntary practices to achieve human health and environmental goals.4
In particular, SHC seeks to provide information that will assist decision-makers in implementing
innovative actions within communities and tribal programs that can complement EPA, state, and
tribal authorities and, in so doing, to achieve shared sustainability goals in more flexible, eco-
nomically beneficial and effectively synergistic ways. Ongoing communication and feedback is
a critical part of the SHC, and will be essential in keeping the program as responsive and rel-
3. See Appendix A for listing of community-based programs that provide technical assistance, training
grants, and opportunities to apply for community-based competitive grants.
4. The following are examples of EPA voluntary programs that foster sustainability:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/areawide_grants.htm, plans for brownfields assessment, cleanup, and
reuse; http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/sc3/index.htm, Greenscaping for residential and large
landscapes; http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/index.htm, National award program for
smart growth; http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/awards/sg_awards_publication_2011.htm, Grants for urban
water; http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters/funding/, Conserving resources and preventing waste generation;
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/wastewise/index.htm, EnergyStar; http://www.energystar.gov/
Problem Statement: Communities
make social, economic, and environ-
mental trade-offs in a resource-con-
strained world. These trade-offs are
often not well-characterized in terms
of the implications for and interac-
tions among human health, ecosystem
services, economic vitality, and social
equity. Conventional decision-making
often does not adequately characterize
these complex interactions.
Vision: The Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Program (SHC)
will inform and empower decision-mak-
ers in communities, as well as in federal,
state and tribal community-driven pro-
grams, to effectively and equitably weigh
and integrate human health, socio-eco-
nomic, environmental, and ecological
factors into their decisions in a way that
fosters community sustainability.
-------
evant as possible to local, EPA policy, and regional needs.
The scope of SHC research is evident in both the national and local priorities it addresses. For
example, SHC is the primary source of research support for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and Office of Sustainable Communities. It is also the focal point for co-
ordination of research across ORD that contributes to EPA's Office of Children's Health Protec-
tion and the Agency's Environmental Justice programs. In addition, because the consequences
of decisions affecting air quality, resilience to climate change, availability of energy and water,
chemical safety, homeland security, and risk assessment are all ultimately encountered at a lo-
cal level, SHC integrates aspects of each of ORD's other research programs into the conduct of
its work.
To organize this breadth of research, SHC is structured into four interrelated themes
having the following objectives:
1. Data and Tools to Support Community Decisions: will use cutting edge technologies to col-
laboratively develop better data, methods, and indicators, new spatial analyses, and decision
tools to assist communities in developing effective approaches to achieve their sustainability
goals.
2. Forecasting and Assessing Ecological and Community Health: will develop the information
and methods that communities need to assess how the natural and built environment affect the
health and well-being of their residents and to identify sound and sustainable management op-
tions.
3. Implementing Near-Term Approaches to Sustainable Solutions: will build upon regional
and state successes and experience to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of methods
and guidance to address existing sources of land and groundwater contamination while while
advancing innovative approaches that reduce new sources of contamination and enable the
recovery of energy, materials, and nutrients from existing waste streams. This research provides
scientific support to EPA program and regional offices and to states and tribes that implement
federal requirements and guidelines related to land and groundwater contamination.
4. Integrated Solutions for Sustainable Outcomes: will assess the state of the art for sustainable
practices for four high-priority community decision areas with environmental impacts: waste and
materials management; infrastructure, including energy and water; transportation options; and
planning and zoning for buildings and land use. It will use whole-system modeling to integrate
these four areas to better achieve outcomes with multiple benefits and to develop and test
methods to estimate the Total Resource Impacts and Outcomes of alternate decisions (TRIO
methods).
-------
Introduction
Current trends in population, and in the use/
production of energy, food, and materials
have strained our natural resources and
compromised the ability of the environment to
tolerate increasing levels of pollution. Human
health and essential ecosystem functions
have been negatively affected by cumulative
exposures to multiple toxic pollutants and a
changing physical environment. This has
compromised the ability of the environment
to sustain human health and well-being,
and threatens our ability to maintain past
environmental successes.
According to peer-reviewed estimates,
planetary thresholds already have been
exceeded for releases of reactive nitrogen into
the environment, for loss of plant and animal
species (biological diversity), and for climate
change.5 Similarly, we are approaching
unsustainable planetary thresholds for ocean
acidification, which threatens marine life,
and for production of phosphorus, which is
essential for agricultural food production.6
In 2011, it was estimated that the world's
populations consumed between 1.25 and 1.5
times the amount of annual global production
of biological capacity, meaning that there is a
global ecological deficit.7 Further, as a nation,
we face shortages in materials, minerals,
and fuels used for industry, national security,
transportation, and heating and cooling our
5. Rockstrometal., 2009. Ecology and Society 14 2):
32. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating
space for humanity, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol14/1ss2/art32.
6. Rockstrom et al., 2009. Ecology and Society 14 2):
32. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating
space for humanity, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol14/1ss2/art32.
7. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
page/earth_overshoot_day/
8. Moyer, M. 2010. Scientific American. 303, 74-81
(2010). Doi:10.1035/scientificamerican0910-74. http://
www. scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-
is-left
homes and businesses8; loss of arable lands
for food production through conversion to
development9; and difficulties in safely siting
landfills needed to isolate wastes.10
Further, issues of global and local
sustainability are linked. Trends are observed
globally or regionally, but their impacts are
experienced most directly by residents of
local communities and neighborhoods. For
example, warmer global temperatures and
high pollution levels are global in scope, yet
they create local ozone concentrations that
increase health alerts, and lead to increases
in the numbers of people seeking treatment
for asthma in (local) hospitals, with attendant
costs to communities.1112Local driving patterns
and electricity use contribute not only to
pollutants that create those high ozone levels,
but also to global patterns of air pollution
and climate change. There can be societal
impacts as well—such as disparities in health
risks due to locally impaired air, water, or land
quality; due to inadequate access to needed
infrastructure, including municipal services; or
to natural areas for healthful recreation.
As more demands are placed on finite
resources and ecosystem functions, there
are a corresponding opportunities and
9. Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), 2007. Between
1982 and 2007, more than 23 million acres of U.S. farm-
land were converted from farms to developed lands. An
estimated 38% of the land converted during this period
was prime agricultural land, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/
agricultural_statistics/
10. EPA Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria Techni-
cal Manual, including siting criteria related to wetlands,
floodplains, and active seismic areas, http://www.epa.
gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/index.htm
H.Takizawa, H. 2011. Impact of air pollution on allergic
diseases. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kyorin
Univ. School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
12. Big Air Pollution Impacts on Local Communities:
Traffic Corridors Major Contributors to Illness From Child-
hood Asthma. Science Daily, Nov. 4, 2009
-------
benefits to managing the built environment
in ways that reduce environmental, health,
and ecosystem impacts, and to manage the
natural environment in ways that maximize the
benefits and services it provides. Systems-
based research can provide insights into
actions that communities can take to improve
their local environments, reduce their societal
and economic costs of pollution, and to
improve their health and well-being. However,
developing the systems science needed to
address these complex issues effectively is
usually beyond the capacity and resources of
local governments and communities.
SHC worked with EPA Program and Regional
Office partners to articulate the problem that
communities face with respect to
sustainability:
Communities make social, economic, and
environmental trade-offs in a resource-
constrained world. These trade-offs are
often not well-characterized in terms
of the implications for and interactions
among human health, ecosystem services,
economic vitality, and social equity.
Conventional decision-making often does
not adequately characterize these complex
interactions.
SHC also worked collaboratively with
communities and community-representative
organizations through a variety of venues
and formats to identify and understand their
most pressing needs related to sustainability
(Appendix A). These discussions highlighted
community and local government approaches
for managing their financial and natural
resources and for providing services
that directly affect their local economies,
environment, and the health and well-
being of their residents. These decisions
include options for how to provide solid
waste collection and disposal; maintain and
diversify transportation options; develop
building codes and zoning for land use
planning, and implement shared public/private
responsibilities for meeting infrastructure
needs, including distribution of water and
power. The most frequently-expressed need
was for new ways to better account for the
full suite of costs, impacts, and outcomes
associated with the diverse actions that
communities must consider. Stakeholders and
partners also wanted practical ways to predict
the likely consequences of their decisions, and
ways to measure their results.
Given this widespread agreement on needs,
ORD developed the following vision statement
for the SHC program:
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research Program (SHC) will inform and
empower decision-makers in communities,
as well as in federal, state, and tribal
programs, to effectively and equitably
weigh and integrate human health, socio-
economic, environmental, and ecological
factors into their decisions in a way that
fosters community sustainability.
The SHC also engaged with community
decision makers in order to better understand
their goals, priorities, and constraints. This
collaborative approach can help ensure
that the information, approaches, and tools
developed by SHC will be useful to and used
by community decision makers to evaluate
their issues, proactively assess their decision
alternatives, implement more effective
solutions, and track results. SHC's key
contribution to community decision-making
will be the development of a method to more
comprehensively account for the full costs and
benefits of community decisions with respect
to their effects on sustainable outcomes.
SHC calls this method Total Resource Impacts
and Outcomes, or TRIO accounting, to
reflect its intended scope and its relationship
to the three pillars of sustainability: the
economy, society, and the environment. TRIO
accounting will consider direct and indirect
social, economic, and environmental costs
and benefits associated with a given set of
decision alternatives.
-------
Research Supports EPA Priorities
Statutory and Policy Context
From its inception in 1970, EPA's mission has
been to "protect human health and to safe-
guard the natural environment—air water, and
land—upon which life depends." Early on,
EPA established the global benchmark for en-
vironmental protection through its implemen-
tation, in partnership with states, tribes, and
local governments, of the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act, and the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Control, and Liability Act.
For each of the above statutes, the Office
of Research and Development carried out
pioneering environmental research needed
to direct and support regulations that protect
the nation's air, water, land, and ecosystems,
and therefore, human health and well-being.
However, federal action is only one aspect of
environmental management. EPA delegates
the authority to implement aspects of federal
environmental laws to states and local govern-
ments, and municipalities have authorities that
can address activities and opportunities that
federal and state rules do not cover.
Local authorities and actions are essential
because communities directly experience
the result of ongoing environmental issues.
Examples include: lost local revenues due to
urban blight associated with Superfund sites;
the financial and human costs associated with
clean up of leaking underground storage tanks
at local gas stations; contamination of ground-
water from poorly designed landfills; negative
impacts on children's health and performance
due to poorly sited schools and inappropriate
building materials and operation practices; and
combined sewer overflows due to extensive
paved areas that increase stormwater runoff
and overwhelm the capacity of sewer systems.
EPA's Seven Priorities
Taking action on climate change and improving
air quality
Protecting America's water
Cleaning up our communities and advancing
sustainable development
Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing
pollution
EPA's cross-cutting strategies
Expanding the conversation on environmental-
ism and working for environmental justice and
children's health
Strengthening state, tribal, and international
partnerships
The SHC research program is designed to
help communities implement environmental
management in ways that reduce these com-
mon, negative impacts, and to increase the
benefits that communities can obtain from
sustainable practices, such as reducing am-
bient emissions of air and water pollutants;
eliminating indoor exposures to pollutants
from building materials, insecticides, or clean-
ing materials; using natural greenways and
waterways to provide recreational areas, and
providing green corridors for travel by foot and
by bicycle. These actions not only reduce air
pollution and facilitate healthful activity, they
simultaneously produce co-benefits such as
reducing heat island effects, purifying water,
and recycling nutrients. SHC methods will
be designed to assess the ability of proposed
decision alternatives, and their co-benefits,to
reduce long-term costs for regulatory compli-
ance.
Municipalities also have unique authorities
to make decisions for managing local
financial and environmental resources. Their
-------
responsibility to provide community services
can directly affect their local economies,
environment, and the health and well-being
of their residents. These decisions commonly
include options for how to provide solid
waste collection and disposal, maintain and
diversify transportation options; develop
building codes and zoning for land use
planning, and implement shared public/private
responsibilities for meeting infrastructure
needs, including distribution of water and
power. Communities in listening sessions with
SHC identified these service areas as their
highest priority for decisions about sustainable
practices, and asked for new ways to better
account for the full suite of outcomes and
impacts associated with decisions for them.
To develop TRIO methods, EPA will build on
its long experience related to these service
sectors. This experience includes research
on indoor air quality as affected by proximity
to leaking underground storage tanks or
Superfund sites; type of building materials,
cleaning products, and ventilation rates;
criteria for assessing green building design;
quantifying the effects of transportation options
on air quality; contributions to RCRA guidance
for determining when waste materials can
be safely reused; and landscape ecology to
identify innovative ways to protect drinking
water sources or to meet water quality
standards at the watershed scale. This
research is not new in terms of EPA's role or
expertise; what is new is that SHC will use
a systems approach to examine interrelated
issues as a whole, across all stressors
and effects. SHC's approach to systems
science and TRIO methods corresponds to
the approach recommended by the National
Research Council (NRC) in its August, 2011
report, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. SHC
is poised to implement NRC recommendations
through innovative and original research that
complements, not duplicates, the work of other
agencies.
In essence, SHC is based on the premise
that the best way to meet the long-term goals
of EPA's mission is to help communities find
easier ways to meet federal requirements,
help the Agency and local governments
develop regulations and practices that are
less expensive and more socially just and
acceptable, and, where possible, provide
innovative and effective non-regulatory
approaches that simultaneously protect
human health, the environment, and advance
sustainable practices. New and state-of-
the-art tools developed by SHC will help
communities proactively assess how their
choices advance their sustainability goals.
This information, together with communities'
more intimate connections with local
residents, businesses, and other groups,
provides opportunities for communities to
pursue effective, state-of-the-art sustainability
practices that have cascading benefits.
Authority and action at the community level
can complement EPA and State authorities
and facilitate innovative solutions to complex
problems.
EPA Priorities
The SHC research program is unique within
EPA due to its explicit, systems-based
methods and its community-based focus on
addressing sustainability issues within the
interplay of environmental, economic, and
social factors across the media of air, water,
and land. In particular, SHC addresses Goal
3—cleaning up communities and advancing
sustainable development—of EPA's 2011-2015
Strategic Plan: Achieving Our Vision:
"In the area of cleaning up communities,
research will allow EPA to identify and
apply approaches that better inform and
guide environmentally sustainable behavior,
protect human health and ecosystems, and
provide the products and services needed
for mitigation, management, remediation,
and long-term stewardship of contaminated
sites. It will also provide state, tribal, and local
decision makers with the knowledge needed to
make smart, systems-based decisions that will
inform a balanced approach to their cleanup
and development needs."
-------
Both the SHC and EPA Strategic Goal 3
are grounded in the fact that effective and
sustainable environmental protection is
inextricably linked to long-term human health
and quality-of-life, economic opportunity,
and community vitality. In addition, research
conducted in SHC Theme 2 addresses
three cross-cutting EPA priorities for
meeting its strategic goals: 1) expanding
the conversation on environmentalism,
2) working for environmental justice and
children's health, and 3) strengthening
state and tribal partnerships. Research
conducted in SHC Theme 3 addresses EPA's
priority for advancing science, research, and
technological innovation.
-------
Program Design
Producing an Integrated Program
ORD has extensive research expertise and ex-
perience on which to build the SHC research
program. In particular, ORD's expertise in the
areas of landscape ecology, remote sensing
and modeling, human exposure and health ef-
fects assessment, environmental engineering,
materials and waste management, and deci-
sion science has previously produced many
innovative assessment and decision tools.
SHC will use its expertise and experience to
conduct transdisciplinary research, which SHC
defines as having the following characteristics:
• Focuses on solving complex, real-world
issues.
• Uses systems-thinking to "redraw the map"
of possible solutions.
• Integrates perspectives from the
public sector, private sector, and civil society.
• Emphasizes collaboration in order to tran-
scend the narrow bounds of traditional disci-
plinary views.
• Creates new knowledge, new theory,
and fosters new practical applications that
yield outcomes that take advantage of oppor-
tunities for multiple benefits.
Collaborating Across Research Programs
All six ORD research programs have as their
goal the advancement of sustainability within
their respective disciplines and spheres of
responsibility: i.e., Sustainable and Healthy
Communities; Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources; Air, Climate and Energy; Chemical
Safety for Sustainability, Homeland Security;
and Human Health Risk Assessment.
& Health
Communities
Figure 1. Relationships Among Six ORD
Research Programs
Figure 1 illustrates the relationships among
ORD's research programs and the resulting
opportunities for collaboration and transdis-
ciplinary research. For example, research
related to producing chemicals for industry
that are inherently safer for humans and the
environment will affect opportunities and poli-
cies for increasing the safety of water supplies.
Similarly, new water saving technologies that
reduce water consumption will reduce the
amount of energy required to treat and distrib-
ute water to homes and businesses, thereby
conserving energy and reducing emissions
of air pollutants, and reducing the need for
extractive energy practices. These relation-
ships - safer chemicals and safer water sup-
plies; less energy use, less air pollution, and
less waste - have implications for what com-
munities can choose to do to implement their
sustainability goals.
Each of ORD's programs has specific focal
areas while maintaining close interrelationship
with relevant parts of the other programs. SHC
is the focal point for research on community
sustainable practices, including waste and
materials management. SHC is also the focal
-------
point for research to support cross-cutting
topics on children's health, community, health,
and environmental justice. In addition, SHC
intends to develop ways to integrate research
findings from all ORD programs. In Figure 1,
this role is illustrated by SHC's location as the
program that frames the other six programs.
Developing Partnerships from the Start
SHC scientists were charged with creating
a program that would advance community
sustainability by providing transdisciplinary
research products that are relevant and action-
able for decision makers. To do this, SHC
researchers engaged early with our traditional
EPA Regional Offices, and Program and Policy
Office partners (including EPA's Offices of Air
and Water; Office of Children's Health Protec-
tion; Office of Environmental Justice; Office
of Sustainable Communities; and Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response). SHC
researchers held full-day workshops with EPA
Program Offices to discuss their community-
related regulatory and non-regulatory needs,
and to identify important information gaps.
In addition, SHC directly engaged with new
community stakeholders. Active engagement
through a variety of venues and media elic-
ited wide participation from local governments
(planning staff or sustainability directors), and
from a variety of other participants from univer-
sities and other non-governmental organiza-
tions (such as ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability, the League of Cities, and the
Congress for the New Urbanism) (Appendix
B). At all sessions, EPA staff explained SHC
goals and solicited input about barriers to local
sustainability actions and the kinds of informa-
tion needed to overcome these barriers.
Despite differences in workshop venues and
formats, the priorities of stakeholders were
surprisingly similar. The most common needs
expressed were for:
• Ways to evaluate the full costs and
benefits of different communities' ac-
tions, so as to inform and enable better
decision-making. In particular, stake-
holders identified the kinds of decisions
for which such an accounting would be
useful. These decisions include options
for how to provide solid waste collec-
tion and disposal; maintain and diversify
transportation options; develop building
codes and zoning for land use planning;
and implement shared public/private re-
sponsibilities for meeting infrastructure
needs, including distribution of water
and power.
• Practical methods and metrics ("yard-
sticks") with which to measure impacts
on environmental, economic, social
equity, and interacting conditions; and
for use to measure progress toward
sustainability,
• Better ways to communicate in order
to promote effective programs.
Other high priorities held in common in-
cluded research on technologies to clean
up contaminated sites and tools to man-
age particular chemicals or waste streams.
Environmental justice (the issue of dis-
proportionate impacts on disadvantaged
populations) and children's health were
recognized as especially critical.
EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities
(OSC) is a key internal partner for SHC.
The OSC collaborates with other EPA
programs; federal agencies; regional, state,
and local governments; and a broad ar-
ray of NGO partners to help communities
become stronger, healthier, and more sus-
tainable through smarter growth and green
building. OSC partners will advise SHC on
their knowledge of local needs, serve as
a client for tools or approaches that serve
communities, and partner with SHC on
research projects. SHC is also working with
OSC to participate in the federal Partner-
-------
ship for Sustainable Communities (under a
Memorandum of Understanding with EPA,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation).
The scope of SHC's transdisciplinary re-
search requires that it must remain innovative
throughout its implementation and refinement.
To that end, SHC is developing a process for
routine, iterative review and feedback from
EPA programs, regions, community, and fed-
eral partners in order to assure the relevance
and utility of SHC products and to identify
where strategic cooperation can advance
common goals.
In addition, SHC will continue to seek review
from independent advisory boards. Early
proposals describing the scope and objectives
of SHC research were reviewed in June 2011
by a joint panel of the EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and by the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC). Both of these indepen-
dent advisory boards expressed strong sup-
port for SHC goals and its community focus.
SHC has incorporated their initial comments
and suggestions for improvement,13 and both
boards will periodically review SHC progress.
As recommended by the SAB, SHC will also
collaborate with other federal and international
agencies. SHC has begun two key collabo-
rations: with Department of Defense on site
contamination issues, and with the Army's
NetZero initiative. Further, SHC's participa-
tion in the Office of Science and Technology
Policy's Committee on Environment, Natural
Resources, and Sustainability Subcommittee
on Ecological Systems will serve as the focal
point for collaboration with other federal agen-
cies on systems science related to sustainabil-
ity. SHC's international collaborations include
working with the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) on interoperability stan-
dards, and with Dutch collaborators on urban
ecosystem services.
13. The SAB emphasized the need to include social,
behavioral, and decision science (including econom-
ics) in all ORD research programs. In response, SHC
has begun providing seminars by professionals in these
disciplines and will pursue additional expertise in these
fields through collaborations with university programs
and selected hires.
-------
Research Themes and
Priority Science Questions
Theme 1: Data and Tools to Support Sustainable
Community Decisions
Theme 1 uses decision science, interactive
social media, and sustainability assessment
methods in order to assist communities in
framing their sustainability goals and to devel-
op new tools, indicators, and spatial analyses
for community use. This work is carried out in
two topic areas: (1) Decision and Information
Science, and (2) Assessing Community Sus-
tainability.
Topic 1: Decision and Information Science.
SHC scientists will work collaboratively with
communities to develop ways to make data,
information, and tools more interactive and
more accessible to local audiences. Tools will
be tailored to community characteristics and
will transition from single-issue tools towards
an interacting set of modules, using common
data sets wherever possible, so that com-
munities can tailor assessments to meet their
needs.
Topic 2: Assessing Community Sustainabil-
ity. SHC scientists will compile and critique
existing assessment indicators and tools for
their applicability to community issues. They
will use consistent "yardsticks," or metrics,
to characterize and communicate linkages
among human health, well-being, and envi-
ronmental changes, and to measure progress
toward sustainability goals. The National Atlas
of Sustainability will provide geographically
explicit metrics that characterize ecosystem
services and sustainability metrics for the con-
tiguous U.S. and for up to 250 urban areas.
Products such as data, tools, and the Na-
tional Atlas for Sustainability will be accessible
through a one-stop web access point, for use
by community decision-makers and stakehold-
ers, scientists within other SHC Themes, and
other EPA research programs.
Science Questions
The broad science questions that guide
Theme 1 research are:
1. How can new information technology
be used to enhance ongoing dialogues
with communities about their sustainability
goals and needs and to facilitate sharing
of effective decision tools and community
success stories?
2. How can communities be characterized
in order to tailor assessment and decision
tools to widely shared needs?
3. What are effective methods for framing
community decisions about sustainability?
4. What are the best metrics to effectively
track and communicate changes and
performance?
5. What criteria and standards for future
tool development will facilitate collabora-
tive development of decision tools?
6. How can existing tools be modified and
linked, including use of service-oriented
architecture (sharing of data and a com-
mon access point) ?
7. What methods for integrating decision
tools are capable of incorporating multiple
factors for analysis and assessment?
What are their current limitations and how
can these be overcome?
-------
8. What suite of assessment tools and
sustainability metrics are most useful for
incorporation into the National Atlas for
Sustainabiliy?
9. How can SHC improve accessibility to
tools and information across the spec-
trum of decision-makers and their specific
needs?
10. How can new information technology
be harnessed to improve delivery of SHC
results to communities and to support ap-
plication of research results?
1st Example Output:
Classification of U.S. Communities
The statistical classification of U.S. commu-
nities will be used to guide development of
decision and assessment tools needed to ad-
dress widely shared sustainability issues and
to enhance transferability of tools to specific
types of community needs. The initial classifi-
cation will be based on characteristics related
to biophysical setting (e.g., climate, landform,
soils, vegetation), community attributes (local
governance, sustainability practices), demo-
graphic attributes (e.g., size, growth/decline,
density, distribution), and ecosystem service
characteristics. The classification will be up-
dated over time to incorporate new data and
relevant findings.
Contributing products:
1. Analysis of community decision
processes and needs.
2. Refinement of user needs based on
input from interactive social media.
3. Iterative input.
2nd Example Output: Beta Version 1 of the
National Atlas for Sustainability
Release of the beta Version 1 of the National
Atlas for Sustainability will provide communi-
ties across the country with a suite of acces-
sible, interactive maps showing indicators of
production, demand, and drivers of ecosystem
services. Categories of ecosystem services
include: clean water for drinking; clean water
for recreation and aquatic habitat; adequate
water supply; food, fuel and fiber; recreation,
cultural and aesthetic amenities; contributions
to climate stability; protection from hazardous
weather; habitat and the maintenance of biodi-
versity; and clean air. Metrics will be provided
at national, regional, and community scales.
Contributing products:
1. Series of national data sets critical to
the calculation of ecosystem services
(e.g., soils or crop type).
2. Data summarized by 12-digit hydro-
logic unit codes (of which there are about
83,000 in the U.S.).
3. Detailed information for at least 150
communities across the nation. Within
these communities, a suite of metrics -
such as availability of green space or heat
stress caused by the built environment -
will be explored for relationships to vulner-
able sectors of the community's residents
and for opportunities for mitigation.
3rd Example Output:
Interoperable Webtools
This output provides a suite of linked webtools
that enables communities to concurrently:
• Access detailed environmental metrics
and improved demographic maps (using
capabilities from the National Atlas for
Sustainability).
• Screen for potential health impacts (us-
ing capabilities from the Community-Fo-
cused Risk Screening Tool, or C-FERST).
• Develop statistically-based indices that
describe vulnerabilities and identify op-
portunities for mitigation (using capabilities
from the Regional Vulnerability Assess-
ment toolkit, or ReVA).
These webtools will be publicly accessible
-------
and seamlessly integrated in order to make it
easier for communities to assess how the built
and natural environment affects human well-
being and to identify targeted opportunities
to advance sustainability and to reduce costs
associated with mitigation.
Contributing products:
1. Protocols and standards for software
interoperability.
2. An analytic Regional Vulnerability As-
sessment module that uses statistics to
provide objective and reliable indices of
environmental condition and vulnerability
for any combination of spatial data.
3. Direct linkage to the Office of Environ-
mental Information's (OEI) geospatial data
platform (GeoPlatform) and Community
Analyst for access to the most up-to-date
information on environmental and socio-
economic patterns and trends across the
country.
Theme 1 Outcome:
Communities and stakeholders will be actively
engaged and able to collaborate with the EPA
and each other for the mutually beneficial ex-
change of knowledge and resources. They will
be better able to articulate challenges, assess
proposed solutions, and provide or request
specific scientific resources. Communities will
be able to select indicators for evaluating the
likely implications of decision alternatives and
be able to conduct trade-off and synergy
analyses.
Theme 1 Impact:
Products created under this theme will help
EPA and its partners to better understand the
scientific, economic, and social dimensions
of community sustainability issues, leading to
more effective environmental decision-making.
Products will form the foundation for a toolkit
of innovative, non-mandatory solutions to com-
plex sustainability problems. Existing and new
decision tools will benefit from a wider range
of contributing partners, and EPA will become
better able to provide tailored decision support
to a wide variety of communities, regardless of
their geographic location.
-------
Research Themes and
Priority Science Questions
Theme 2: Forecasting and Assessing Ecological and
Community Health
Research conducted in Theme 2 will develop
the information and methods that communi-
ties need to assess how the natural and built
environment affects the health and well-being
of their residents. To accomplish this, Theme
2 conducts foundational research in two major
topics: (1) the science of ecosystem services,
including their production, use, and benefits,
and (2) the science of human health and well-
being as influenced by exposures to chemi-
cals or other stressors in homes, schools,
or neighborhoods. Theme 2 research will
provide information that communities can use
to develop management options to mitigate
conditions that have adverse effects and to
enhance conditions that have positive effects
on human health and well being.
Theme 2's ecosystem-focused research will
develop methods to quantify ecosystem goods
and services—i.e., those ecosystem func-
tions that society depends upon to survive
and prosper—like water filtration, nutrient
recycling, and mitigation of floods and storm
surges. It addresses how to estimate current
production of ecosystem goods and services,
given the type and condition of ecosystems;
how ecosystem services contribute to human
health and well-being; and the way in which
the production and benefits associated with
ecosystem services may be affected under
alternative decision scenarios or in response
to regional conditions.
Theme 2's human health-focused research
will develop better methods to quantify, track,
and reduce cumulative risks to public health;
to develop a holistic understanding of how chil-
dren's health may be linked to exposures from
before birth through adolescence and impact
their health throughout life; and to understand
how differences found in community settings
- such as location of residence relative to
pollution sources; availability of safe, walkable
streets; and access to healthful foods - can
contribute to good health and well-being or
also can result in environmental injustice and
disproportionate health risks. Communities
can use this information to develop and better
implement public health policies and practices,
especially for their most vulnerable residents
(e.g., infants, children, the elderly, orsocio-
economically disadvantaged), and to evaluate
the effectiveness of interventions designed to
improve public health. Although the issues
of children's health and environmental justice
will be integrated throughout SHC, Theme 2 is
the focal point for this research, which is also
highly relevant to all ORD research programs.
Science Questions
The broad science questions that guide
Theme 2 research are as follows:
1. How can more consistency and stan-
dardization be brought to the quantifica-
tion of ecosystem goods and services in
ways that facilitate resource conservation
through trading, environmental markets,
and other policies or incentives?
2. What protocols can be developed to
improve the ability to value ecosystem
services and benefits across different geo-
graphic contexts and scales?
3. How can the transferability of research
-------
that quantifies the benefits of ecosystems
to society be improved such that these
benefits can be routinely factored into com-
munity decisions?
4. How can we demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of using ecosystem services in
real-world decisions by understanding the
relationship to health and environment jus-
tice in communities?
5. How can communities become better
informed about the sources and levels of
pollutants, the nature of cumulative expo-
sures, and the locations of disproportionate
impacts? How can they be informed about
and taught to use easily accessible web-
based tools to develop strategies to miti-
gate multiple stressors?
6. What chemicals and combinations of
chemicals, such as those occurring to-
gether in products that children use or are
exposed to, pose the greatest risk to chil-
dren's health and how does exposure and
risk vary across specific age groupings?
7. What complex interactions between
social, natural and built environmental
systems, conditions and policies result in
unequal environmental health conditions
or disproportionate impacts among diverse
disadvantaged population groups, commu-
nities, neighborhoods and individuals?
8. How can disadvantaged communities be
empowered to better characterize problems
and create solutions that ensure equitable
distribution of the benefits from community
decisions?
1st Example Output: Guidance on
Methods to Enhance Children's Health:
This research will contribute to EPA risk as-
sessments, guidance documents, and poli-
cies that protect children's health by providing
new knowledge about age-specific chemical
exposure factors and health metrics; tools
for considering how a wide variety of factors
(e.g., children's physical activity, psycho-social
issues, the condition of school and residential
buildings) may interact with chemical expo-
sures to impact children's health and health
disparities; and guidance about ways to opti-
mize home, school, and community environ-
ments in order to enhance children's healthy
development and well-being. This information
will improve the scientific basis with which EPA
and communities will be able to evaluate and
integrate data on exposure, health, and demo-
graphics in order to make decisions and take
actions that better promote children's health,
development, performance and well-being
where they live, play and learn. Both in-house
and university-based researchers are contrib-
uting to this work, including EPA's Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention
Research Centers that are jointly funded with
the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences.
Contributing products:
1. A peer-reviewed paper that reports
study findings that advance the under-
standing of the dietary sources of human
exposure to arsenic.
2. Findings from three major investiga-
tions of autism: the Childhood Autism
Risk from Genetics and the Environment,
(CHARGE), Study; the Markers of Autism
Risk in Babies — Learning Early Signs,
(MARBLES), Study; and the Early Autism
Risk Longitudinal Investigation (EARLI)
study.
3. Peer-reviewed papers presenting stud-
ies on research results associating prena-
tal exposure to organophosphate pesti-
cides with IQ deficits in children.
2nd Example Output: Web-based Tools for
Environmental Justice
This output will provide user-friendly web-
based tools to help communities assess
-------
whether disproportionate health impacts exist
in their communities and, if so, to develop risk
mitigation strategies that advance environ-
mental justice. One such tool is the prototype
Community Cumulative Assessment Tool, or
CCAT, which guides users through a step-by-
step process to define their assessment objec-
tives, determine its geographic and technical
scope, create a partnership database, develop
conceptual models, gather information, rank
risks, and explore risk mitigation options. With
this information, communities can better locate
the source of the problems and improve condi-
tions for everyone.
Contributing products:
1. Beta version of CCAT methodology, func-
tional in 2012, with linkage to other tools
including C-FERST (Community-Focused
Exposure and Risk Screening Tool) and
GeoPlatform.
2. Findings of a case study that tests the
CCAT in one or more community settings.
3. As a product of EPA's Environmental Jus-
tice Plan 2014, demonstration of CCAT use
and its effectiveness for characterizing com-
munities at risk for environmental injustice.
3rd Example Output: Standardized Classi-
fication for Ecosystem Goods and Services
(EGS):
A central scientific problem limiting the reliable
and consistent linkage of ecosystem changes
to human health and well-being is having a
metric with which to compare functions across
different geographic settings - e.g., an acre
of wetland in one location will not contain
the same kinds and amounts of natural func-
tions as an acre of wetland elsewhere. This
research will develop standardized metrics
for ecosystem goods and services, which can
significantly enhance evaluation of how policy
choices affect changes in human health and
well-being. In addition, it will help to allow
"trading" of ecosystem service credits in order
to better support mitigation of ecosystem dam-
ages through more consistent quantification
of ecosystem services that were lost. The
product of this research will be the National
Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification
System (NEGSCS), a searchable online data
base.
Contributing products:
1. Published reports from two workshops
that bring together practitioners in the
quantification and use of ecosystem
services to identify a relatively complete,
non-duplicative, and human-centric clas-
sification of ecosystem services.
2. Standardized reporting units and met-
rics and indicators that can be used to
evaluate current status, trends and sus-
tainability of the Nation's environmental
resources as they relate to human needs
and well being.
4th Example Output: Searchable Database
of Ecosystem Services
EPA scientists are developing or extend-
ing production functions for ecosystem ser-
vices and benefits for numerous areas in the
U.S. They are also developing protocols for
estimating the value of ecosystem services,
including methods to quantify the uncertainty
associated with these estimates, understand
how scale impacts estimates, and determine
the transferability of results from one area to
other areas. These production functions are
being catalogued so that this information will
be easily accessible to EPA, other agencies,
NGOs, and anyone interested in considering
the ecosystem service trade-offs associated
with changes in environmental conditions or
decision alternatives. This work will result in a
searchable database, the Ecosystem Goods
and Services Production Function Library, that
provides researchers and those who develop
decision-support tools with the best available
information about how to estimate the distribu-
tion and value of ecosystem services, includ-
ing how they might change under alternative
future scenarios.
-------
Contributing products:
1. Ecosystem service production services
developed for clean water provision, clean
air provision, carbon storage, nature-based
recreation, etc. developed from place-
based studies. These production functions
will address supply and demand issues
(e.g., is the service vulnerable to disrup-
tion or loss?, who benefits and what is the
worth of ecosystem services?).
2. Standardized classification of ecosystem
services linked to human well-being as a
basis for better accounting methods.
3. Identification of metrics and indicators of
final Goods and Services that can provide
consistent measurement and tracking
methods.
4. Identification and quantification of public
health benefits associated with aquatic
ecosystem services.
5. Demonstration of the use of ecosystem
services in actual decision-making con-
texts to elucidate the full suite of trade-offs
associated with decision alternatives.
Theme 2 Outcomes
Communities will be able to comparatively
evaluate the health and environmental effects
of decision alternatives as they relate to the
places where they live and work. They will
have information with which to assess the
contribution of functioning ecosystems to hu-
man health and societal well-being, including
whether practices and technologies that are
less damaging to the environment can contrib-
ute to the sustainable provision of ecosystem
services over time. They will have better data
for addressing issues related to the health of
infants and children, community public health,
and environmental justice. Communities,
regions, and EPA Program Offices will be able
to make more sustainable decisions, based on
full-cost accounting that includes the impact of
alternatives on benefits provided by nature.
Theme 2 Impacts
Products created under this topic will provide
federal agencies with consistent, effective, and
broadly applicable information on the distribu-
tion of ecosystem service benefits, as well as
how this distribution changes based on land
use, transportation, housing and infrastructure
choices, and materials management. This
will facilitate conservation as well as public
and private investments to support ecosystem
services. It will also facilitate the contribution
of ecosystem services assessment in their
decisions at multiple scales and in different ge-
ographies across the country. EPA and com-
munities will have better data regarding factors
contributing to disease, as well as the ability of
the built and natural environment to enhance
health outcomes. They will gain insights about
the ways in which livable and walkable cities
contribute to public health.
-------
Research Themes and
Priority Science Questions
Theme 3: Implementing Near-Term Approaches to
Sustainable Solutions
Theme 3 will build upon federal, regional, and
state successes and experience to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of methods
and guidance to address existing sources
of land and groundwater contamination as
required under RCRA and Superfund. Theme
3 will also build on RCRA and Superfund
policies that encourage use of innovative ap-
proaches to reduce new sources of contami-
nation; enable the recovery of energy and ma-
terial from existing waste streams; and enable
brownfields sites to be put to new, economi-
cally productive uses that benefit communities.
Theme 3 addresses five main topics: 1) man-
agement of contaminated sites, 2) materials
and waste management, 3) integrated man-
agement of reactive nitrogen, 4) EPA's Report
on the Environment and 5) sustainable tech-
nologies. Many aspects of Theme 3 directly
support EPA's Strategic Goal 3: Cleaning up
communities and advancing sustainable devel-
opment. Theme 3 products also contribute to
other parts of SHC and other parts of EPA. For
example, findings about waste management
technologies will assist in developing options
for community waste scenarios to be tested in
Theme 4. Findings about sources and eco-
system service impacts related to releases of
reactive nitrogen sources will be used by the
Air, Climate and Energy (ACE), and Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) re-
search programs to develop effective nitrogen
management strategies, and also by EPA's Of-
fice of Air and Radiation and Office of Water to
develop management actions to address the
most significant sources and impacts of reac-
tive nitrogen on the environment and human
health.
Science Questions
The broad science questions that guide
Theme 3 research are as follows:
1. What methods can be developed or
applied to assess contaminated sediments
and to measure the short-and long-term
effectiveness of remediation?
2. How can research findings be used
to improve and simplify bioaccumulation
models for predicting long-term changes
in contaminant accumulation following
remediation actions?
3. How can environmental releases from
oil spills and leaking underground storage
tanks be managed to minimize environ-
mental damage and human exposures?
4. How can contaminated groundwater
best be detected, characterized, modeled,
and treated to prevent human exposure
though contamination of drinking water,
especially of ground water resources?
5. How can methods to reduce waste
streams using principles of life cycle
assessment and sustainable materials
management be made more efficient and
effective for communities (e.g. separation
of waste streams and targeted reuse or
minimization steps) ?
6. How can research to support decision
making at the regional, state, and tribal
level be better translated so that it is ac-
cessible, useful, and transparent?
7. How can guidelines for the design and
operation of disposal facilities be improved
to enhance performance, recover energy,
and reduce impacts?
-------
8. How can the damaging effects of reac-
tive nitrogen be most efficiently managed?
What are the strategic management
options that most cost-effectively reduce
impacts to highly valued ecosystem ser-
vices?
9. How can the concept of sustainability
be made operational for incorporation into
EPA's Report on the Environment? What
are the best sustainability-related indica-
tors that could be incorporated into future
versions of the Report?
10. What incentives can stimulate more
sustainable development and environmen-
tal protection through the use of innova-
tion and new technology?
1st Example Output: Tools to Assess,
Measure, and Monitor Clean-up of
Contaminated Sediments.
This output addresses specific programmatic
and scientific needs for the Office of Super-
fund Remediation and Technology Innovation
(OSRTI) and the Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office (GLNPO, Region 5). It will de-
velop a suite of innovative methods to improve
the ability to predict chemical concentrations
in fish, shellfish, and birds (i.e., aquatic de-
pendent wildlife) from exposure to contami-
nated sediments both before and after remedy
completion; improve laboratory testing of sedi-
ments to assess toxicity and bioaccumulation
of chemicals at individual sites; and provide
biological, chemical, and geophysical proce-
dures to measure and document the effective-
ness of sediment remediation.
Contributing products
1. On-site and laboratory methods to
assess the bioavailability of contaminants
in sediments.
2. Improved models of food chain
bioaccumulation for prediction of long-term
changes in fish contaminant concentrations
after remediation (e.g., for estimating
when levels become safe for human
consumption).
3. Tools that more quickly and cheaply
detect changes in sediment toxicity and
chemical residues in biota and that docu-
ment success resulting from remediation
actions.
2nd Example Output: Capstone Reports on
Beneficial Reuse of Material and Energy
Recovery from Wastes
This output provides data and tools on ways to
optimize the recovery of energy from wastes
and to optimize the beneficial reuse of wastes,
based upon an assessment of the state-of-the
practice. This research will be done in collabo-
ration with states to develop reuse options and
with the private sector to assess technologies
and processes. This information can identify
opportunities to further reduce the volume of
waste disposed, conserve natural materials,
and reduce net costs while protecting the natu-
ral environment in an economically and techni-
cally sound manner.
Contributing products
1. Tools that identify methods to maximize
energy recovery from wastes.
2. Analysis of improved materials recovery
and beneficial use options from wastes.
3rd Example Output: Synthesis document
on advanced ground water modeling
This synthesis document describes findings
from ground water transport and transforma-
tion studies for multiple subsurface contami-
nants. Ground water has been impacted by
multiple contaminants at many contaminated
sites located in or near communities across
the U.S. Contaminant plumes can affect pub-
lic and private drinking water supplies and dis-
charge to lakes or rivers. The availability and
quality of ground water resources are increas-
ingly important to meeting community needs
for water, especially in areas (e.g., the south-
ern U.S.) where urban water growth demand
and / or droughts have resulted in shortages
-------
in surface water supplies. This output provides
information on how to develop strategies for
remediation of multiple contaminants, from
multiple sources, within the context of exist-
ing and future demands from communities for
water.
Contributing products:
1. Development of a multi-agent ground
water transport tool.
2. Assessment of the transformation of
chlorinated solvents in ground water.
3. Development of a combined ground wa-
ter model for use in characterizing ground
water flow, transformation of organic
subsurface contaminants, characterization
of source-zones for non-aqueous phase
liquids, diffusion of contaminants from low
permeability layers, and assessment of
natural attenuation of contaminants in the
subsurface.
gen; its distribution in air, land, and water; and
its impacts on valuable ecosystem services.
These analyses are tailored to meet national
and local needs for information to implement
practices, rules, and policies for nitrogen man-
agement, as well as to understand the interre-
lated effects of associated co-pollutants, e.g.,
phosphorus, sulfur, and mercury.
Contributing products:
1. National-scale maps that describe
nitrogen loading to the U.S. from sources
including fertilizer, agricultural fixation,
air deposition, manure, wastewater, and
industry, including estimates of uncertain-
ties associated with these nitrogen loads.
2. A report to inform EPA's review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) that provides estimates of criti-
cal nitrogen deposition loads, sensitive
ecosystems, and connections to ecosys-
tem services.
4th Example Output: Sustainable
Management of the Nitrogen Cascade
This output provides the scientific basis for the
management of reactive nitrogen by identify-
ing strategic and efficient options to reduce
its most damaging effects while maintaining
the benefits of nitrogen use. When reactive
nitrogen is released to the environment it cre-
ates a cascade of harmful effects that includes
eutrophication of significant ecosystems (e.g.,
Chesapeake Bay), hypoxia or "dead zones"
(Gulf of Mexico, and many others around the
world), toxic algal blooms, acid rain, nitrogen
saturation in forests, contributions to global
warming, and associated human health effects
due to contamination of drinking water and air
pollution.14 This output synthesizes existing
and new analyses about the sources of nitro-
3. New national scenarios for the Commu-
nity Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model
based on EPA's new air rules.
4. Report on sustainability and efficiency
in nitrogen cycle interventions.
5. Local-scale products, which include
N-Sink, a simple geo-spatial tool designed
for watershed managers that will enable
them to describe sources and sinks of
nitrogen within a watershed and a webtool
that provides local estimates of nutrient
inputs.
14. US EPA Science Advisory Board, Reactive
Nitrogen in the U.S.,2011
-------
Theme 3 Outcome
Theme 3 Impact
OSWER, the Regions, and states will make
better informed decisions, leading to reduced
risk, less costly remediation, faster return of
property to economic use, and more compre-
hensive protection of valuable ground water
resources. Communities will have more
reliable data with which to make decisions for
managing solid wastes and materials, safer
options for disposal of unavoidable waste,
and access to more options for recovery of
materials and energy from waste. Decision
makers will have spatially explicit information
and maps depicting sources and multi-media
consequences of reactive nitrogen, allowing
them to identify the most critical and efficient
intervention points in order to retain benefits
received from nitrogen-producing activities
while mitigating the damage and cost to valu-
able ecosystem services. Stakeholders will be
able to access the ROE's reliable indicators for
air, water, land, human exposure and health,
and ecological condition. Innovative technolo-
gies will be encouraged through awards to
interdisciplinary student teams for their innova-
tions in sustainable technologies and grants
to small businesses for their proof-of-concept
and pre-commercialization designs for new
technologies.
Products created under this theme will im-
prove assessment and remediation of contam-
inated soil and ground water, hastening the re-
covery of damaged ecosystems and enabling
safe and productive community redevelop-
ment. EPA guidance on more flexible options
for handling waste disposal and materials will
increase the availability of beneficial reuse op-
tions, permitting increased recovery of energy
and materials from waste. A comprehensive
analysis of the nitrogen cascade and its effects
on valuable ecosystem services will support
collaborative research with ORD's ACE and
SSWR research programs and inform strate-
gic management options by OAR and OWto
reduce negative impacts. A new web-based
version of the ROE will allow users to explore,
display, and analyze underlying data to bet-
ter address their specific needs and interests.
New generations of entrepreneurs will be
trained in real world applications for sustain-
able technologies, small businesses will have
new opportunities to expand and create jobs,
and communities will have access to a greater
range of technologies and management op-
tions.
-------
Research Themes and
Priority Science Questions
Theme 4: Integrated Solutions for Sustainable
Outcomes
Two significant barriers to effective decision
making for community sustainability are (1) the
failure or inability to account for unintended
impacts of actions, and (2) the failure to
account for or take advantage of linkages
among issues. Whether due to oversight
or lack of information, these omissions
impede transparent decision-making. Good
sustainable community design —of policies,
technologies, and incentives —needs to take
into account the linkages among the natural
and built environments, human welfare, and
ecosystem services. For example, children's
health depends on safe buildings, water
for human use depends on land use that
protects watersheds, transportation routes
shape development patterns, and building
design determines long-term implications
for generation of waste and for managing
materials.
Theme 4 will explore systems modeling
approaches to account for the linkages
among resources and assets managed
by a community, with an emphasis on the
high-priority decision sectors identified by
community stakeholders, i.e., waste and
materials management, building codes and
zoning for land use planning, transportation
options, and provision of infrastructure,
including water and energy. Models
that account for the stocks and flows of
energy, materials, and water can be used
by communities to identify opportunities
to increase efficiencies and for resource
recovery.
Theme 4 will also develop methods and data
for Total Resource Impacts and Outcomes
(TRIO) accounting of the multiple implications
of a given decision alternative, including costs
and benefits ~ direct and indirect - in terms
of economic, environmental, and societal
dimensions.
Durham, NC will serve as the first local pilot
for developing these modeling and TRIO
methods, the proof-of-concept using real world
data and conditions. Here, SHC researchers
will evaluate the feasibility and benefits of
integrating findings from synthesis reports and
systems models as well as tools developed
in other Themes in order to prototype
SHC's TRIO approach for decision-making.
Findings from this pilot will be used to refine
data inputs, component tools, and the TRIO
methodology itself.
Science Questions
The broad science questions that guide
Theme 4 research are as follows:
1. Using a life-cycle approach, how can
solid wastes be reduced, reused, recycled
and disposed or managed in order to
conserve land, minimize contamination of
land, minimize emissions to air and water,
and yield equitable co-benefits throughout
a community?
2. What are the full sustainability conse-
quences of any given building or infra-
structure entity over the full life cycle of its
design, construction, occupancy, reno-
vation, and disposal? How can they be
made to have lesser impact, and be more
healthful and economical in the long run?
3. How do the types of transportation op-
tions (e.g., road density and connectivity,
vehicle and fuel technology choices, ac-
cess to public transportation, options for
-------
commuting by foot or by bicycle) contribute
to community health and well being, envi-
ronmental quality, and economic vitality?
4. What are the intended and unintended
consequences of local decisions for land
use alternatives and how can this informa-
tion be used in planning, management, and
decision-making by local communities in
order to support their sustainability goals?
5. What are the linkages among drivers and
outcomes associated with sector-based
decisions for: waste and materials manage-
ment, building codes and zoning for land
use planning, transportation options, and
provision of infrastructure, including water
and energy?
6. What benchmarks can be used to de-
scribe the state of the practice for sector-
based decisions? What benchmarks can
be used to describe the state of the science
for sector-based decisions?
7. What measures of environmental quality
and community health and well-being best
reflect the full costs and benefits of alterna-
tive solutions?
8. How can sector-based linkages and
analyses of energy, materials, and water
flows be included in systems models? How
can they be reflected in performance met-
rics that include economic, environmental,
and societal dimensions?
9. What combination of methods to engage
stakeholders and tools to support decision
making are most useful to local govern-
ments and communities?
1st Example Output: Synthesis Reports for
Sector-based Decisions
These reports will synthesize available
literature and cases studies in order to
describe and benchmark the current state of
the practice and the state of the science for
each sector.15 This information will provide
a common understanding about current
states of practice, identify opportunities and
information gaps, and suggest "upper-bound"
estimates of outcomes from a variety of
sustainable practices. These benchmarks can
then be incorporated into systems models in
order to bracket current and potential future
opportunities and to define exploratory model
simulations.
Contributing products:
1. Reviews and compilation of individual
case studies and literature reviews.
2. Graphic and statistical analyses of find-
ings.
2nd Example Output: Findings Provided by
Integrated Model Analyses
Systems models characterize dynamic links
between stocks and flows. Multi-agent mod-
els characterize the ways in which outcomes
are influenced by the interactions of individual
preferences/decisions, the implications of
municipal or local policies/decisions, and the
effects of incentives/constraints associated
with state or federal requirements. SHC will
use systems models and multi-agent models
to explore and characterize the range in out-
comes associated with alternative options that
communities can choose to implement their
sustainablity goals.
Contributing products:
1. Collection of data.
2. Parameterization of the models.
3. Design, implementation, and
analysis of multiple model
simulations.
4. Creation of a hybrid multi-agent
systems model.
15. The NRC report Sustainability and the U.S. EPA,
2012, notes the importance of providing local communi-
ties with information about national and international best
management practices for sustainability.
-------
3rd Example Output: Total Resource Im-
pacts and Outcomes
TRIO is a method under development by
SHC for evaluating the outcomes of commu-
nity decisions across the three dimensions of
sustainability: societal, economic, and envi-
ronmental. A transdisciplinary team of health
scientists, ecologists, economists, and policy
partners will evaluate or develop indicators
(see also Theme 1) that reflect the response
of those sustainability dimensions to decisions
made within the SHC decision-sectors. The
TRIO approach uses systems models to esti-
mate the full range of costs, benefits, impacts,
and outcomes for a given decision; the rela-
tive weights of the indicators can be varied
to reflect community preferences and needs.
TRIO will be tested in the Durham proof-of-
concept project; ultimately the TRIO tool will
be available as a web-based model for more
widepread application to community sustain-
ability decisions.
Contributing products:
1. Indicators and metrics and web-based
community assessment tools from Theme 1.
2. Information about links between ecosys-
tem services, the built environment and hu-
man health and well-being from Theme 1.
3. Findings regarding waste and materials
management from Theme 3.
4th Example Output: SHC Pilot - Durham,
North Carolina.
The complex and dynamic nature of decision
evaluation and sustainable design processes
argue against developing approaches only in
theory. For this reason, Theme 4 includes a
proof-of-concept project in a real community,
Durham NC, where results can be immediately
and practically applied to community issues
while providing feedback on the method and
on needs for further research. This project
will engage the community to identify priority
decisions, apply the TRIO method to those
decision alternatives, evaluate the full impacts
of alternative decisions and cascading effects
that can result, and design a municipal deci-
sion process that can increase efficiencies, de-
crease costs, and prevent environmental and
community health impacts. Durham will bene-
fit by having some of their relevant decisions
comprehensively evaluated in a transparent
fashion. SHC will benefit by having immedi-
ate feedback on research products, to improve
the TRIO method and inform future efforts.
The Durham proof-of-concept study will: 1)
address high priority areas identified by the
community; 2) collaboratively identify the
interconnections among issues and opportuni-
ties to concurrently advance the multiple goals
as identified by multiple parties; and 3) ana-
lyze scenarios that link Durham-specific issues
to TRIO methods.
Contributing products:
1. Synthesis reports.
2. Findings from use of systems models
for characterizing options and outcomes.
Theme 4 Outcomes
Community decision makers and stakehold-
ers will be able to: 1) identify linkages among
issues, resulting in greater opportunities for
more effective and economical decisions; 2)
concurrently evaluate opportunities for multiple
sectors and stakeholders to achieve mutually
desirable goals; 3) assess a broad range of
impacts, outcomes, costs and benefits of deci-
sions, including the ability to consider impacts
on the environment and community health in
similar terms.
Theme 4 Impacts
Communities will have greater flexibility in
developing sustainable practices for materi-
als and waste management, transportation
alternatives, and the built and natural environ-
ment. Durham will benefit from results of the
pilot project that tests new multi-agent, multi-
-------
media tools for their ability to identify potential
synergistic outcomes associated with an array
of sustainability practices. This information
will contribute to community discussions - in
Durham and in future site-specific sustain-
ability studies - about options for crafting their
preferred sustainability policies, including se-
lection of desired performance metrics, ways
to more comprehensively account for impacts
and outcomes, and the design of incentive
programs. This research will also assist the
Agency in implementing the Livability Prin-
ciples developed with its Federal partners in
Sustainable Communities (DOT and HUD).
-------
Conclusion
Each community is unique with respect to
policy context, resources, constraints, and
culture, but the issues of sustainability are
common to all - a clean environment, a ro-
bust, resilient economy, and concern for their
resident's health and well-being. The goal of
the SHC research program is to provide com-
munities the information they need to trans-
form their expressed interest in sustainability
into integrated actions that can yield greater
returns than current piecemeal approaches.
To accomplish this, SHC will develop and use
a whole-systems approach to assess oppor-
tunities for achieving multiple benefits through
integrated sustainability practices.
The new methods and tools developed by
SHC will enable EPA regions, states, tribes,
and communities to implement their respec-
tive responsibilities with far greater ability to
proactively assess how their choices affect
progress in meeting their respective sustain-
ability goals. This information, together with
communities' more intimate connections with
local residents, businesses, and other groups,
provides opportunities for communities to
pursue effective, state-of-the-art actions that
have cascading benefits. There is also great
interest from communities, around the country
and the world, in using more sustainable prac-
tices to provide a full range of services. These
conditions present both a receptive audience
for SHC products and a trove of information
about early experiences on which to build and
refine a scientific program with immediate
applicability to community needs. Supported
by tools and information developed by SHC,
communities can be empowered to better
manage, and individuals or organizations to
better understand, how their activities promote
progress toward a sustainable future. As ben-
efits accrue for individual communities, and as
lessons spread, more and more sustainable
communities will add up to a more sustainable
nation and planet.
-------
Appendix A
EPA Community Based Programs
OAR
OCSPP
OECA
OITA
OP
OSWER
OW
PROGRAM NAME AND OFFICE
Community -Based Childhood Asthma Program (OAR)
EPA School Monitoring Initiative (OAR)
Local Climate and Energy Program (Climate Showcase Communities) (OAR)
Community-Based Lead Grant Program (OCSPP) (funding ended in 2009)
Economy, Energy, and Environment (E3) Initiative (OCSPP)
Tribal Lead Grant Program (OCSPP) (funding ended in 2009)
EJ Showcase Community (OECA)
EJ Small Grants Program (OECA)
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (OITA)
Smart Growth (OP)
Brownfield Sustainability Pilots (funded 2008)
Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technical Support Centers (OSWER)
Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, and RLF Grants (including Browfie Ids Area-wide
Planning Pilots) (OSWER)
Brownfields Training, Research, and Technical Assistance Grants (OSWER)
Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grants (OSWER)
see brownfields in orange
Partnership for Sustainable Communities Brownfield Pilots (2010) (OSWER)
RE-Powering America's Land (OSWER)
Superfund Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) (OSWER)
Superfund Job Training Initiative (OSWER)
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (OSWER)
Targeted Brownfields Assessments (OSWER)
Technical Assistance Services for Communities Program (TASC) (OSWER)
Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Communities (OSWER)
Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE) (OW)
Five Star Restoration Grants Program (OW)
Lead in Schools Programs (OW)
Stormwater/SSO/CSO permits (OW)
Urban Waters Initiative (OW)
-------
Appendix B: Summary of SHC Stakeholder
Engagement Activities
Program Stakeholders:
EPA Partners Meetings: Participants at two workshop-style meetings included representa-
tives from EPA's Offices of Air & Radiation, Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention, Children's
Health, Environmental Justice, International & Tribal Affairs, Solid Waste & Emergency Re-
sponse, Sustainable Communities, and Water, and representatives from Regions 1, 2, 4, 7, and
10. In addition, many more informal meetings and conference calls were held with these Offices
and all EPA Regions during design of the SHC research program development. Staff from these
Offices and Regions served on workgroups for selected themes and topics.
Participants per Session Types:
Regional Listening Sessions: 103 community representatives participated from 7 different
communities in 5 EPA Regions.
Durham Pilot Outreach Meeting: 27 Durham representatives, including an elected official,
two local NGOs, a representative of ICLEI and city and county government agencies.
Community Outreach Webinars: 157 attendees from 36 states representing 12 universities,
16 state-level planning departments, 20 county- and city-level planning departments, 25 tribes,
as well as many community-oriented and non-governmental organizations across the country
participated in these webinars.
Key Community Leaders Workshop: 1 1/4 day workshop with 20 non-EPA participants from 3
universities, six communities, several city sustainability offices, and 6 national non-governmen-
tal organizations.
Non-governmental Participants:
Advantage West
Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project
Asheville City Schools Foundation
Asheville Design Center
Association of Spokane Realtors
AZ State University
Boston Environment and Energy
Center for Resilient Cities
Clean Energy Durham
Community Colleges of Spokane
Congress for the New Urbanism
Duke's Nicholas Institute
Eastern Washington University
Economic Opportunity Council Weed and Seed
-------
Eno River Association
Green Opportunities
Green Team
Hand Made in America
Health Impact Project
ICLEI USA
Impact Capital
Martin Luther King Community Health Center
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Midwest Quality Water
National League of Cities, Director of Sustainability Program
Newsday
Nicholas Institute
RTI, International
Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
SNAP- Significant New Alternatives Policy
Sweet Water Trust
Transition Milwaukee
UNC-Chapel Hill Finance Center
University of North Carolina at Asheville
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Wsconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wsconsin-Milwaukee Geography and Urban Planning
University of Wsconsin-Milwaukee School of Freshwater Research
University of Wsconsin-Milwaukee Urban Planning
Washington State University
Waste Reduction Partners
Western North Carolina Alliance
Woodbine - AmeriCorps
Woodbine Main Street
Woodbine Municipal Lighting and Power
Wyandanch Community Development Corporation
As well as teachers, farmers, legislators, engineers, and other citizens
-------
Appendix C: Acronyms and Definitions in
the Context of SHC's Strategic Plan
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors
CCR Coal Combustion Residue
C-FERST Community-Focused Exposure Risk Screening Tool
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EGSPF Ecosystem Goods and Services Production Function
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (or "the Agency")
FEGS Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
HUD U.S. Housing and Urban Development
ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
LC EPA Labs/Centers
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
N Nitrogen
NEGSCS National Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NIMHD National Institute on Minority Health Disparities
NPL EPA's National Priorities List
NRP National Research Program
OEI Office of Environmental Information
ORD Office of Research and Development (in EPA)
OSC EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities
OSWER EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW EPA's Office of Water
P3 EPA's People, Prosperity and the Planet Program
RAP Research Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ReVA Regional Vulnerability Assessment
RO EPA Regional Office
ROE EPA's Report on the Environment
SAB Science Advisory Board
SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities
SHCRP Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
SSWR EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
T-FERST Tribal-Focused Exposure Risk Screening Tool
TRIO Total Resource Impacts and Outcomes
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
-------
Definitions
Bioaccumulation: the bodily accumulation of chemicals that are ingested, but not eliminated.
Cumulative
exposure: exposures to chemicals from many sources that, may not be significant
individually, but which add up or accumulate to a possibly significant level.
Decision science: study and methods related to issues important to making decisions, like
identification of values (what's important to society), evaluation of
uncertainties and risk in given decisions, etc.
Hypoxia: Refers to the conditions of 'low-or no-dissolved oxygen in water; hypoxia
conditions kill fish and other aquatic life.
Economic
multiplier: a factor which can define how money spent at local businesses will result
in more local financial benefits than money spent at non-locally owned
businesses.
Ecosystem: the system of living things which function together in a given place with a
particular geology and climate, for example, a coastal marsh wetland.
Ecosystem goods: natural resources provided by ecosystems, like timber or fish.
Ecosystem
services: the natural functions of ecosystems which are useful for humans, for
example, the functions which support agriculture, like pollination or the
decomposition of organic matter into soil.
Ecosystem goods
and services
benefit functions: a numerical characterization of the value to humans of nature's
functions and services.
Environmental
Justice: protection of historically disadvantaged populations or communities
from environmental impacts greater than those on the general population.
Eutrophication: refers to the over-fertilization of lakes, rivers, or coast waters, leading to
over-growth of aquatic plants, algal blooms, and conditions unpleasant or
unsafe for people or fish and other aquatic animals.
Holistic: relating to a whole system, rather than analysis or treatment of parts.
-------
Index:
Indicator:
Indices:
Iterative:
Media:
Metric:
Mitigation:
Modeling:
Monofills:
Remediation:
a number or symbol, developed from a series of observations or
measures and used to indicate or describe a subject of interest.
a measure used to describe a particular state or relationship, which may,
or may not, be a direct measure of that state or relationship.
plural of index.
doing something repeatedly, learning and improving each time
In this program, media (the plural of medium) has meanings in two
different contexts: one, the air, land and water, so called because each
is a medium that carries pollution; two, electronic methods of
carrying data or information, as in cell phones or radio.
a standardized unit of measure.
actions taken to prevent, lessen or solve problems.
using mathematics and an understanding of the ways a system works to
describe or predict state, outcomes or events.
landfills that contain one specific material.
to bring a contaminated site or resource back to a safe and
usable state.
Remote sensing: the use of aerial photography, satellite imagery, or other means to
collect data or information from a distance.
Risk:
Scale:
Scenario:
Spatial:
the probability of adverse effects.
the relative degree of detail on a geographic data set, according to
the amount of area covered and size of the units of data.
experimental representation of "what if?".
having to do with the character of space, here used to describe
data that is geographic.
Systems thinking: evaluating an issue from the perspective of the whole system of
interacting parts, rather than evaluation of separate parts.
TMDLs:
Total Maximum Daily Loads of pollutants to water bodies; these loads are
set to maintain water quality.
Urban heat island: the retention of heat by urban concrete and pavement during the
day, creating warmer conditions than for green space.
-------
Summary Tables of Outputs and Outcomes
Communities face social, economic, and environmental trade-offs in a resource-constrained
world. These trade-offs are often not well-characterized in terms of the implications and
interactions between human health, ecosystem services, economic vitality, and social
equity. Conventional decision-making often does not adequately characterize these complex
interactions.
Theme 1. Data and Tools to Support Sustainable
Community Decisions
Topic 1.1 Decision and Information Science
Outcomes: Outputs created under this theme will help EPA and its partners to better understand the sci-
entific, economic, and social dimensions of community sustainability issues, leading to more effective en-
vironmental decision-making. Products will form the foundation for a toolkit of innovative, non-mandatory
solutions to complex sustainability problems. Existing and in-progress decision tools will benefit from a
wider range of contributing partners, and become better able to meet the needs of more communities.
Communities and stakeholders will be actively engaged in ongoing sustainability planning, using innova-
tive new tools including social media. They will be able to collaborate with the EPA and each other for the
mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources. They will be better able to articulate challenges,
assess proposed solutions, and provide or request specific scientific resources. EPA will increase its ability
to support all communities and stakeholders in their sustainability goals, fostering participatory problem
solving, empowerment, and buy-in.
Framing Sustainable Decisions and Enhancing Collaboration
Outputs
Output
Year
Community typologies to guide future community selection for collaborative research and tool
development
FY2013
Collection of tools and processes for community decision analysis
FY2014
Compilation of best practices for community and stakeholder engagement
FY2014
Information Science, Innovation, and Evolved Stakeholder involvement
Service-oriented architecture to facilitate interoperability among SHC tools and accessibility to
assessment and full cost accounting tools
FY2013-
2016
Mechanisms - and facilitation thereof - to allow external improvements to and maintenance
of SHC tools
FY2013
-------
Communication and Community Engagement
Outputs
The Communication and Community Engagement Plan will describe the activities, processes
and timeline where ORD will collaborate with EPA, HUD, and DOT community based programs
and our partners including universities to systematically and more effectively identify commu-
nity issues, develop and deliver science products, and develop networks for building capacity
in communities to empower communities for better decision-making.
Output
Year
FY2012
Topic 1. 2 Assessing Community Sustainability
Outcome: Outputs created in this theme area will form the foundation for a toolkit of innovative, non-
mandatory solutions to varied and complex sustainability problems. Existing and in-progress decision, as-
sessment and evaluation tools will benefit a wide range of partners and stakeholders and help EPA better
meet the needs of a wide variety of communities. Communities and stakeholders can actively engage in
the use of these innovative new and existing tools. Communities will be able to better articulate their chal-
lenges, assess their needs and proposed solutions, and describe the scientific tools they are using as well
as those they need provided or developed. EPA will increase its ability to support as many communities
and stakeholders as possible in their sustainability goals, fostering participatory problem solving without
having to work solely community-by-community.
Existing and New Tools (models, methods, frameworks, etc)
Inventory of relevant community sustainability tools and peer review evaluation of effectiveness
and accessibility of existing tools
Modified existing tools, support data for external tools, new tools, and interoperable modules
that address community decision needs and meet SHCRP goals for improved accessibility and
efficiency
FY2012
FY2015
Providing Indicators and Indices to Assess, Track, and Inform Community Sustainability
Updated guidance document and inventory of available sustainability and performance indica-
tors in a searchable database; Prototype completion of web tool for searching database
Publically available EQI (years 2000-2005) data set with user's guide so communities can ex-
tract the data and use for their own study questions.
Updated EQI data inventory for expanded geographic areas
FY2013
FY2012
FY2014
National Atlas for Sustainability
Outputs
Full public release of Version 2 of the Atlas with additional national, regional, and community
data, additional functionality, and overall improvements based on results of new research and
feedback from users of Version 1
Annual releases of Atlas with additional functionality and data
sustainability data related to the built environment
ecosystems services data and
Output
Year
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
-------
Theme 2. Forecasting and Assessing Ecological and
Community Health
Topic 2. 1 Quantifying Production and Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services for Sustainable Com-
munities
Outcomes: Outputs created under this topic will provide federal agencies with consistent, effective,
and broadly applicable information on the distribution of ecosystem service benefits, as well as how this
distribution changes based on land use, transportation, housing and infrastructure choices, and materials
management. This will facilitate conservation as well as public and private investments to support ecosystem
services. It will also facilitate the contribution of ecosystem services assessment to decisions at multiple
scales and in different geographies across the country. Communities, regions, and the nation will be able
to make more sustainable decisions, based on full-cost accounting that includes the impact of alternatives
on benefits provided by nature. EPA will improve standards and guidelines for incorporating economic
valuation into mitigation efforts.
Standardized Classification and Indicators for Ecosystem Goods and Services
Outputs
Output
Year
A National Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (NEGSCS) and identification
of metrics and indicators of the biophysical features needed to support that system
FY2013
Ecosystems Goods and Services(EGS) Production and Benefit Function
An accessible compilation of existing ecological production functions and benefit functions
(models relating management options to changes in the timing, spatial distribution and
quantity of a variety of ecological endpoints, and the social benefits of ecological goods and
services derived from those ecological endpoints), with an assessment of critical missing data
FY2014
Methods for estimating the transferability of ecological production, ecosystem goods and
service production, and benefit functions across landscapes, and regions and to unmonitored
locations
FY2015
Guidance on how integrated ecosystem goods and services system models can help inform
market decisions (e.g., how to estimate credits for markets)
FY2016
Community-based EGS Research for Representative Communities
Incorporation of EGS production and benefit functions in specific decision-making contexts
and forecast of intended and unintended consequences of different decision options
FY2014
Models and useable decision support tools that incorporate social, economic and environmental
information for alternative decision scenario analysis
FY2014
Models for estimating social, economic, and environmental sustainability of past decisions
and future decision options
FY2015
Evaluation of different modeling and decision support tools for application to different decision
contexts and different scales
FY2016
Place based and Thematic EGS Research
A synthesis of recent ORD research on the calculation of ecological production functions and
benefit functions for multiple ecosystem services, providing a preliminary compilation of data
to model how changes in ecosystems affect social welfare
FY2013
An accessible compilation of existing ecological production functions and benefit functions
(models relating management options to changes in the timing, spatial distribution and
quantity of a variety of ecological endpoints, and the social benefits of ecological goods and
services derived from those ecological endpoints), with an assessment of critical missing data
FY2014
-------
Outputs
A methodology for generating ecosystem goods and services production functions (models
relating changes in ecological endpoints to changes in the production of valued ecosystem
goods and services)
Output
Year
FY2014
Reserve Regional EGS
Topic 2. 2 Improving Human Health and Well-being for Community Sustainability
Outcomes: EPA will have better data regarding factors contributing to disease, as well as the ability of
the built and natural environment to enhance health outcomes. The research will provide insight into the
contribution of livable and walkable cities to public health. EPA and communities will be able to holistically
assess community health and well-being, as they relate to the environment where people live and work.
They will have better data for addressing issues related to the health of infants and children, community
public health, and environmental justice
Enhancing Community Public Health
Identification of the most prevalent environmental public health conditions in communities
resulting in disparities in health and well-being between communities or populations for use in
targeting and prioritizing research and generation of risk management methods
Identification of environmental and health-related factors, including chemical and non-
chemical stressors and their impact on vulnerable populations, related to high-priority sectors
identified by communities
Integrated methods, measurements, and models to characterize effects of key environmental
factors on public health, and application of these to quantify, track, and reduce cumulative
health risks related to both chemical and non-chemical stressors
User-friendly tools for improving and increasing the quality and accessibility of diverse,
reliable, integrated information and data, and to evaluate the implications (positive and
negative) of alternative management decisions to inform local environmental health
decisions that promote public health and well-being with the long-term goal of better
accounting for their social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits.
Results, best practices, and transferable approaches derived from community-based
participatory case studies to address emerging and ongoing health concerns in community
settings
FY2014
FY2014
FY2016
FY2016
FY2016
Enhancing Children's Health
Sustainable community solutions to prevent/reduce children's health disparities and optimize
child-specific settings (home, day care, school, recreational [land, water]) and community
practices
Mitigation/intervention strategies and data to evaluate success in community settings
FY2016
FY2016
Securing and Sustaining Environmental Justice
Workshop and synthesis papers for EPA and EJ stakeholder groups on the interactions of
environmental, social, behavioral, and biological factors / policies as they relate to health
disparities
A successful approach for incorporating community knowledge into the development
of tools and the application of qualitative approaches and social science methods into
cumulative impact assessments. A web-based user-friendly tool to conduct community-
based cumulative impacts assessments that include step-through process for problem
identification, partnership building, inventory of community stressors and ranking.
FY2011-
FY2016
FY2011-
FY2014
-------
Outputs
New tools and approaches for cumulative impact assessments to integrate non-chemical
stressors. Synthesis papers on methods for examining combined effects of social and
physical exposures on health.
User-friendly and accessible tools and technical guidance for conducting disproportionate
risk analysis needed to ensure environmental equity
Output
Year
FY2011-
FY2016
FY2011-
FY2016
Theme 3. Near-term Approaches for Sustainable
Solutions
Topic 3.1 Contaminated Sites
Outcomes: Outputs created under this theme will improve assessment, response, and remediation of
ground water contaminants, sediment contaminants, vapor intrusion, fuel spills, and oil spills. Better
response and remediation tools will hasten the recovery of damaged ecosystems and the return of wildlife
populations, as well as supporting community redevelopment. OSWER, the Regions, and states will
make better informed decisions on remediation and response to contamination. This will directly lead
to reduced risk, less costly remediation and faster return of property to economic use. Communities
benefit economically from losing the stigma associated with contaminated sites, and from the high quality
redevelopment which accompanies site clean-up
Contaminated Sediments
Outputs
Output
Year
Biological procedures to measure/document remedy effectiveness.
FY2014
&
FY2015
Standardized procedures for passive samplers
FY2015
&FY16
Standardized procedures for use of passive samplers for incorporating chemical
bioavailability and flux measurements into site assessments
FY2015
&FY16
Improved ability to predict chemical concentrations in fish, shellfish, and birds (e.g., aquatic
dependent wildlife) from exposures to contaminated sediments prior to and after remedy
completion.
F20Y15
Improved laboratory sediment testing methods for assessment of toxicity and bioaccumulation
at individual sites.
FY2014
&
FY2016
Innovative Approaches to Support the Measurement and Assessment of Vapor Intrusion
Homes/Buildings from Contaminated Sites
into
Scientific reviews of pending guidance document dealing with the vapor intrusion issues
based on results from vapor intrusion task
FY2013
Simple, efficient, and rapid methods to determine the potential for vapor intrusion into the
home and other buildings
FY2013
Assessment of the practical approaches to measure and monitor vapor intrusion from the
source to the building
FY2015
-------
Science and Engineering for Restoring Contaminated Land
Outputs
Output
Year
Toxicological information to inform the risk assessment of asbestos-contaminated
communities
FY2014
Synthesis report of toxicology studies from the Libby Action Plan.
FY2013
Environmental Releases of Oil and Fuels: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Modeling method and assessment of how natural in-situ biodegradation affects the potential
for petroleum vapors from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks to enter homes and
buildings.
FY2013
Assessment and Management of Contaminated Ground Water to Protect Human Health and
Ecosystem Services
Results published in peer-reviewed journal articles in order to address information gaps that
currently limit the use of innovative in-situ technologies to stabilize and/or remove metals
and organics from the subsurface. This information will improve understanding of the
performance of permeable reactive barrier walls for metal stabilization, will inform engineering
design guides for in-situ oxidization of organics, and describe methods to monitor to confirm
natural attenuation of metals.
FY2015
Software, journal articles and EPA reports provide improved knowledge on transport of
organic contaminants, including impacts of biodegradation, back-diffusion into permeable
strata, dissolution from DNAPLs, and modeling. This work provides scientific knowledge
previously unavailable (solvent biodegradation and back-diffusion) as well as improved
engineering assessment of monitored natural attenuation and flux-based site assessment.
Taken together this work compiles existing information and new knowledge to give the most
scientifically advanced approach to organic contaminant transport.
FY2016
Topic 3. 2 Materials Management and Sustainable Technologies
Outcomes: Outputs created under this topic will enable EPA to provide definitive guidance and
more flexible options for handling waste disposal and materials. They will increase the availability
of beneficial reuse options, permitting increased recovery of energy and materials from waste.
Communities will have more reliable data with which to make decisions for managing solid wastes and
materials. They will be able to find safer options for disposal of unavoidable waste, and have access to
more options for recovery of materials and energy from waste.
Tools to Assist States in Developing Beneficial Use Determinations for Wastes
Comprehensive Report on State-of-the-Practice for Beneficial Use of Materials
FY2013
Modeling tools and databases to help decision makers manage waste utilization more
sustainably A prototype science-driven user-friendly decision analysis toolset will be delivered
for use by national, regional, and local decision-makers.
FY2014
Assessment of the state-of-the-practice in the beneficial reuse of materials to minimize waste
disposal Collaboration with the States to assist in developing reuse options and with the
private sectors in assessing technologies/processes
FY2015
Tools and Approaches to Recover Energy from Wastes
Report on State of the Practice on Bioreactor Landfills
Evaluation of Enhanced Energy Recovery Technologies from Waste Organics
FY2013
FY2015
-------
Outputs
Output
Year
Construction and Demolition
Assessment of sustainable management approaches for construction and demolition wastes,
and working with industry to assess C&D materials flow and optimizing recoverable materials
FY2015
Coal Combustion Residue Research CCR - Regulatory
Analyses and data sets for use in assessing materials reuse options, including coal
combustion materials as aggregate in concrete.
FY2012
Topic 3. 3 Integrated Management of Reactive Nitrogen
Outcomes: Outputs under this topic will contribute to a comprehensive analysis of the nitrogen cas-
cade and its effects on the environment. This will contribute to more informed assessments and iden-
tification of the most critical and efficient intervention points. Decision makers will have spatially explicit
information and maps depicting sources and multi-media effects of reactive nitrogen. This will allow
them to increase the benefits from nitrogen-producing activities while mitigating the costs.
Informing Sustainable Decisions about Nitrogen
Maps and information about uncertainties associated with nitrogen loading to the US. This in-
cludes fertilizer, agricultural fixation, deposition, manure, wastewater and industrial N sources.
Also database and website relating N loads to lake ecosystem services in the northeast and
a tool for examining nitrogen sinks and sources within the landscape that can inform local
management.
FY2012
Report on Sustainability and efficiency in the nitrogen cycle: Interventions to benefit human
well-being and ecosystems. Tools for nitrogen management at the local scale. An integrated
scalable framework of response relationships between N loads and the ecosystem goods and
service production, human health and well-being, and economic benefits functions.
FY2013
Topic 3. 4 EPA's Report on the Environment
Outcomes: The ROE, developed through a collaborative Agency-wide effort, is the EPA's most com-
plete and reliable source of information on the status of the environment and trends overtime. The
ROE tracks indicators for air, water, land, human exposure and health, and ecological condition provid-
ing scientifically sound, timely data to the public as well as EPA programs as they prepare strategic
plans and measure their programs' successes. A new web-based version of the ROE will allow users
to access underlying data and display graphics, using these tools for expanded understanding and
analysis. Stakeholders will be able to access reliable environmental information based on updates to
85 existing environmental indicators, along with several new sustainability indicators. They will use new
ROE enhancements to explore, display, and analyze underlying data to better address their specific
needs and interests.
EPA's Report on the Environment
Fully web-hosted eROE2012-A dynamic website interface featuring interactive, customizable
graphics and mapping capability; a systems-level conceptual framework with a sustainability
focus showing linkages among indicators; a new thematic area on Sustainability/Sustainable
development, with relevant national-level sustainability indicators; fully updated indicators;
new and revised indicators reflecting new data, knowledge and/or changing programmatic
needs; updated graphics displaying quantified statistical uncertainty information where pos-
sible and appropriate
FY2012
Fully revised and updated web-hosted eROE2016
FY2016
Topic 3. 5 Innovation and Technology to Foster Sustainability
Innovation and Technology to Foster Sustainability
-------
Outputs
Completed real-world research projects designed by teams of college students to provide
sustainable environmental designs or technologies for local communities and small business
ideas. Graduates with greater experience in sustainability thinking going into environmental
science, engineering, business, biology and policy fields.
Output
Year
Annual
Make available to communities innovative water treatment, residuals management, and moni-
toring technologies for drinking water and wastewater systems. EPA and the Small Business
Administration are leveraging with national and international water and water research organi-
zations, Wright Brothers Institute, Air Force Research Laboratory, Green Umbrella (Cincinnati),
Artemis Top 50, Imagine H2O, to develop and commercialize systems that enhance community
sustainability.
FY2015
Theme 4. Integrated Solutions for Sustainable
Outcomes
Topic 4.1 Community Decision Sector Analysis
Outcomes: The research produced under this topic will provide EPA and communities with greater flex-
ibility in developing sustainable practices for materials/waste management, transportation alternatives,
and the built and natural environment. This will enable communities to achieve multiple objectives under
complex constraints. The research will also assist the Agency in implementing the Livability Principles
developed with its Federal partners in Sustainable Communities (DOT and HUD). Communities will be
able to analyze the full costs and benefits of decisions, allowing them to consider impacts on the environ-
ment and community health in similar terms. Community decision makers will be more transparent in their
choices, and better stewards of community resources.
Buildings and Infrastructure
Outputs
Output
Year
Synthesis report on existing tools and state of the practice for Community decisions in the build-
ings and infrastructure sector
FY2013
Land Use Planning: Natural and Built Environment
Synthesis report on existing tools and state of the practice for Community decisions about lan-
duse planning for the built and natural environment
FY2013
Transportation
Synthesis report on existing tools and state of the practice for Community decisions in the
transportation sector
FY2013
Spatial tool for evaluating air quality impacts of alternative transportation designs for input into
community health and environmental assessments
FY2013
Waste and Materials Management
Synthesis report on existing tools and state of the practice for Community decisions about
waste and materials management
FY2013
-------
Guidance and tools for communities, States and industry to reduce energy and water con-
sumed in managing materials while reducing costs, synthesis and critical evaluation of materi-
als management issues and multimedia assessment.
FY2015
Topic 4. 2 Integrated Approaches to Sustain the Built and Natural Environment and the Communities
they Support
Outcomes: The outputs developed under this theme will improve analysis of linkages between commu-
nity sectors, enhancing community sustainability. At the Regional level, analysis of linkages can be used
to support planning and permitting activities, resulting in more collaborative and sustainable solutions.
The Durham pilot project will test new multi-agent, multi-media tools for their ability to achieve the great-
est possible synergistic outcomes from sustainability practices. Results will contribute to EPA guidance
documents and incentive programs, as well as future site-specific sustainability programs. Community
decision makers will be better able to evaluate opportunities for multiple sectors and stakeholders to
achieve mutually desirable goals. Communities will be able to identify linkages among issues, resulting in
greater effectiveness and increased economic efficiency.
Outputs
Output
Year
Methods to support Total Resource Impacts and Outcomes (TRIO) Accounting
Synthesis of literature and existing case studies that summarizes the science and practical ap-
plication of various methodologies for "triple-bottom-line accounting."
FY2013
Collaborative Proof-of-concept: Durham NC
Issues linkage map that demonstrates to stakeholders and decision makers the interconnec-
tions among issues and identifies opportunities to concurrently advance the goals of multiple
interests and /or parties.
FY2013
Topic 4. 3 STAR Fellowships
Fellowships
Completed fellowships contribute toward a workforce ready to innovate and implement trans-
disciplinary approaches to a more sustainable future.
Annual
------- |