USGS Environmental Health Science 

Strategy—Providing Environmental Health 

Science for a Changing World—Public 

Review Release

By Patricia R. Bright, Herbert T. Buxton, Laurie S. Balistrieri, Larry B. Barber, 

Francis H. Chapelle, Paul C. Cross, David P. Krabbenhoft, Geoffrey S. Plumlee, 

Jonathan M. Sleeman, Donald E. Tillitt, Patricia L. Toccalino, and 

James R. Winton

Open-File Report 2012–1069

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Bright, P.R., Buxton, H.T., Balistrieri, L.S., Barber, L.B., Chapelle, F.H., Cross, P.C., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Plumlee, 

G.S., Sleeman, J.M., Tillitt, D.E., Toccalino, P.L., and Winton, J.R., 2012, USGS Environmental health science 

strategy—Providing environmental health science for a changing world—Public review release: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1069, 37 p.
iii

Foreword

In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a Bureau Science Strategy Facing Tomorrow’s 

Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017. It provided a view of the future, 

establishing science goals that reflected the USGS’s fundamental mission in areas of societal impact such 

as energy and minerals, climate and land use change, ecosystems, natural hazards, environmental health, 

and water. Intended to inform long-term program planning, the strategy emphasizes how USGS science 

can make substantial contributions to the well-being of the Nation and the world. 

In 2010, I realigned the USGS management and budget structure, changing it from a structure associated 

with scientific disciplines—Geography, Geology, Biology and Hydrology—to an issue-based organization 

along the lines of the Science Strategy. My aim was to align our management structure with our mission, our science priorities, our metrics for success, and our budget. An added benefit was that the USGS 

immediately appeared relevant to more Americans and it became easier for those outside the agency to 

navigate our organizational structure to find where within the USGS they would find the solution to their 

problem. External partners rarely approached us with a problem in “geology,” but they might need help 

with an issue in climate change or energy research. 

The new organization is focused on seven science mission areas:

•	Climate and Land Use Change

•	Core Science Systems

•	Ecosystems

•	Energy and Minerals

•	Environmental Health

•	Natural Hazards

•	Water

The scope of each of these new mission areas is broader than the science directions outlined in the USGS 

Science Strategy and together cover the scope of USGS science activities. 

In 2010, I also commissioned seven Strategic Science Planning Teams (SSPTs) to draft science strategies 

for each USGS mission area. Although the existing Bureau Science Strategy could be a starting point for 

this exercise, the SSPTs had to go well beyond the scope of the existing document. What is of value and 

enduring from the work of the programs that existed under the former science disciplines needed to be 

reframed and reinterpreted under the new organization of the science mission areas. In addition, new 

opportunities for research directions have emerged in the five years since the Bureau Science Strategy 

was drafted, and exciting possibilities for cooperating and collaborating in new ways are enabled by the 

new mission focus of the organization.

Scientists from across the Bureau were selected for these SSPTs for their experience in strategic planning, broad range of experience and expertise, and knowledge of stakeholder needs and relationships. 

Each SSPT was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) science strategy that encompasses the 

portfolio of USGS science in the respective mission area. Each science strategy will reinforce others 

because scientific knowledge inherently has significance to multiple issues. Leadership of the USGS and 

the Department of the Interior will use the science vision and priorities developed in these strategies 

for program guidance, implementation planning, accountability reporting, and resource allocation. These 

strategies will guide science and technology investment and workforce and human capital strategies. 

They will inform our partners regarding opportunities for communication, collaboration, and coordination.

The USGS has taken a significant step toward demonstrating that we are ready to collaborate on the most 

pressing natural science issues of our day and the future. I believe a leadership aligned to support these 

issue-based science directions and equipped with the guidance provided in these new science strategies 

in the capable hands of our scientists will create a new era for USGS of which we can all be proud.

Marcia McNutt 

Director
iv

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................3

Environmental Health Challenges......................................................................................................3

About This Report .................................................................................................................................6

What is Environmental Health Science? ..........................................................................................6

The USGS Role in Environmental Health Science...........................................................................7

USGS Partner and Stakeholder Relationships.................................................................................9

USGS Core Strengths, Capabilities, and Future Challenges........................................................10

Core Strengths and Capabilities..............................................................................................10

Future Challenges to Core Strengths and Capabilities........................................................11

USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals.......................................................12

Identifying USGS Environmental Health Science Goals ..............................................................12

Goal 1: Provide the Science to Identify, Prioritize, and Detect Contaminants and 

Pathogens of Emerging Environmental Concern .............................................................13

Priority Science Questions.......................................................................................................15

Strategic Science Actions .......................................................................................................15

Outcomes and Relevance ........................................................................................................16

Goal 2: Provide the Science to Reduce the Impact of Contaminants on the 

Environment, Fish, Wildlife, and People ............................................................................16

Priority Science Questions.......................................................................................................18

Strategic Science Actions .......................................................................................................19

Outcomes and Relevance ........................................................................................................21

Goal 3: Provide the Science to Reduce the Impact of Pathogens on the 

Environment, Fish, Wildlife, and People ............................................................................21

Priority Science Questions.......................................................................................................22

Strategic Science Actions .......................................................................................................22

Outcomes and Relevance ........................................................................................................25

Goal 4: Provide the Science to Discover the Complex Interactions and Combined 

Effects of Exposure to Contaminants and Pathogens.....................................................25

Priority Science Questions.......................................................................................................26

Strategic Science Actions .......................................................................................................27

Outcomes and Relevance ........................................................................................................27
v

Goal 5: Provide the Science to Prepare for and Respond to Environmental Impacts 

and Related Health Threats of Natural and Anthropogenic Disasters ........................27

Priority Science Questions.......................................................................................................29

Strategic Science Actions .......................................................................................................29

Outcomes and Relevance ........................................................................................................29

A Strategy for Communicating Science to Society................................................................................30

Strategic Actions .......................................................................................................................30

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................31

Integrating Science Across USGS............................................................................................................31

Summary of Intended Outcomes...............................................................................................................34

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................35

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................35

Figures

1. Diagram describing the impact of environmental drivers on the environment, 

the influence of these drivers on human and ecological exposure to 

contaminants and pathogens, and the complex responses to exposure 

within an organism that result in disease.................................................................................3

2. Photographic diagram depicting environmental health science as the study 

of the interrelations among the quality of the physical environment, the 

health of the living environment, and human health...............................................................7

3. Illustration showing the role of USGS in environmental health science, 

providing scientific information and tools to environmental, natural resource, 

agricultural, and public-health agencies for management and policy 

decision making ............................................................................................................................8

4. Illustration showing contaminant source pathways to the environment .........................17

5. Illustration showing infectious disease transmission pathways .......................................22

Table

1. Agents of environmentally driven disease, exposure and transmission 

pathways, and corresponding examples of diseases ............................................................4
vi

Highlights

Earth Materials, Natural Earth Processes, and Environmental Health ................................................5

Why USGS? ....................................................................................................................................................8

Native American Communities in Alaska are Inseparably Linked to Their Surrounding 

Natural Resources ...........................................................................................................................9

Providing Information About Potential Exposures to Chemicals in Drinking Water.........................10

USGS Laboratories Are OIE Collaborating Centre and Reference Laboratories ..............................11

Manufacturing Facilities Found to Release Pharmaceuticals into the Environment.......................12

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus in the Great Lakes.......................................................................13

Implications of New Fungicides in Streams............................................................................................14

Tracking Wild Birds and Avian Influenza.................................................................................................15

Endocrine Disruption in Fish Populations................................................................................................18

Anthropogenic Sources of Mercury and Methylmercury Identified in the 

North Pacific Ocean ......................................................................................................................19

Pesticides and Risk to Fish Reproduction ...............................................................................................20

Brucellosis in Wildlife and Livestock........................................................................................................21

White-Nose Syndrome in Bats..................................................................................................................23

Reduction of Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD) in Chinook Salmon......................................................24

Effects of Plague on Wildlife May Have Been Underestimated ..........................................................24

Endocrine Disruption of Immune Function in Fish..................................................................................25

Antimicrobial Resistance in the Natural Environment ..........................................................................26

Responding to Recent Wildfires and Their Potential Environmental Health Risks...........................28

U.S.-Mexico Border Health Initiative and Environmental Health-Risk Assessment 

Along the Upper Santa Cruz River...............................................................................................30

Uranium Production and Environmental Health .....................................................................................32

Sensitivity of Freshwater Mussels to Ammonia Results in Lower Water-Quality Criteria ..............33

Environmental Health and Hazards ..........................................................................................................34
USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing 

Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

By Patricia R. Bright, Herbert T. Buxton,1 Laurie S. Balistrieri,2 Larry B. Barber, 2 Francis H. Chapelle,2 Paul 

C. Cross,2 David P. Krabbenhoft,2 Geoffrey S. Plumlee,2 Jonathan M. Sleeman,2 Donald E. Tillitt,2 Patricia L. 

Toccalino,2 and James R. Winton2

1

 Co-Chair, Environmental Health Strategic Science Planning Team.

2

 Team Member, Environmental Health Strategic Science Planning Team.

Executive Summary

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have 

bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, 

wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our 

lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources 

have been maintained because of our history of respect for 

their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value 

of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence 

of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental 

exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern 

worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established 

threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes 

to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for 

land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved 

economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural 

earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events 

will add to the environmental impact of human activities. 

These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease 

agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, 

parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic 

compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study 

of relations among the quality of the physical environment, 

the health of the living environment, and human health. The 

interactions among these three spheres are driven by human 

activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; 

the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens 

and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals 

and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework 

for synthesizing natural science information from across the 

Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, 

agricultural, and public-health managers.

The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range 

of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. 

USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific 

basis for management and policy decision making. USGS 

specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by 

characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among 

the physical environment, the living environment, and people, 

and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human 

exposure to disease agents.

This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses 

the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is 

best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework 

for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and 

outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy 

is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health 

activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders.

The “One Health” paradigm advocated by the World 

Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, 

is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, 

animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, 

successful efforts to protect that health will require increased 

interdisciplinary research and increased communication and 

collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm.

The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the 

USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed 

with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. 

Vision—The USGS is a premier source of the environmental 

health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. 

Mission—The mission of USGS in environmental health 

science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, 

who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS 

provides the science to:
2 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

• Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants 

and pathogens of emerging environmental concern.

• Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the 

environment, fish, wildlife, and people.

• Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. 

• Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. 

• Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental 

impacts and related health threats of natural and 

anthropogenic disasters.

Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address 

environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic 

management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 

addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, 

an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. 

Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic 

disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats.

This strategy proposes that USGS take the following 

strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of 

this strategy: 

Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and 

pathogens of emerging environmental concern.

• Strategic Science Action 1.—Prioritize contaminants 

and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, 

detection, and management activities.

• Strategic Science Action 2.—Conduct surveillance 

and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging 

health threats. 

• Strategic Science Action 3.—Develop approaches and 

tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, 

ecosystems, and species.

Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people.

• Strategic Science Action 1.—Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of 

environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage 

and mitigate contamination.

• Strategic Science Action 2.—Evaluate the threats of 

contamination on the health of the environment, fish, 

wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts.

• Strategic Science Action 3.—Characterize potential 

human exposure to support establishment of healthbased standards or guidelines and contaminationreduction efforts.

Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, 

fish, wildlife, and people.

• Strategic Science Action 1.—Determine the biotic and 

abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious 

diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and 

terrestrial species and potential transmission to other 

animals and humans.

• Strategic Science Action 2.—Establish how natural 

and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the 

distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and 

potential transmission to other animals and humans.

• Strategic Science Action 3.—Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in 

priority geographic areas.

Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined 

effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens.

• Strategic Science Action 1.—Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or 

pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible 

to effects from exposure to the other class of disease 

agents. 

• Strategic Science Action 2.—Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined 

exposure to pathogens and contaminants.

Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts 

and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic 

disasters.

• Strategic Science Action 1.—Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the 

environmental health risks associated with disasters. 

• Strategic Science Action 2.—Enhance methods to 

anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, 

ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters.

This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies 

developed concurrently: 

• Climate and Land Use Change

• Core Science Systems

• Ecosystems

• Energy and Mineral Resources

• Environmental Health

• Natural Hazards

• Water
Introduction 3

This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The 

ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the 

environment, the health of our living resources, and human 

health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential 

for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent 

on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS 

efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental 

health issues and that products are provided in the most timely 

and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must 

reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take 

full advantage of the activities of others. 

Introduction

Environmental Health Challenges

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have 

bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, 

wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our 

lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources 

have been maintained because of our history of respect for 

their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value 

of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence 

of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental 

exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic 

changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers 

of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal 

demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, 

improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts 

associated with these demands will continue to increase. 

Natural earth processes (such as erosion and weathering), 

climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the 

environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents including 

viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural 

earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and 

synthetic chemicals and substances (fig. 1). Organisms can 

be exposed to environmental contamination through multiple 

routes of exposure (consumption, inhalation, contact) and in 

many forms (drinking water, food, air, soil, sediment, dusts, 

and other aerosols), which are affected by contaminant occurrence and distribution in the environment (table 1). Similarly, 

pathogens spread in the environment and via other living 

organisms, and are transmitted to other organisms or people 

via host-to-host transmission, vector-borne transmission, or 

environmental exposure (table 1).

Changes in the use, handling, and disposal of chemical 

wastes affects the environment, the health of fish and wildlife, 

and human health by affecting the quality of the air (and dust) 

we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we till, and the food 

we eat. Other human-induced alterations such as changes in 

land use and increasing urbanization alter fish and wildlife 

habitats and ultimately species diversity. The increasing spatial 

interconnections between human communities and natural 

and disturbed ecosystems enhance the risk of transmission 

Figure 1. Diagram describing the impact of environmental drivers on the environment, the influence of these drivers on human and 

ecological exposure to contaminants and pathogens, and the complex responses to exposure within an organism that result in disease 

(adapted from Feingold and others, 2010).

Environmental Drivers Environment Organism

Natural Earth processes

Accidental or intentional 

chemical or pathogen releases

Land use change

Resource extraction

Global travel and trade

Climate trends

Disasters

Air

Water

Soils

Sediment

Tissue

Inhalation

Contact

Drinking water

Food

Host-to-host

Vector borne

Environmental 

Media

Exposure 

Pathways •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Contaminants

Pathogens

Interactions DISEASE
Table 1. Agents of environmentally driven disease, exposure and transmission pathways, and corresponding examples of diseases.

Disease agents and 

examples

Exposure and 

transmission pathways Example diseases and agents 

Pathogens (agents of 

infectious diseases)

• Bacteria

• Viruses

• Protozoa

• Fungi

• Parasites

• Prions

Natural earth materials 

• Radionuclides 

• Metals

• Mineral dusts

Biogenic compounds

• Hormones

• Toxins

Synthetic chemicals and 

substances

• Pesticides

• Volatile organic 

chemicals

• Engineered nanomaterial

Host-to-Host • Bacterial kidney disease in fish (agent: Renibacterium salmonarium

• White-nose syndrome in bats (agent: Geomyces destructans, a fungus)

• Sarcoptic mange in wolves (agent: Sarcoptes scabiei, an arthropod 

parasite)

• Toxoplasmosis in feral cats (agent: Toxoplasmosis gondii, a protozoan 

parasite)

Vector-borne • West Nile virus (vector: mosquito)

• Lyme disease (vector: deer tick) 

• Sylvatic plague (vector: flea)

Water-borne • Arsenicosis (agent: arsenic)

• Cryptosporidiosis (agent: cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite)

• Algal toxin poisoning (agent: cyanotoxins) 

• Endocrine disruption in fish (agent: ethinyl estradiol)

• Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (agent: fish rhabdovirus)

• Liver cancer (agent: trichloroethylene)

Food-borne • Minamata disease (agent: methylmercury) 

• Gastroenteritis (agent: Norwalk-like viruses)

• Salmonellosis (agent: salmonella) 

• Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (agent: prion)

• Avian Botulism (agent: Clostridium botulinum Type C or E, a bacterium)

Air- and aerosol-borne • Highly pathogenic avian influenza (agent: the H5N1 virus) 

• Lung cancer (agent: Radon)

• Severe acute respiratory syndrome (agent: SARS coronavirus)

• Asthma and other respiratory diseases (agent: ozone and particulate 

matter)

Dust- and soil-borne • Mesothelioma, lung cancers, asbestosis (agents: asbestos, fibrous 

erionite)

• Pulmonary coccidioidomycosis “Valley Fever” (agent: Coccidioides 

immitis, a fungal spore)

• Asthma, other respiratory problems (agents: urban particulate matter, 

natural dusts)

4 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

of zoonotic diseases from wildlife 

to people. Weathering, runoff of 

natural and disturbed landscapes, 

windblown particulates, and dissolution of harmful minerals in rocks and 

aquifers, as well as the environmental disruption from natural hazards 

increase the potential for exposure 

to contaminants and pathogens. New 

approaches to meet the increasing 

demands for food, water, energy, 

and other resources can introduce 

more contamination to the 

environment and increase 

exposure to contaminants 

and pathogens. Furthermore, unprecedented 

increases in international 

travel and trade, as well 

as climate change, further 

complicate efforts to 

protect the health of the 

environment, fish, wildlife, and people. 
Introduction 5

A World Health Organization (WHO) study determined 

that an estimated 24 percent of the global burden of disease 

and 23 percent of all global deaths can be attributed to environmental factors (Prüss-Ütün and Corvalán, 2006). The threat 

of contaminants to the health of the environment and public 

health is widely acknowledged. The National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) stated “Experience 

tells us that virtually all human diseases can be caused, modified, or altered by environmental agents,” where they describe 

environmental agents as pollutants and chemicals, commercial 

products we use that enter our environment, and naturally 

occurring toxins (National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences, 2006). Only a small fraction of the 80,000 chemicals 

in use in the U.S. today have been tested for safety according 

to the 2008–2009 Annual Report of the President’s Cancer 

Panel. They said 

“A growing body of research documents myriad 

established and suspected environmental factors 

linked to genetic, immune, and endocrine dysfunction that can lead to cancer and other diseases. ... 

the consequences of cumulative lifetime exposures 

to known carcinogens and the interaction of specific 

environmental contaminants remain largely unstudied” (President’s Cancer Panel, 2010).

Continued increases in the types and number of contaminants and improved understanding of the mechanisms 

by which contaminants can cause adverse health effects are 

a challenge to continued efforts to safeguard environmental 

health. Environmental release of engineered nanomaterials is 

an example of a new type of contaminant; new approaches and 

methods are needed to measure their presence in the environment and to assess their potential ecological and human health 

effects (National Science and Technology Council, 2008). 

Scientists are reevaluating current approaches for assessing risk and the potential health outcomes associated with 

exposure to environmental contaminants (Birnbaum, 2012). 

New challenges include defining the potential health effects 

of chronic exposures to extremely low (sub part-per-billion) 

concentrations, potential increased vulnerability of some 

populations such as the elderly or early life stages, the fact 

that exposures in early life stages can cause impacts much 

later in life or in subsequent generations, and exposure to 

mixtures of environmental contaminants that have unknown 

combined effects. The effect of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on exposed organisms is an example of the need 

for improved understanding of the mechanisms by which 

contaminants affect organisms (Vandenberg and others, 2012). 

EDCs increasingly are being recognized as serious environmental health threats, and in their first Scientific Statement, the 

Endocrine Society implicated EDCs as a significant concern to 

public health (Diamanti-Kandarakis and others, 2009).

Like contaminants, pathogens threaten the health and 

security of the Nation and its resources. Of particular concern 

are pathogens that can lead to global pandemics, and they are 

featured prominently in the White House’s National Security 

Strategy (2010), the Department of Homeland Security’s 

National Response Framework (2008), and the Department 

of Health and Human Services’ National Health Security 

Strategy (2009). The majority of pathogens that infect humans 

are of animal origin (zoonotic) (Woolhouse and GowtageSequeria, 2005); the Institute of Medicine (IOM) stated “The 

significance of zoonoses in the emergence of human infections cannot be overstated” (Lederberg and others, 1992). 

Virtually all of the major pandemics to date have been caused 

by zoonotic diseases, including the Black Death, Spanish 

influenza, and HIV/AIDS (Morens and others, 2008). Between 

1940 and 2004, more than 60 percent of emerging infectious 

Earth Materials, Natural Earth Processes, 

and Environmental Health

Many earth materials have been definitively linked to or 

blamed (in some cases incorrectly) for adverse environmental health impacts. These include natural earth materials (such as volcanic ash / gases, desert dusts, bedrock 

sources for arsenic or other contaminants in drinking 

water), and earth materials extracted for use by or transformed by society (such as historic mine wastes, fossil 

fuel combustion byproducts, commercial asbestos). The 

distribution, exposure pathways, and toxicity of these and 

many other natural and anthropogenic contaminants can 

be significantly modified by natural earth processes such 

as wind transport, water transport, and biogeochemical 

reactions. USGS earth scientists routinely collaborate 

with biologists, ecologists, and public health scientists 

to help characterize ecosystem and human exposures to 

earth materials and other potential toxicants, understand 

the influence of earth processes on distributions and toxicity of contaminants, and evaluate whether or not contaminants actually pose a health risk in given situations. 

Photograph courtesy of Marith Reheis, USGS, shows 

dusts emanating from Cadiz dry lake, California. More 

information is available online at http://health.usgs.gov.
6 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

diseases were zoonotic; more than 70 percent of these originated in wildlife (Jones and others, 2008). Many emerging 

diseases, such as Ebola, HIV, Lyme disease, Severe Acute 

Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and highly pathogenic avian 

influenza (HPAI) originated in wildlife (Friend, 2006). Many 

zoonotic disease outbreaks are evident in wild animal populations before they affect people. Therefore, wildlife health 

and disease monitoring serve as early warning indicators of 

environmental and ecosystem health and are essential to any 

information system designed to protect human health. 

Diseases can no longer simply be regarded as natural 

regulators of wild populations; they often pose a serious threat 

to fish and wildlife conservation, an increasing challenge for 

natural resource management, and may threaten the health of 

humans and domesticated animals. Numerous endangered species are threatened by disease. For example, chytridiomycosis, 

caused by an emerging fungal pathogen, has resulted in global 

extinctions of amphibians, and continues to jeopardize the 

persistence of a number of species. In addition, the impacts of 

disease on populations of common species may result in major 

losses to ecosystem services on which we depend. Whitenose syndrome in bats, for instance, has resulted in dramatic 

declines of insectivorous species that control important pests. 

The loss of these natural insect predators may result in damage 

to crops and forestry products, increased use of insecticides, 

and negatively impact the economy.

Furthermore, the scientific community increasingly is 

acknowledging the complex interaction within organisms of 

exposure to both contaminants and pathogens, and considering 

implications for the health of an organism, of populations, and 

of sensitive subpopulations. Figure 1 describes how environmental drivers influence the environment, human and ecological exposure to disease agents, and ultimately the complex 

responses from exposure to contaminants and pathogens that 

result in disease. 

The “One Health” paradigm, advocated by the World 

Health Organization (WHO, 2011) and the American Veterinary Association (AVMA, 2008) among others, is based 

on recognition by the scientific community that the health of 

humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. 

Thus, successful health protection will require increased 

interdisciplinary research and increased communication and 

collaborations among the broader scientific community. This 

strategy is built upon that paradigm.

About This Report

This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses 

USGS environmental health science activities. It summarizes 

national environmental health priorities that the USGS is best 

suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for 

USGS environmental health goals, actions, and outcomes for 

the next decade. The strategy is intended to improve coordination of environmental health science activities across 

the USGS, and facilitate the dissemination of information to 

stakeholders. It identifies internal and external partnerships 

that are critical to advancing environmental health science. 

It will be used by USGS leadership in science planning and 

execution, and as a basis for budget initiatives, national guidance, and regional implementation strategies. 

In 2010, the USGS realigned its organizational structure 

by establishing seven issue-based mission areas around which 

USGS science activities are organized: 

• Climate and Land Use Change

• Core Science Systems

• Ecosystems

• Energy and Mineral Resources

• Environmental Health

• Natural Hazards

• Water

These mission areas build on the broad science themes 

outlined in the USGS 10-year Bureau-wide science strategy: 

Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey 

Science in the Decade 2007–2017 (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2007). This strategy is based specifically on the chapter titled 

The Role of the Environment and Wildlife in Human Health. 

This strategy also provides a foundation for USGS support of 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan. 

With the establishment of the Environmental Health Mission Area, for the first time, the USGS has a focal point that 

helps integrate diverse environmental health science activities 

from across the USGS. This new mission area builds upon 

USGS core responsibilities related to environmental contamination and infectious diseases in fish, wildlife, and people. 

In November 2010, the Director of the USGS commissioned a Science Strategy Planning Team to develop an 

Environmental Health Science Strategy that encompasses the 

portfolio of USGS environmental health science activities for 

the next decade (McNutt, 2010). The Team included scientists 

from across USGS with expertise in a wide range of environmental health fields, from infectious diseases of fish and 

wildlife, to environmental sources, occurrence, and adverse 

impacts of natural and anthropogenic contaminants. The Team 

defined a broad range of USGS contributions to environmental 

health science, and incorporated input from numerous USGS 

scientists and managers, partners and the public.

What is Environmental Health Science?

The USGS defines environmental health science as the 

interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the 

physical environment, the health of the living environment, 

and human health (fig. 2). 

• The quality of the physical environment includes the 

physical, chemical, and aesthetic characteristics of 

both natural environments (including those affected 
Introduction 7

by human activities) and built environments (such as 

homes and workplaces).

• The health of the living environment reflects the 

health of all organisms from microbes to fish, wildlife, 

and plants.

• People’s health and wellbeing are affected by both the 

quality of the physical environments and the health of 

the other living organisms with which they interact.

The quality of our physical environment, the health of 

our living environment, and human health are inextricably 

linked. The interactions among these three spheres are driven 

by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth 

processes. These interactions affect exposure to contaminants 

and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven 

diseases in animals and people. The significance of these 

interactions to environmental health along with the need for 

increased collaboration across disciplines increasingly is being 

acknowledged by public- and animal-health professionals, 

conservationists, and environmental scientists. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the 

physical environment, the living environment, and people, and 

the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure 

to disease agents (fig. 2).

There are many definitions of environmental health; 

the definitions vary based on the perspectives and responsibilities of the authors. The value of the broad definition 

of environmental health science presented herein is that it 

acknowledges the interactions among the environment, people, 

and other living organisms. This definition provides USGS 

with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, 

wildlife and public health managers, regulators, and scientists.

A major implication of this definition is the integration of 

the study of infectious and toxicological disease. The definition acknowledges the need to consider how contaminants and 

pathogens interact to affect an organism’s health (fig. 1). The 

need for such integration is recognized in the environmental 

health science community (Feingold and others, 2010). 

The USGS Role in Environmental Health Science

The USGS is a non-management, non-regulatory science 

agency within the DOI. The Bureau provides impartial and 

reliable scientific information on the conditions and health of 

ecosystems and the environment, on our natural resources, and 

on potential hazards that affect people. The role of USGS in 

environmental health science is providing scientific information and tools to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, 

and public-health managers. The information and tools are 

used as a scientific basis for management and policy decision 

making (fig. 3). In its current strategic plan, DOI states:

“Science is a key component of the Department of 

the Interior mission. The U.S. Geological Survey 

serves as the Department’s primary science organization ... Science is an essential, cross-cutting 

element that assists bureaus in land and resource 

management and regulation. Department science 

also reaches beyond the boundaries of Interior lands 

and the United States. ... products are available 

worldwide to provide credible, applicable, unbiased 

information to inform decision making related to 

ecosystems, climate change, land use change, energy 

and mineral assessments, environmental health, 

natural hazards, and water resources.” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010). 

USGS environmental health science activities (1) are at 

the forefront of identifying wild animal disease reservoirs and 

the sources of emerging contaminants; (2) monitor the quality 

of the environment and the health wildlife at local, regional, 

and national scales; (3) synthesize critical knowledge about 

wild animal disease transmission (including to domesticated 

animals and humans); (4) identify the environmental properties and ecological effects of natural and anthropogenic 

contaminants; (5) characterize potential human exposure to 

contaminants via drinking and recreational water, air, dust, 

soil, and sediment; (6) evaluate bioaccumulation and toxicity 

of contaminants to fish and wildlife; and 7) provide capabilities for geographic analysis and interpretation of environmental data. These agency activities are the foundation of USGS 

environmental health science. 

Figure 2. Environmental health science is the study of the 

interrelations among the quality of the physical environment, the 

health of the living environment, and human health. USGS science

focuses on the environment-health interface—the intersections of 

these three spheres.
8 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

Although the USGS does not have a direct public health 

mission, information from these activities contributes directly 

to the work of partner agencies responsible for safeguarding 

public health, as well as the health of domesticated animals. 

The information the USGS provides has added value for 

explaining the complex environmental factors that influence 

human health. USGS science is useful for defining human 

exposure to zoonotic and vector-borne diseases, parasites, 

harmful earth materials, synthetic chemicals and substances, 

and biogenic contaminants. Fish and wildlife can act as sentinels that provide valuable insight into threats to human and 

domestic animal health.

USGS science is valued by the public, industry, and regulators because it is not beholden to any particular customer 

or collaborator. As a result, USGS scientists are increasingly 

asked to serve as impartial scientific arbiters in many societally important issues.

Why USGS? 

The USGS provides science that is essential to safeguarding the health of the environment, the public, wildlife, and 

domestic animal resources. USGS environmental health 

science activities: 

1. Are at the forefront of identifying wild animal disease 

reservoirs and the sources of emerging contaminants; 

2. Monitor the quality of the environment and the health 

of wildlife at local, regional, and national scales; 

3. Synthesize critical knowledge about wild animal 

disease transmission (including to livestock and 

domestic animals and humans); 

4. Identify the environmental properties and ecological 

effects of natural and anthropogenic contaminants; 

5. Characterize potential human exposure to contaminants via drinking and recreational water, air, dust, 

soil, and sediment; 

6. Evaluate bioaccumulation and toxicity of contaminants to fish and wildlife; and

7. Provide capabilities for geographic analysis and 

interpretation of environmental data.

Figure 3. The role of USGS in environmental health science, 

providing scientific information and tools to environmental, 

natural resource, agricultural, and public-health agencies for 

management and policy decision making.

•

•

•

•

•

USGS Environmental 

Health Science Research

Decision Making to Safeguard 

Environmental Health

Environmentally Driven Diseases

Determining environmental health outcomes in terms 

of wildlife disease and potential human exposure

Environmental Disease Agents

Defining contaminant and pathogen sources, occurrence, 

and spread

Controlling Processes and Factors

Understanding the process that affect disease agents, 

exposure and health outcomes

Science Needs for:

Managing reservoirs of emerging 

pathogens and sources of emerging 

contaminants, and protecting the 

associated vulnerable areas

Managing the release, mitigation and 

remediation of the most significant 

environmental contaminants

Preventing and controlling the

transmission of infectious diseases 

among fish and wildlife, domestic 

animals, and humans

Managing the complex interactions

of exposure to combinations of

pathogens and contaminants

Mitigating the environmental health 

impacts of disasters

Management Feedback

Management Priorities and Needs
Introduction 9

Native American Communities in Alaska are Inseparably Linked to Their Surrounding Natural 

Resources

The Alaska Climate, Ecosystems and Human Health 

Work Group is providing scientific information that 

explains the relations among ecosystem impacts, 

human health, and changing climate. The Work Group 

intends to improve the quality of information, services 

and technical assistance available to Alaskans, and 

elevate awareness about climate – health connections. 

USGS participates in the Work Group, which is cochaired by the Alaska Department of Health and Social 

Services, the US Environmental Protection Agency, 

and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. The 

Work Group meets to facilitate the exchange of ideas, 

data, and research opportunities, and communicates 

key priorities and needs to the Alaska Climate Change 

Executive Roundtable and the Governor’s Sub-Cabinet 

on Climate Change. Activities of the Work Group have 

included assessing the hydrology, water quality, and 

trace elements associated with placer-mining in the 

Birch Creek Watershed of central, Alaska; evaluating contaminants in salmon and pike; assessing the 

relationship between northern pike consumption and 

human mercury exposure as indicated by concentrations in human hair; promoting environment-friendly 

methods for disposal of medications; studying zoonotic 

and animal arboviruses; testing Black Brant for Avian 

Influenza viruses; monitoring marine mammals for 

fecal pathogens known to cause illness in humans; 

and West Nile Virus and St. Louis Encephalitis surveillance in horses. Photograph courtesy of Carol Ann 

Woody, USGS. More information is available online at 

http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/chh.htm.

USGS Partner and Stakeholder Relationships

USGS provides science to managers and other decision 

makers at all levels of government (federal, state, territorial, 

tribal, and local). These include agencies within DOI, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Department of Defense, the Department 

of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 

State. Additionally, it is critical for USGS to improve coordination and collaboration with other science agencies that provide science to decision makers, particularly in areas outside 

of the usual scope of USGS activities, such as the health of 

people and domesticated animals.

The USGS Environmental Health Mission Area is committed to strengthening relationships with established partners 

and exploring new partnership opportunities. Fostering strong 

alliances with environmental, public health, and domesticanimal health agencies is essential to ensure that (1) capabilities for identifying emerging environmental health threats 

are enhanced; (2) resources are leveraged among partners; 

(3) data gaps are identified and filled; and (4) information is 

made available in a useful and timely manner. Coordination 

among government partners, academia, and non-governmental 

organizations also will be essential in enabling efficient linkages between science needs and resource investments. These 

alliances will require cooperation and regular communication 

to set priorities, plan and conduct joint research, and disseminate information.
10 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

USGS Core Strengths, Capabilities, and Future 

Challenges

Core Strengths and Capabilities

The ability of USGS to address a wide range of environmental health science issues is enhanced by (1) an interdisciplinary workforce with diverse expertise; (2) a distributed 

national presence and infrastructure; and (3) significant capabilities for data collection, analysis, and synthesis. 

1. Interdisciplinary workforce with diverse expertise:

• Expertise in characterizing the sources, occurrence, 

behavior, toxicological characteristics, and ecological 

impacts of natural and anthropogenic contaminants in 

the environment.

• Expertise in developing indicators (benchmarks) of 

environmental health.

• Expertise in the diagnosis, pathology, epidemiology, 

and ecology of infectious diseases, including the development of animal models relevant to both aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms.

• Knowledge of the influence of environmental and earth 

processes on the spread and distribution of disease 

agents. 

• Expertise in characterizing the environmental and 

related health effects of a wide range of human activities, natural processes (weathering, erosion, landslides, 

and climatic variability), and disasters (earthquakes, 

volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, 

droughts, pandemics, and biological threats).

• Expertise related to the economic valuation of ecosystem services. 

• Expertise in developing techniques and models to characterize novel and emerging pathogens and contaminants. 

• Project teams that employ interdisciplinary approaches.

2. National presence and infrastructure:

• A nationally distributed staff of scientists who collect environmental data with spatially and temporally 

consistent protocols.

• Databases that provide real-time and long-term environmental information and data ranging from local to 

national spatial scales.

• Internationally recognized research laboratories that 

develop and provide state-of-the-art methods to measure new and understudied disease agents. 

• The ability to conduct landscape-scale assessments 

across state and international boundaries.

3. Capabilities for data integration:

• Ability to synthesize spatially diverse environmental 

data with information on ecosystem characteristics, 

human demographics, and landscape changes.

• Ability to integrate and model environmental data on 

the causes and effects of environmental stressors, and 

compare outcomes of alternative management strategies.

• Ability to integrate research, data, and knowledge 

across a wide range of scales from investigation and 

monitoring at a site to development of approaches to 

apply remotely sensed data and mapping tools to environmental health threats across the Nation.

Providing Information About Potential 

Exposures to Chemicals in Drinking Water

USGS provides data at national and regional scales on 

unregulated contaminants in sources of drinking water. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses USGS 

data on the occurrence of these contaminants in water 

resources to fulfill part of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

requirements for determining whether specific contaminants should be regulated in drinking water from public 

water supplies. Local health officials and the public also 

use USGS data to make decisions about the use of drinking water from untreated domestic wells. Photograph 

courtesy of iStock Photographs. More information is available online at http://health.usgs.gov/dw_contaminants/.
Introduction 11

Future Challenges to Core Strengths and 

Capabilities

USGS will be challenged by rapid advances in scientific technologies, fundamental scientific understanding, and 

evolving interdisciplinary approaches to environmental health 

problems. The next decade will require close attention to 

maintaining a technically proficient workforce with skills in 

integrating interdisciplinary science. It will also require wise 

investments of resources in technologies that enable innovative approaches to the highest priority problems. Ultimately, 

it will require building capacity and mechanisms for delivering resource science that is timely, relevant, and adds value to 

decision making. 

USGS will need increased capabilities and methodologies related to, genetics and genomics, modeling and risk 

analysis to understand the epidemiology of environmentally 

driven diseases. Understanding the factors that influence 

pathogens and contaminants of emerging concern will require 

increased expertise in atmospheric/meteorological processes, 

disease ecology, pathology, and bioinformatics. Taking full 

advantage of the newest capabilities in remote sensing will be 

essential. A complete understanding of the effects of contaminants and the interactions of multiple contaminants will 

require mechanistic understanding of the mode of action at 

the cellular, organismal, and population levels. Chemical and 

pharmacological modeling of fate and effects of biologically 

active contaminants will need to be integrated with models of 

physical processes that affect environmental transport. USGS 

also will be challenged with maintaining specialized laboratories to investigate emerging biohazardous agents that threaten 

environmental health and National security.

It will be essential for USGS to achieve the capabilities 

to anticipate and measure environmental contaminants at concentrations necessary to assess potential ecological and human 

health effects and guide pollution prevention, management, 

and mitigation actions. Perhaps the best example of this is the 

ability to analyze the impact of environmental contaminants 

measured at sub part-per-trillion levels—measurements that 

were not possible a decade ago. Measuring new substances 

that could potentially contaminate the environment, such as 

engineered nanomaterial, likely will require completely new 

technologies. High-throughput tools for genetic characterizations will enable assessment of the wide combinations of 

disease agents that are potential environmental health threats. 

Similarly, methods to conduct high-throughput testing using 

assays of biological activity will be essential in identifying 

priority contaminants. Broad application of such tools can 

indicate the biological mechanisms of action and potential 

adverse biological outcomes of specific chemicals, mixtures of 

chemicals found in the environment, and actual environmental 

media (water, sediment, or soil).

Research into the infectious diseases of fish and wildlife 

requires specialized instrumentation and equipment in highly 

specialized laboratory settings. For USGS to continue to be a 

global leader in the field of environmental science, we must 

maintain our capabilities and stay abreast of new and innovative techniques and technologies. This means leveraging 

resources with government and university partners and making 

investments wisely to avoid duplication while targeting the 

highest priority science needs for the future.

USGS Laboratories Are OIE Collaborating 

Centre and Reference Laboratories

USGS laboratories provide specialized expertise to the 

international animal health community through collaboration with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), 

an international organization that enhances intergovernmental coordination on global disease incidents and 

facilitates safe trade of animals and animal products. A 

critical component of the OIE is its network of Collaborating Centres and Reference Laboratories–an elite group 

of institutions with specific animal health expertise. 

The USGS National Wildlife Health Center serves as an 

OIE Collaborating Centre for research and diagnosis 

of pathogens of wildlife. The USGS Western Fisheries 

Research Center is an OIE Reference Laboratory that 

provides international expertise on infectious haematopoietic necrosis (a viral disease) and bacterial kidney 

disease of fish. Photograph courtesy of Gail MoedeRogall, USGS. More information is available online at 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/ and http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.
12 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

USGS Environmental Health Science 

Vision, Mission, and Goals

Identifying USGS Environmental Health Science 

Goals

This section describes five USGS environmental health 

science goals. These goals were identified using the following 

criteria.

• Achieving the goal will address critical environmental 

health science knowledge gaps.

• The USGS has a well-defined role and the necessary 

interdisciplinary expertise to carry out the goal.

• Achieving the goal is realistic in terms of the state-ofscience, and will contribute substantially to safeguarding the health and prosperity of the Nation. 

• Each goal optimizes USGS opportunities to leverage 

robust partnerships with, and provide critical technical assistance to, natural resource and public health 

managers and regulators. 

• The combined goals must focus USGS science on the 

highest priority environmental health issues facing the 

Nation. 

The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the 

USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed 

with significant input from a broad range of stakeholders as 

well as from scientists and managers across USGS. 

Vision—USGS is a premier source of the environmental 

health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. 

Mission—The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, 

natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, 

who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS 

provides the science to:

• Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants 

and pathogens of emerging environmental concern.

• Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the 

environment, fish, wildlife, and people.

• Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. 

• Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. 

• Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental 

impacts and related health threats of natural and 

anthropogenic disasters.

Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to 

address environmental health threats in a logical order from 

informing prevention and preparedness to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. The 

results from Goal 1 will be used to prioritize research conducted to address goals 2 and 3. Goals 2 and 3 are intended to 

provide the systematic research, national assessment activities, 

and fundamental knowledge to determine effective, long-term 

management strategies. Goal 4 acknowledges the increasing 

biological complexity surrounding the understanding of the 

combined effects exposure to contaminants and pathogens. 

Manufacturing Facilities Found to Release 

Pharmaceuticals into the Environment

USGS discovered that pharmaceutical manufacturing 

facilities can be a significant source of pharmaceuticals 

to aquatic environments. Effluents from two wastewater 

treatment plants that receive discharge from pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities had 10 to 1,000 times 

higher concentrations of pharmaceuticals than effluents 

from wastewater treatment plants across the Nation that 

do not receive pharmaceutical manufacturing facility 

discharge (Phillips and others, 2010). The drugs included 

a muscle relaxant, an opioid prescribed for pain relief and 

drug withdrawal, a stimulant prescribed for obesity, and 

a barbiturate. USGS has been investigating the sources, 

distribution, and effects of pharmaceuticals and other 

emerging contaminants since the late 1990’s. Photograph 

shows USGS hydrologic technicians sampling Hallocks 

Mill Brook, New York, downstream of the outfall of a 

wastewater treatment plant receiving discharge from a 

pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. Photograph courtesy of Patrick Phillips, USGS. Additional information is 

available online at http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/PMFs.

html.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 13

Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic 

disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse health 

threats and add a significant additional complication in efforts 

to protect the health of the environment, wildlife, and people. 

The knowledge and understanding gained in achieving Goals 1 

through 4 will be essential in preparing for and mitigating the 

adverse environmental impacts of disasters (Goal 5). The goals 

are not intended to be equal in terms of the level of resources 

invested; however, they each identify critical environmental 

health science needs. Goals 1 and 5 are rapid response preparatory goals. Goals 2, 3, and 4 are foundational goals and by 

nature larger in scope and level of resource investment.

Goal 1: Provide the Science to Identify, 

Prioritize, and Detect Contaminants and 

Pathogens of Emerging Environmental Concern

Emergence of environmentally driven diseases constitute 

a critical and growing threat to environmental health—including the health of fish, wildlife, and people. There is a growing 

consensus among the scientific and health communities that 

threats from emerging disease agents will continue to increase 

and the health risks and economic vulnerability of our interconnected planet will grow.

Historically, scientists have relied on established 

monitoring programs to assess changes in the environmental 

conditions that affect environmentally driven disease—an 

approach that allows us to “react” to past changes, but leaves 

a significant scientific gap in the Nation’s ability to “identify 

and anticipate” emerging health threats. As the number of 

environmental health threats continues to grow and become 

increasingly complex, informed decision making and early 

action will be critical for timely and cost-effective prevention 

and mitigation. 

Emerging infectious diseases can have devastating effects 

on wildlife conservation, such as white-nose syndrome (WNS) 

in bat populations in the United States. Other factors that 

reduce population resilience (such as the sub-lethal effects 

of contaminants and reductions in genetic diversity) further 

increase the vulnerability of free-ranging aquatic and terrestrial species to infectious pathogens. Consequently, diseases 

can no longer simply be regarded as natural regulators of wild 

populations; they now pose a serious threat to fish and wildlife 

conservation and increasing challenges for natural resource 

management. The availability of effective wildlife disease 

management tools is limited. The few options that do exist 

(such as population reduction, use of vaccines or other biologics, and environmental modification) are expensive, often 

lack any assurance of success, and can be environmentally 

unsound, as well as unpalatable to the general public. 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus in the 

Great Lakes

Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) is among 

the most important viral pathogens of finfish—causing 

losses in both freshwater and marine species. In 2005–06, 

VHSV emerged in the Great Lakes Basin, causing a 

series of large fish kills. As of June 2011, the virus has 

been found in 31 species of fish from Lake Superior, 

Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, 

Lake Ontario, the Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers, 

and inland lakes in New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and 

Ohio. Significant outbreaks affected muskellunge (Esox 

masquinongy), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), 

goby (Neogobius melanostomus), burbot (Lota lota), 

yellow perch (Perca flavescens), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

dolomieu). Work by USGS scientists in collaboration with 

state, federal and Canadian partners focuses on: developing improved diagnostic methods, determining methods 

for disinfection of eggs, testing for vertical (intra ovum) 

transmission, and using molecular tools to identify and 

track strains of the virus. Genetic sequence analysis of 

more than 100 VHSV isolates from 37 locations in the 

Great Lakes Basin revealed a very low level of genetic 

diversity consistent with a recent, single introduction of 

the virus to a naïve population of fish. Photo, courtesy of 

Andrew Noyes, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, shows gizzard shad mortality event, 

Lake Erie. Additional information is available online at 

http://wfrc.usgs.gov/fieldstations/hq/vhs.html.
14 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

The majority (60.3 percent) of emerging diseases identified in the last century were zoonotic—caused by pathogens 

originating from animals or animal products. Furthermore 

71.8 percent of these zoonotic events originated in wildlife species (Jones and others, 2008). In the 21st century, 

approaches to evaluate health risks will have to consider 

increasing human populations; expanding urban centers; 

increasing interaction among people, wildlife, and livestock; 

global change; and movement of humans, animals, and food 

products.

Emerging threats from non-native and novel infectious 

diseases are of particular concern because animal and human 

populations are less likely to have developed immunity to the 

pathogen. As illustrated by West Nile virus, the introduction of 

a non-native invasive pathogen into the U.S. can be difficult to 

control and can have severe ecological and economic impacts. 

Similarly, the H5N1 Asian strain of highly pathogenic avian 

influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) are 

examples of diseases that can spread rapidly across the global, 

emphasizing the need for prediction, early detection, and rapid 

response when new diseases arise.

The identification of the emerging environmental contaminants that constitute a significant ecological and human health 

concern requires determining (1) the levels at which exposure 

poses a health concern, and (2) whether there is risk of exposure at or above the levels of concern. Gathering knowledge 

on potential contaminants that are newly developed and have 

limited or no available data is extremely challenging. Our 

past experience with legacy contaminants, such as persistent 

organic pollutants, contaminants that associate with sediment, contaminants that enter large groundwater systems, and 

contaminants that do not exhibit predictable environmental 

behavior, has shown that once released into the environment, 

management, removal or remediation can be expensive and 

difficult, if not impossible. In many cases, however, the need 

for information is only recognized after a contaminant is 

observed in the environment or an adverse toxicological effect 

is suspected. Therefore, a management approach that emphasizes both pollution prevention and rapid response to emerging environmental contaminants is essential, and the need for 

scientific information to support this management approach 

will only continue to grow in magnitude and complexity.

Our experience with pharmaceuticals and endocrinedisrupting chemicals in the environment has demonstrated the 

need for scientific vigilance regarding emerging environmental 

issues. The discovery of widespread occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the Nation’s streams (Kolpin and others, 2002) 

demonstrated that even chemicals that we use in very small 

amounts in our homes can enter the environment and warrant 

serious evaluation as a potential health concern. Furthermore, 

models that predict the occurrence of environmental contaminants are challenged by the complexities of source pathways 

and transport processes. For example, models of pharmaceuticals in the environment have not adequately addressed 

potential pharmaceutical losses from manufacturing facilities, 

land-applied biosolids, and use of pharmaceuticals in animal 

agriculture, and suffer from a lack of knowledge of transport 

behavior and degradation byproducts.

Society is continually developing diverse new technologies and materials to enhance our way of life. These can 

include new forms of energy production, new methods of mineral and energy resource extraction, use of new materials in 

telecommunications and electronics, new approaches to food 

production, and the increasingly widespread development and 

use of nanomaterial. Many of these technologies may require 

increased consumption of new synthetic chemicals or exotic 

metals such as tellurium, gallium, and rare earth elements. 

The environmental behavior of many of these technologically 

important chemicals and metals are poorly understood, and 

very little is known about their potential toxicological effects 

on humans and other organisms.

Implications of New Fungicides in Streams

In a 5-year period (2004 to 2009), the application of fungicides increased from less than 2 percent to 25–30 percent 

of the 89 million hectares of corn, soybean, and wheat 

planted in the United States. Fungicides are also used on 

turf and a variety of fruit and vegetable crops, such as 

almonds, apples, grapes, lettuce, peanuts, potatoes, and 

tomatoes. The number of fungicides used has increased 

significantly since 2002. In a recent study, USGS scientists 

detected one or more fungicides, including azoxystrobin, 

metalaxyl, propiconazole, myclobutanil, and tebuconazole, in 20 of 29 U.S. streams sampled during 2005 and 

2006 in areas where soybeans are grown. This was the 

first time that some of these fungicides were detected in 

the environment. Mixtures of fungicides were common. 

The potential impact of these fungicides on non-target 

organisms, such as the gut fungi of insects, is being 

investigated. This information is relied on to guide pesticide use practices and registrations. Photo, courtesy of 

Dana Kolpin, USGS, shows aerial spraying of fungicides in 

Iowa. More information is available online at http://toxics.

usgs.gov/highlights/fungicides_streams.html.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 15

Priority Science Questions

• How do we identify emerging contaminants and pathogens that are likely to become environmental, ecological, and human health threats?

• What are the major sources of emerging contaminants 

or reservoirs of emerging pathogens, and how will they 

change in the future?

• What new classes of contaminants and (or) pathways 

of contamination to the environment will occur in the 

next decade?

• What is the risk of exposure to emerging contaminants 

and do we anticipate adverse biological outcomes?

• What factors promote the movement and establishment 

of new pathogens?

• Which host species and (or) regions are most at-risk for 

disease introductions or high-consequence diseases?

• Can sentinel organisms be used to provide an early 

warning of emerging environmentally driven diseases?

Strategic Science Actions

USGS will (1) prioritize contaminants and pathogens 

of emerging concern to guide research and management 

activities, (2) conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide 

early warning of emerging health threats, and (3) develop 

approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental 

settings, ecosystems, and species. Information from these 

efforts will help focus the attention of the scientific community 

on the Nation’s highest priority emerging environmental health 

threats, and enable timely, proactive management action.

Strategic Science Action 1.—Prioritize contaminants and 

pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, 

and management activities.

• Coordinate with other federal agencies to develop 

methods for prioritizing pathogens and contaminants 

of emerging concern. Information essential for prioritization is distributed widely among multiple federal 

agencies. USGS will encourage, and where appropriate, lead efforts to integrate such information and 

apply it to effective prioritization based on the most 

likely potential health concerns. USGS will use this 

prioritization to develop measurement methods and 

field efforts to monitor contaminants and pathogens of 

emerging concern. 

• Utilize knowledge of the life cycles chemicals and 

other materials (such as nanomaterial) to identify 

point-source and nonpoint-source pathways of release 

to the environment. Use this knowledge to inform the 

design of monitoring efforts intended to identify which 

contaminants enter the environment, the pathways to 

the environment that may be of significant concern, 

and the complex contaminant mixtures that may enter 

the environment via these pathways.

• Enhance USGS disease diagnostic capabilities to 

provide early detection of emerging environmentally 

driven diseases in aquatic and terrestrial organisms that 

will be used for systematic disease surveillance.

Tracking Wild Birds and Avian Influenza

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) can devastate 

wild bird populations and infect poultry and humans. The 

HPAI H5N1 virus continues to reemerge across much of 

Eurasia and Africa. Since 2003, H5N1 has killed more than 

340 people, including 18 in 2010, and has led to the culling 

of more than 250 million domestic poultry. Although the 

disease is not efficiently transmitted between humans, 

public health officials worry that the H5N1 could mutate 

into a more transmissible form, possibly leading to a 

pandemic. The USGS and its partners have been using 

satellite telemetry to track movements of waterfowl 

and shorebirds within Asia (the likely source of H5N1), 

and conducting surveillance for the virus along migratory routes to the United States and within Alaska. This 

surveillance work improves both our ability to assess the 

risk of H5N1 entering the U.S. and our chances of early 

detection. Photograph courtesy of John Takekawa, USGS, 

shows a bar-headed goose (Anser indicus) equipped with 

a miniaturized global positioning system (GPS) satellite 

transmitter being released in Koonthankulum Sanctuary, 

India.
16 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

• Improve capabilities to conduct forensic studies to 

identify unknown contaminants and contaminant mixtures in various environmental samples to aid in the 

identification of contaminants that enter and persist in 

environmental media.

• Develop screening tools to test for the biological 

activity of contaminated environmental media, and 

work with other federal agencies, including NIEHS 

and USEPA, which are developing and applying 

high-throughput screening techniques to evaluate the 

biological activity of individual chemicals.

Strategic Science Action 2.—Conduct surveillance and monitoring efforts to provide early warning of emerging health 

threats.

• Conduct surveillance and monitoring to establish 

baseline conditions of environmentally driven disease 

and disease agents, and measure trends; develop the 

needed measurement methods and field approaches; 

and rely on indicators to identify multiple sources and 

the associated mixtures of contaminants and pathogens 

in the environment.

• Develop and implement real-time monitoring and surveillance techniques that employ indicators of potential 

health threats and can be used specifically to provide 

early warning of rapid-onset threats, such as to drinking water or biosecurity.

• Utilize risk analysis, statistical, and epidemiological 

techniques to target surveillance and mitigation activities to the geographic areas and populations with the 

highest likelihood of disease emergence.

• Identify environmental contaminants of emerging 

concern by combining (1) environmental monitoring 

data, which define the concentrations and mixtures 

of contaminants to which ecosystems and people are 

exposed, and (2) the results of screening tools, which 

estimate biological activity of contaminants and contaminant mixtures.

Strategic Science Action 3.—Develop approaches and tools 

that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, 

and species.

• Develop models and other forecasting tools that identify emerging environmental health threats, vulnerable 

ecosystems, susceptible species, and pathways for 

human exposure. Models of contaminants will build 

upon existing knowledge of contaminant sources and 

the hydrologic, atmospheric, and geologic processes 

that affect the transport and fate of contaminants in 

the environment. Models of pathogens should build 

upon existing knowledge of disease reservoirs and the 

environmental factors that affect disease epidemiology 

and etiology.

• Provide decision makers and other stakeholders with 

access to the latest USGS information on emerging 

environmental health threats within the decision framework that the information is used and using bioinformatics to increase availability and usability.

Outcomes and Relevance

Prevention of environmentally driven disease (resulting 

from exposure to environmental contaminants and pathogens) 

is the ultimate desired outcome of the aforementioned USGS 

strategic science actions. However, agents of environmentally 

driven disease are often released into the environment before 

management actions can prevent that from happening. Therefore, the information and tools resulting from these actions 

also are intended to identify high-risk ecosystems, populations 

and environmental settings, to guide response activities, and to 

minimize environmentally driven disease. Environmental data 

on new or emerging environmental health threats, risk-analysis 

and disease-management tools, information on potential 

exposure pathways, and improved knowledge of pathogen reservoirs and contaminant sources are all essential to effective, 

proactive, preventive management strategies and will enable 

managers to prevent or minimize environmental contamination 

and respond rapidly to emerging diseases. 

Goal 2: Provide the Science to Reduce the 

Impact of Contaminants on the Environment, 

Fish, Wildlife, and People

Modern human societies produce large amounts of a 

diverse array of chemicals and other substances that are used 

in manufacturing, agriculture, medical treatment, transportation, construction, and other applications. There are many 

pathways by which contaminants can enter the environment 

(fig. 4). Some of these substances, such as fertilizers and 

pesticides, are intentionally released into the environment and 

can become problematic if improperly used or handled. Other 

chemicals or substances are released into the environment 

as byproducts of human activities and can be problematic, 

such as wastes from fossil fuel combustion, and numerous 

chemicals found in household products associated with treated 

wastewaters (for example detergents, fire retardants, and 

pharmaceuticals). Additional contaminants, such as metals, 

minerals, petroleum products, solvents, and other commercial 

or industrial substances, are not intended for release but nevertheless find their way into the environment due to unintended, 

accidental, or malicious releases. Finally, naturally occurring 

earth processes such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, erosion by wind and water, and chemical weathering of rocks also 

deliver mineral, chemical, and radionuclide contamination to 

the environment.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 17

Many natural and anthropogenic contaminants can have 

toxic effects on individual organisms and adversely affect populations, ecosystems, and thus environmental health. Whether 

a particular contaminant is harmful to wildlife or human health 

depends on the contaminant’s chemical form, concentration, 

and toxicity in the environmental media (such as soils, water, 

or air) through which organisms are exposed. Other factors 

that influence the adverse effects of these contaminants include 

the susceptibility of individuals and the frequency and (or) 

duration of exposure to contaminated media (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). Furthermore, the sensitivity 

of an organism to a contaminant can be significantly different 

at different life stages. Often, embryonic, prenatal, perinatal, 

or juvenile life stages are the most sensitive to contaminant 

exposures, which can affect development of individuals later 

in life as well as future generations. However, all life stages 

can include critical biological processes that can be disrupted 

by contaminant exposure. Thus, exposure histories of aquatic 

and terrestrial organisms as well as humans are an important 

part of identifying mechanisms of biological activity, susceptible life stages, and thresholds for adverse impacts.

The manner in which organisms are exposed to natural or 

anthropogenic contaminants depends on a spectrum of factors 

and processes. These factors include sources and loads of contaminants to the environment; the physical and biogeochemical mechanisms that transport the contaminants from the point 

of release to the point of exposure; the chemical speciation of 

the contaminant and resulting byproducts; and the contaminant 

mixtures found in the environment to which organisms are 

exposed. 

Other stresses on ecosystems, such as the general effects 

of increased development on habitat or pressures from invasive species, also can influence the vulnerability of species to 

environmental contamination. While characterization of the 

myriad stresses on ecosystems and their associated impacts 

are not part of this strategy, close coordination with research 

conducted by the USGS Ecosystems Science Strategy will be 

essential for the success of both strategies.

Our experience with endocrine-disrupting chemicals 

(EDCs) has demonstrated several new and important considerations for environmental contaminants. It has shown that 

very low (sub part-per billion, ppb) concentrations of some 

chemicals can cause significant adverse effects. Although we 

thought that adverse health effects occurred largely at concentrations above a ppb, exposure to potent EDCs at concentrations that are 1,000 times lower can have adverse ecological 

health effects (Kidd and others, 2007). Our experience with 

EDCs also has reinforced the importance of the timing of 

exposure, especially in terms of sensitive, early life stages, 

when disruption of chemical signaling related to development 

can have significant impacts later in life (Diamanti-Kandarakis 

and others, 2009). Additionally, it has demonstrated that the 

effects of exposure to contaminant mixtures can be significantly different, and sometimes greater than, the effects of 

exposure to individual contaminants (Brian and others, 2005), 

even when the level of each individual contaminant is low. 

The USEPA has adopted a new drinking-water strategy that 

Figure 4. Contaminant source pathways to the environment.

Stack

emissions Waste water

treatment plant

discharge

Cropland with 

applied pesticides, 

manure, biosolids 

and fertilizer

Residential 

leach and

septic

Industrial

discharges and

urban runoff

Mine and 

mineralized

rock drainage

Animal feeding 

operations

SEEPAGE SEEPAGE SEEPAGE

WATER TABLE WATER TABLE

WIND

WIND

RUNOFF

RUNOFF

RUNOFF
18 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

addresses contaminants as groups rather than one at a time to 

enhance drinking-water protection. The new strategy focuses 

on contaminants in groups that have similar health endpoints, 

and can be measured and treated using the same methods and 

approaches (USEPA, 2010).

The USGS has a well-established role in characterizing 

the causes and mechanisms of environmental contamination, 

the effects of contaminants on aquatic and terrestrial organisms, and human exposure through various environmental 

media. The USGS is frequently asked to help public health 

scientists understand the nature and toxicological implications of human exposures to environmental contaminants. As 

a result, the USGS is well positioned to address a variety of 

priority science questions that focus on the need to understand 

the linkages between sources of natural and anthropogenic 

contaminants, their physical, chemical, and toxicological characteristics, exposure routes to organisms, and the susceptibility 

and sensitivity of organisms at different life stages.

Priority Science Questions

• What classes of natural and anthropogenic contaminants have the greatest long-term impact on environmental quality and the health of aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms and humans?

• What are the most important sources of contaminants 

to the environment, and what actions can be taken to 

mitigate environmental contamination? What contaminant mixtures are observed in common environmental 

settings, reflecting an integration of numerous disparate contaminant sources?

• How does the chemical species or form of a contaminant and the associated properties influence its 

distribution and persistence in the environment, and its 

adverse health effects on exposed organisms?

Endocrine Disruption in Fish Populations

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are important environmental contaminants because they have the ability to interfere 

with normal function of the endocrine system, thus altering reproduction, development, and immune system integrity. EDCs 

include naturally occurring chemicals produced by animals (hormones) and plants (phytoestrogens), as well as synthetic 

hormones and other chemicals used in commercial products, household products, and in agriculture, which can mimic 

or block the function of natural hormones within an organism. USGS scientists have identified sources and occurrence of 

some EDCs in ground and surface waters across the Nation. USGS has also been investigating reproductive anomalies, 

such as intersex, in fish populations believed to be associated with EDCs. The graphic shows the occurrence of intersex in 

smallmouth bass (SMB), largemouth bass (LMB) and other fish across the Nation (Hinck and others, 2009). Targeted field 

investigations of endocrine 

disruption in fish continue in 

the Potomac River, Boulder 

Creek, Rio Grande, and other 

locations in the U.S. These 

field investigations document fish kills, reproductive 

anomalies (intersex), the 

cause-and-effect linkages 

between exposure to EDCs 

and endocrine disruption, and 

threshold concentrations of 

EDCs that affect fish populations. This science is being 

used by resource managers 

to minimize release of EDCs to 

the environment and to protect 

wildlife and human health. 

More information is available 

online at http://www.cerc.

usgs.gov/Content/UploadedFiles/ExternalDocs/bass_intersex-09-rev.pdf.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 19

• What environmental processes and factors influence 

the transport and fate of contaminants in the environment and the vulnerability of organisms to contaminant 

exposure?

• What are the modes of action of contaminants on vulnerable organisms, which contaminants have similar 

modes of action, and how will contaminants interact 

biologically?

• What are the acute and chronic thresholds for adverse 

health effects (both lethal and sub-lethal) in aquatic 

and terrestrial organisms for both individual contaminants and contaminant mixtures—including at 

sensitive life stages? How do we assess the potential 

impact of long-term low-level exposures?

• What non-disease (for example, behavioral, reproductive, and developmental) biological outcomes result 

from exposure of aquatic and terrestrial organisms to 

environmental contamination?

• What biological outcomes have population-level 

effects?

Strategic Science Actions

A strength of USGS environmental health activities is 

a basis in field studies that characterize the range of actual 

environmental conditions across numerous settings. USGS 

field-based studies are intended to identify both common and 

unusual circumstances. Often the most important environmental circumstances are not common or typical; however, they 

pose the most significant environmental health threat. USGS 

field-based studies provide a foundation upon which laboratory and modeling studies are designed and implemented to 

support and generalize results to other similar settings across 

the Nation. USGS will (1) systematically characterize the 

sources, occurrence, transport, and fate of environmental 

contaminants, (2) evaluate the ecological health threats of 

environmental contamination to inform efforts to protect 

ecological health and threatened and endangered species, 

and (3) characterize potential human exposure to support the 

establishment of health standards and contamination reduction 

efforts.

Anthropogenic Sources of Mercury and 

Methylmercury Identified in the North 

Pacific Ocean

About 40 percent of all mercury exposure experienced 

by U.S. citizens results from the consumption of fish from 

the Pacific Ocean. Until recently, it was believed that 

the primary mercury source was geologic, such as from 

deep-sea vents. A paradigm-changing study conducted 

by the USGS and its partners revealed the causal source 

is recent atmospheric mercury emissions. Mercury 

deposited to oceans settles to depths where it is converted to methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury 

that accumulates in food webs. These findings link 

contemporaneous sources to human exposure (consumable fish) and document how large water bodies can be 

far more responsive to changes in loading than previously 

thought. The authors showed that mercury concentrations in the Pacific Ocean have increased by 30 percent in 

the past 20 years, and estimated an additional 50 percent 

increase by 2050 if mercury emission rates continue as 

projected. Understanding the linkage between sources 

and exposure helps decision makers evaluate the tradeoffs between human exposure and future emissions. 

The photo, courtesy of William Landing, Florida State 

University, shows scientists on the vessel R/V Thomas 

G. Thompson (Office of Naval Research) lowering a 

“rosette” of 12 Niskin bottles to sample water at various 

ocean depths. Additional Information is available online at 

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/pacific_mercury.html.
20 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

Strategic Science Action 1.—Systematically characterize 

the sources, occurrence, transport, and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate 

contamination.

• Characterize the national occurrence and distribution 

of priority natural and anthropogenic contaminants in 

environmental settings that integrate numerous contaminant sources and a range of exposure pathways, 

including the quantification of contaminant mixtures 

in various environmental media (air, soil, dust, rock, 

surface water, sediment, and tissue) and in vulnerable 

species and at-risk human populations.

• Provide a national assessment of point, non-point, and 

natural contamination sources to the environment, 

which documents the contaminant mixtures and loads 

from various sources, and relates that information to 

environmental occurrence data. 

• Identify and quantify the physical and biogeochemical processes that affect the transport, transformation, 

and fate of environmental contaminants within aquatic 

environments, terrestrial environments, and the atmosphere.

• Develop contaminant occurrence and distribution models that integrate knowledge of contaminant sources, 

occurrence, properties, and transport processes in order 

to identify important environmental contaminants, 

to quantify exposure pathways, to determine how to 

mitigate contaminant releases to the environment, and 

to determine how to manage existing contamination.

• Identify environmental settings and geographic areas 

that are particularly vulnerable to environmental contamination and identify vulnerable species and at-risk 

human populations associated with these settings. 

Strategic Science Action 2.—Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and 

people and inform the associated management and protection 

efforts.

• Conduct coordinated field and laboratory studies that 

(1) define exposure routes through various environmental media, (2) define toxicity thresholds for 

individual contaminants and mixtures, and (3) identify 

critical life stages of contaminant exposure in vulnerable aquatic and terrestrial species.

• Characterize the potential additive, synergistic, 

antagonistic, and potentiating effects of contaminants 

commonly found to co-occur in the environment, and 

integrate this knowledge into assessments and models 

of susceptibility, vulnerability, and the range of anticipated biological outcomes for aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms.

• Identify frequently detected contaminants for which 

toxicity benchmarks are not available, and collaborate 

with partner agencies to prioritize the development of 

benchmarks for targeted contaminants.

• Construct models designed to predict the effects of 

contaminant exposure on populations of aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms.

Strategic Science Action 3.—Characterize potential human 

exposure to support establishment of health standards and 

contamination-reduction efforts.

Pesticides and Risk to Fish Reproduction

USGS scientists recently found that atrazine, one of the most widely used pesticides in the Nation, reduced reproduction 

in fathead minnows by disrupting egg production (Tillitt and others, 2010). To estimate the risk that atrazine poses to native 

fish, USGS modeled annual maximum 

21-day average concentrations of 

atrazine in surface water (Stone 

and others, 2008) to compare to fish 

toxicity thresholds. The resulting map 

identifies large regions of the country 

where the concentrations of atrazine in surface water are above the 

thresholds for reproductive effects 

in fish [0.5 to 5.0 μg/L (micrograms 

per liter) in yellow; 5.0 to 50.0 μg/L in 

orange]. 

Estimated maximum 21-day 

moving-average concentration of atrazine, in 

micrograms per liter

Not modeled

< 0.5

0.5 - 5.0

> 5.0 - 50.0

> 50.0

EXPLANATION
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 21

• Define potential human exposures to contaminants 

for a range of exposure pathways, including drinking 

water, recreational water, inhalation and dermal contact 

with contaminated air, aerosols, dusts, soils and sediments, and selected foods in order to facilitate assessments of total exposure, and to prioritize efforts that 

will have the most significant impact on reducing total 

human exposure. 

• Quantify the performance of selected treatment 

technologies designed to reduce human exposure to 

contaminants, particularly drinking-water treatment 

technologies.

Outcomes and Relevance

These strategic science actions will provide new tools 

and fundamental knowledge for managing the release, mitigation, and remediation of the most significant environmental 

contamination problems facing the Nation in the next decade. 

An integrated understanding of contaminant sources, mobility, bioavailability, and physiological impacts will enable 

effective management actions that minimize contaminant 

releases and their adverse health effects. Specifically, these 

actions will (1) enable research to focus on the highest priority environmental contaminants; (2) inform management 

and regulatory actions that prevent or mitigate contaminant 

releases; (3) enable research and development to focus on 

the most needed improvements in treatment technologies 

and best management practices; (4) provide information that 

enables effective definition of water-quality criteria and other 

environmental health criteria; (5) enable wildlife conservation 

and ecosystem restoration activities to target the most vulnerable environmental settings and species; (6) enable wildlife 

scientists to better characterize and mitigate adverse health 

effects; and (7) provide public health managers with improved 

knowledge of human exposure to environmental contaminants. 

Providing this scientific information to government agencies, 

industry, and the public will be essential to overall efforts to 

safeguard the health of the environment. 

Goal 3: Provide the Science to Reduce the 

Impact of Pathogens on the Environment, Fish, 

Wildlife, and People

Environmentally driven diseases caused by pathogens 

are an important cause of morbidity and mortality for all 

organisms. Understanding the factors that affect the distribution, transmission, and severity of these diseases is critical for 

mitigating population-level impacts on aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms. Changes in the distribution, patterns, or severity of 

established diseases can result from a variety of factors such 

as increased global trade and travel, agricultural and aquacultural practices, habitat loss, climate change, changes in host 

density, and the introduction of non-native species. Microbial 

and parasitic adaptation and evolution and changes to common 

environmental reservoirs (soil, dust, groundwater, and surface 

water) also affect disease spread and transmission. 

In the new paradigm of “One Health,” U.S. and world 

health agencies have acknowledged that the health of humans, 

animals, and the environment are inextricably linked (American Veterinary Medicine Association, 2008; World Health 

Organization, 2011). Perturbations in one can adversely affect 

the others, but there is a significant gap in our understanding of how changes in earth and environmental processes 

affect the health of animals and people. A variety of transmission pathways influence the occurrence and distribution of 

diseases among wildlife, people, and domesticated animals 

(fig. 5). Novel infectious diseases frequently occur first in wild 

Brucellosis in Wildlife and Livestock

Brucellosis is a chronic bacterial disease in livestock 

and wildlife and is among the most common zoonotic 

infections worldwide. In the Greater Yellowstone 

Region, brucellosis was probably introduced from 

cattle to bison (Bison bison) prior to 1917. Yellowstone 

bison are one of the few genetically unaltered bison 

populations; however, since they are also infected by 

brucellosis, they cannot be used to establish new bison 

populations elsewhere. After over 70 years of control 

efforts, brucellosis is almost eradicated in cattle, and 

the Greater Yellowstone Region is the last reservoir of 

Brucella abortus in the United States. USGS researchers and partners in state agencies have found that 

brucellosis is increasing in prevalence in elk (Cervus 

elaphus) and expanding into new regions, increasing 

the potential for wildlife-livestock conflict. Reducing 

artificial feeding by 30 days may reduce brucellosis by 

around two-thirds. USGS researchers are working with 

managers on this strategy and alternative methods to 

reduce the prevalence of brucellosis in elk and bison. 

More information is available online at 

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/cross/.
22 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

populations; native fish and wildlife can act as reservoirs for 

pathogens in the environment that can then “spill over” into 

domesticated animals (for example, brucellosis or viral hemorrhagic septicemia) or humans (for example, bubonic plague). 

Alternatively, other diseases can “spill back” into wild populations from humans or domesticated animals (for example, 

tuberculosis). Infectious diseases are also important from a 

conservation perspective. They can impede ecosystem function (for example, WNS in bats, chytridiomycosis in amphibians, and aspergillus in corals) as well as the survival or 

recovery of threatened and endangered species (for example, 

canine distemper and sylvatic plague in black-footed ferrets).

Other stresses on ecosystems, such as the general effects 

of increased development on habitat or pressures from invasive species, also can influence the vulnerability of species to 

pathogens. Whereas characterization of the myriad stresses on 

ecosystems and their associated impacts are not part of this 

strategy, close coordination with research conducted by the 

USGS Ecosystems Science Strategy will be essential for the 

success of both strategies.

This goal builds upon USGS expertise in ecologic, geologic, hydrologic, and anthropogenic factors influencing disease occurrence in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. USGS 

has ongoing research and valuable stores of data on key fish, 

wildlife, human, and ecological health issues including vectorborne and zoonotic diseases, water and airborne contaminants, 

and bioaccumulation of contaminants. USGS has specialized 

laboratory facilities and internationally recognized expertise 

in infectious diseases of fish and wildlife, as well as expertise 

in the occurrence and transport of pathogens by water and 

atmospheric particulates. Research is being done collaboratively with federal, state, tribal and non-profit organizations 

with interests in the health of native fish and wildlife, zoonotic 

diseases, and infectious diseases affecting domestic agriculture 

or aquaculture.

Priority Science Questions

• What environmental factors influence the occurrence 

and control the distribution, severity, and dynamics of 

wildlife diseases affecting free-ranging populations, 

and consequently people and domesticated animals? 

• What environmental factors drive the evolution of 

pathogens affecting aquatic and terrestrial species? 

• In what ways are infectious diseases impacting the 

health or recovery of threatened and endangered species as well as the natural functioning of ecosystems?

• What are the pathways, risk factors, and potential 

control strategies that can affect transmission of diseases from aquatic and terrestrial wildlife reservoirs to 

agriculture and aquaculture, and vice versa? 

• What are the exposure pathways, risk factors, and 

potential control strategies that affect transmission of 

infectious agents between wildlife and humans? 

Strategic Science Actions

A major focus of the activities conducted to achieve this 

goal will depend upon development of interdisciplinary teams 

capable of assessing the complexity of environmental and ecological factors that affect disease epidemiology and etiology. 

USGS will (1) determine the biotic and abiotic factors that 

control the ecology of pathogens and the associated diseases 

Figure 5. Infectious disease transmission pathways. For infectious diseases land use type can determine whether the disease will be 

transmitted and spread, as the environment must support all of species involved in the life cycle of the disease-causing organism.

WILDLIFE WILDLIFE AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE

AQUACULTURE AQUACULTURE

MOSQUITO-BORNE TICK-BORNE DIRECT WATER-BORNE

Crows

Ticks

Mice

Mosquitos

Chickens Deer

Native fish

Fish farm

Humans

Pigs
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 23

affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species, 

(2) establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious 

diseases in aquatic and terrestrial species, and (3) develop 

surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease 

activity in priority geographic areas.

Strategic Science Action 1.—Determine the biotic and abiotic 

factors that control the ecology of pathogenic diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential 

transmission to other animals and humans. 

• Establish how geologic, climatic, hydrologic, and 

atmospheric factors influence the distribution of hosts, 

reservoirs, and vectors.

• Characterize the role of vectors, predators, invasive species, and biodiversity in disease transmission. Determine the biotic factors that influence host 

response to infection and the associated epidemiological implications.

• Determine the abiotic factors that affect the distribution, viability, transmission, and pathogenicity of infectious agents in soil, water, dust, and other aerosols. 

• Determine the influence on disease of genetic drift due 

to host or geographic isolation, evolution of virulence 

in multi-host and multi-pathogen systems, and barriers 

to host shifts. 

Strategic Science Action 2.—Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and 

severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic 

and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other 

animals and humans. 

• Conduct coordinated field and laboratory research on 

microbial diversity and the role of fish and wildlife 

as long-term carriers and reservoirs for disease, and 

investigate the impact of diseases on wildlife populations.

• Characterize the pathways, risk factors, and potential control strategies that affect the transmission of 

diseases among free-ranging fish and wildlife populations and livestock and domestic animals, including 

contact patterns within and among species, nature of 

the reservoirs of infection, vector ecology, and developing methods of estimating transmission rates among 

different host species.

• Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes influence the distribution, viability, 

transmission, and replication rate of pathogens and the 

host immune response.

• Characterize multi-host and multi-pathogen systems, 

including research to understand the factors that drive 

the evolution of pathogens and their virulence, and 

develop models for estimating contact patterns among 

host species.

Strategic Science Action 3.—Develop surveillance systems 

to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority 

geographic areas. 

White-Nose Syndrome in Bats

During 2006–2007, a disease of unknown origin, subsequently named “white-nose syndrome” (WNS) began 

devastating colonies of hibernating bats near Albany, 

New York. USGS and collaborators later determined that 

WNS is caused by a novel fungus (Geomyces destructans). This new disease spread rapidly throughout the 

Northeast and continues to move into the Midwest, 

Southeast, and provinces of Canada, often resulting in 

100 percent mortality. Although WNS does not pose a 

direct threat to human health, bats are primary insect 

predators and can eat up to 1,200 mosquitoes in 1 hour. 

Many insects, such as mosquitoes, transmit diseases 

to humans and animals such as West Nile virus. Insect 

populations also affect agriculture and forestry. As a 

result, declining bat populations are likely to have significant economic impacts in terms of crop losses and 

increased pesticide use. Insectivorous bats in North 

America were estimated to be worth $22.9 billion per 

year to the agricultural industry due their diet of insect 

crop pests (Boyles and others, 2011). Why did WNS 

emerge in New York, and why is it so lethal to bats? 

Answers to these questions will be critical in controlling 

this disease as well as preventing the next emerging 

disease. The photo, courtesy of Nancy Heaslip, New 

York Department of Environmental Conservation, shows 

little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) hibernating in a cave 

in New York State. Most have the white fungal growth 

typical of WNS on their muzzles. More information is 

available online at http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_

information/white-nose_syndrome/index.jsp.
24 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

• Develop methods to identify geographic areas, ecosystems, and species that are increasingly vulnerable to 

wildlife disease.

• Develop methods to identify likely points of cross 

transmission of disease from wildlife population to 

livestock and domestic animals, and humans.

• Utilize these tools to design and implement disease 

surveillance systems that provide early warning of 

wildlife disease outbreaks and are capable of identifying risks associated with cross transmission of disease. 

Reduction of Bacterial Kidney Disease 

(BKD) in Chinook Salmon

BKD, caused by Renibacterium salmoninarum, is a 

chronic, systemic disease of Pacific salmon transmitted 

both to progeny and through the water to nearby fish. 

BKD causes major losses in Federal, State and tribal 

hatcheries, and evidence indicates that juvenile anadromous salmonids may die of BKD upon their entry into 

seawater. The disease is especially detrimental to populations of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 

It is difficult to control in hatcheries because effective 

vaccines do not exist and antibiotic therapy is only 

partially effective. The photograph, courtesy of Diane 

Elliott, USGS, shows a salmon with clinical signs of BKD. 

Most hatcheries rearing Pacific salmon have adopted 

aggressive programs for monitoring and controlling 

BKD. A standard hatchery practice for Chinook salmon 

is to screen female parents for the bacteria using an 

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) developed 

by USGS scientists, and to segregate or destroy progeny from female parents with high infection levels. This 

approach has proven to be a powerful tool for reducing 

BKD in the western United States, the Great Lakes, and 

elsewhere, resulting in increased survival of hatchery 

smolts before and after release, and a reduction in the 

potential impacts of BKD on wild salmonids in the same 

watersheds. More information is available online at 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M09-044.1.

Effects of Plague on Wildlife May Have 

Been Underestimated

Sylvatic plague, a flea-borne bacterial disease, poses 

risks to both wildlife and human health. It is a major 

obstacle to recovery of the black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes), one of the most critically endangered mammals 

in North America. Prairie dogs, which the ferret depends 

upon for food, are highly susceptible to the disease and 

transmit it to the ferrets. Currently plague is controlled 

by annual large-scale insecticide application. USGS 

scientists and colleagues are testing the feasibility of 

vaccinating prairie dogs against plague. The vaccine, 

which is mixed with bait and placed in areas where the 

ferrets live, will provide better protection against plague 

with less labor, lower costs, and less risk of non-target 

ecological impacts than insecticide application. The vaccine has great potential to improve recovery efforts for 

the black-footed ferret and may assist in protecting public 

health by reducing the prevalence of the disease in parks 

and urban areas where the potential for human exposure 

is high. Photograph courtesy of R. Haggerty, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Additional information is available online 

at http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/sylvatic_plague/index.jsp.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 25

Outcomes and Relevance

Wildlife and zoonotic diseases constitute a critical and 

growing threat to all species. While the efforts of the aforementioned actions are based on a primary focus and expertise 

in wildlife disease; emphasis will be placed on the factors that 

affect transmission of diseases among free-ranging populations of aquatic and terrestrial animals, domesticated animals, 

and humans. Increasing direct interaction and collaboration 

with resource managers responsible for protecting the health 

of wildlife, domesticated animals, and humans will improve 

our ability to provide needed expertise, knowledge and tools. 

Interagency collaboration will increase efficiency and promote 

integration of efforts to better understand and prevent the risks 

of infectious diseases to natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, domesticated animals, and humans.

Goal 4: Provide the Science to Discover the 

Complex Interactions and Combined Effects of 

Exposure to Contaminants and Pathogens

Animals and people can be exposed to multiple classes 

of disease agents (contaminants and pathogens) from a variety 

of pathways. Scientists have traditionally studied the effects 

of individual disease agents or classes of disease agents—for 

example, the effects of a pathogen or the effects of exposure 

to a contaminant. Recently, we have begun to understand that 

concurrent exposure to different classes of disease agents can 

have significant interactions, whereby multiple agents contribute to an overall adverse biological outcome. This complexity 

poses a unique challenge for the natural science and public 

health communities. Understanding the impacts of combined 

toxicological and infectious disease agents will require assessing biological outcomes mechanistically to determine the 

relative contributions of each agent. 

Exposure to environmental contaminants may play a contributing role in significant wildlife declines, such as bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) and amphibian malformations. 

Although it is unlikely that chemical contaminants are solely 

responsible, it is possible that the adverse effects of contaminants could make organisms more susceptible to infectious 

disease or other stressors. A report by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Colony Collapse Disease Steering Committee (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010) stated, 

“Colonies with poor health, including colonies with 

CCD symptoms, exhibited increased pathogen levels 

and evidence of pesticide residues ...Findings currently suggest an association of sub-lethal effects 

of pesticides with CCD. ... The emerging evidence 

of pesticide exposure to pollinators and potential 

interactive effects indicates the need to further study 

pesticides for their potential interactions with CCD.” 

In the case of amphibian malformations, the connection 

between the effects of an environmental contaminant and a 

parasite are indirect. Johnson and others (2007) demonstrated 

that amphibian limb deformities can be caused by a parasite 

(Ribeiroia ondatrae), whose abundance is affected indirectly 

by pollution from excess nutrients. Excess nutrients (eutrophication) in surface water can be caused by wastewater 

discharge, fertilizer runoff, and nutrients from other sources. 

Eutrophication can increase the density of the parasite’s 

host (for example, a snail), and in turn increase the parasite 

abundance.

Contaminants can impact the immune systems of organisms, making them vulnerable to pathogens. Immunosuppression caused at least in part by chemical exposures in the 

environment has been suggested as a potential contributing 

cause of massive fish die-offs in the Potomac River drainage 

(Blazer and others, 2010). The authors stated, 

Endocrine Disruption of Immune Function in 

Fish

The growing prevalence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment is a global issue and 

may affect fish, wildlife, and humans. The dysfunction 

that can result from exposure to EDCs may manifest as 

reduced reproduction, modified sexual characteristics, 

immunosuppression, altered development, or a host of 

other maladies that subsequently can affect the health of 

native species. USGS scientists are conducting research 

into the immune dysfunction in fish caused by EDCs that 

may be responsible for a number of fish kills and disease 

outbreaks. USGS laboratory investigations use both native 

and model species of fish to understand mechanisms 

leading to compromised immune function. In addition, 

USGS scientists are developing diagnostic physiological, 

biochemical, and molecular indicators of EDC-induced 

immune dysfunction. Photo, courtesy George Sanders, USGS, shows zebrafish (Danio rerio) used by USGS 

scientists to study the effects of EDCs on the fish immune 

system.
26 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

“stressors include high helminth and myxozoan parasite loads, possibly as a consequence of high nutrient loads and/or immunosuppression; contaminant 

exposure, particularly to estrogenic compounds and 

complex mixtures; and other water quality factors, 

such as high pH and increased mean temperature.” 

Additionally, the release of antimicrobial compounds 

to the environment raises significant implications for the 

interaction of contaminants and pathogens. Antimicrobials 

are designed to kill bacteria; when they are released into the 

environment, antimicrobials can adversely affect indigenous 

microbes and can ultimately contribute to the development 

of antimicrobial resistance. The release of antibiotics or 

antibiotic-resistant microorganisms to the natural environment 

can increase the development of, and exposure to, antimicrobial resistant pathogens. The Government Accountability 

Office (Government Accounting Office, 2011) stated, 

“Scientific evidence gathered in our literature review 

shows that, at certain concentration levels, antibiotics present in the environment—in water and soil—

can increase the population of resistant bacteria, due 

to selective pressure.”

The development and (or) spread of antimicrobial resistance 

through the natural environment raises significant implications for the management of human antibiotics released via 

household, commercial, and industrial wastes and the use of 

veterinary antibiotics in livestock production.

This goal focuses primarily on understanding the dynamics between the effects of exposure to environmental contaminants and pathogens. However, many other environmental 

stressors (for example habitat loss, changes in water quality, 

temperature and climate, run-off from resource extraction, 

flooding, presence of non-native invasive species) must also 

be considered when managing the effects of stressors on fish 

and wildlife populations, as well as on local human populations. There is increasing awareness that environmental 

stressors, which may have little direct effect on the health of 

fish and wildlife populations, are capable of causing substantial indirect effects. These indirect effects may be hard 

to predict—resulting in what Paine and others (1998) called 

“ecological surprises.” For example, as in the case of amphibian deformities discussed above, nutrient runoff into waterways can result in changes to water quality and eutrophication, 

which may not directly affect the health of organisms, but can 

serve as catalysts for other processes that do. 

Priority Science Questions

• What are the biological outcomes in aquatic and terrestrial organisms resulting from exposure to a combination of contaminants and pathogens? 

• What are the mechanisms of interaction among combinations of contaminants and pathogens?

• What are the highest priority combinations of contaminants and pathogens with the greatest potential to 

impact aquatic and terrestrial organisms and people, 

and the geographic areas and environmental settings 

where they are most likely to occur?

• How do we identify the relative contributions of combinations of contaminants and pathogens to adverse 

health outcomes?

Antimicrobial Resistance in the Natural 

Environment

Antimicrobials, such as antibiotics used for human and 

animal health, have been detected in aquatic and terrestrial environments, largely as a result of release via 

wastewater discharges, and use in animal agriculture 

and aquaculture. To explore the potential spread of antimicrobial resistance from veterinary use of antibiotics, 

USGS surveyed tetracycline and sulfonamide antibiotic 

resistance genes (ARGs) in waste lagoons in varied 

livestock operations (McKinney and others, 2010). In 

all lagoons, sulfonamide ARGs were observed to be 

generally more recalcitrant than tetracycline ARGs. It 

was found that layer chicken farms had the lowest concentrations of both tetracycline and sulfonamide ARGs 

and low total antibiotic concentrations. Sulfonamide 

ARGs were highest in swine lagoons, which generally 

corresponded to the highest total antibiotic concentrations. This study provides insight into potential options 

for managing antimicrobials and antibiotic resistance 

emanating from agricultural activities, and for evaluating potential threats to the continued effectiveness of 

animal and human drug therapies. Photograph courtesy 

of Lisa Fogarty, USGS, shows USGS scientist analyzing 

bacterial DNA extracted from water samples.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 27

• How do exposures to combinations of contaminants 

and pathogens affect the susceptibility of aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms to other environmental stressors?

• What metrics should be used to document and assess 

the impacts of combinations of contaminants and 

pathogens? 

Strategic Science Actions

Strategic science actions to address Goal 4 will require 

integration of expertise that is not traditionally brought 

together in environmental studies. In order to achieve the 

objectives, the USGS will (1) identify how exposure to one 

class of disease agents (contaminants and pathogens) can 

make an organism more susceptible to exposure to other 

classes of disease agents, and (2) implement interdisciplinary 

studies to characterize the effects of the combined exposure to 

pathogens and contaminants.

Strategic Science Action 1.—Identify how exposure to one 

class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make 

an organism more susceptible to exposure to other classes of 

disease agents.

• Identify environmentally driven diseases and disease 

agents that have biological outcomes that result in 

increased susceptibility to exposures to other classes of 

environmentally driven diseases and disease agents. 

• Focus toxicological studies on determining the thresholds of effects of one disease that may affect susceptibility to another and define the exposure and life history scenarios needed to predict and mitigate impacts.

• Identify the disease agents with the greatest potential 

to increase susceptibility of disease in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. 

• Identify and characterize the biological mechanisms 

by which organisms that are affected by one class of 

disease agents become more susceptible to another. 

Determine how interactions among diseases can be 

modulated by immune or other biological system function, and whether such interactions rise to a level of 

having population-level consequences.

Strategic Science Action 2.—Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of exposure to pathogens and 

contaminants.

• Establish interdisciplinary teams of scientists with 

crosscutting expertise that can integrate analytical, 

experimental, and modeling approaches from different 

disciplines to provide scientific tools and fundamental information essential for use in a comprehensive 

approach to protecting wildlife health from the combined effects of multiple classes of disease agents.

• Integrate the occurrence of environmentally driven 

diseases into an assessment of vulnerability to other 

classes of disease to which they could contribute.

• Develop models that identify environmental settings 

and species that are vulnerable to combinations of 

contaminants and pathogens. Anticipate and forecast 

risk from novel combinations of contaminants and 

pathogens. 

• Utilize knowledge gained about the impacts of multiple classes of disease agents on wildlife to identify potential human-health issues associated with 

interaction of multiple classes of disease agents. For 

example, because of the similarity of the endocrine 

system across vertebrate animals, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife can provide a means to identify potential 

contaminant-induced vulnerabilities to pathogenic 

disease agents in humans, such as suppressed immune 

function.

Outcomes and Relevance

The aforementioned strategic science actions will 

enhance the understanding of the effects of exposure to complex combinations of disease agents, help explain heretofore 

incompletely explained disease, and help to more accurately 

quantify the individual impacts of different disease agents on 

the health of aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Resource managers will use this knowledge to identify vulnerable populations and diagnose and respond to disease outbreaks that may 

not be fully explained by our current understanding of the 

effects of single classes of disease agents.

Goal 5: Provide the Science to Prepare for and 

Respond to Environmental Impacts and Related 

Health Threats of Natural and Anthropogenic 

Disasters

The environmental and related health impacts of disasters 

have long been recognized, but are understandably overshadowed by the more visible physical impacts of the disasters and 

the resulting casualties. However, natural and anthropogenic 

disasters (for example earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, 

droughts, fires, industrial accidents, oil spills, acts of terrorism, and pandemics) pose significant immediate and long-term 

threats to the environment, and as a result, to the health of 

humans and other organisms. Increasingly, the public and the 

media are recognizing the environmental health implications 

of disasters, particularly their potential to affect public health, 

animal health, quality of life, and the economy. Helping communities and natural resource managers prepare for, respond 

to, and recover from environmental health impacts of disasters 

is therefore an increasingly important component of disaster 

resilience. These activities are associated with environmental 
28 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

disasters; require preparedness based on lessons learned from 

previous disasters; and require rapid and immediate response 

to that disaster in order to prevent catastrophic losses, including economic losses. Unanticipated, rapid dispersal of disease 

agents can pose significant challenges to national security.

A disaster event can be a catalyst that leads to release 

of potentially hazardous materials containing contaminants 

or pathogens into the environment. Some examples include 

mobilization and dispersal of contaminants as a result of 

hurricane wave action, leaking of radiation after earthquake 

damage to a nuclear reactor, or release of contaminants or 

pathogens from a wastewater treatment plant due to flooding. 

Environmental health threats can also occur when the disaster 

event results in environmental conditions that can promote 

infectious disease outbreaks such as cholera or dengue fever. 

USGS has made significant contributions toward understanding the immediate and long-term environmental and humanhealth effects of disasters, including the World Trade Center 

catastrophe, Hurricane Katrina, and wildfires (Plumlee, 

2009). Similarly, USGS has made significant contributions 

to understanding the impacts of disasters on the environment 

and fish and wildlife health, including the Deepwater Horizon 

Oil Spill, and the impacts of strategies for managing the spill 

(such as the use of oil dispersants). USGS also provides critical information needed for developing restoration strategies 

after a disaster. 

There is a clear and expanding role for the USGS in 

responding to emerging disease threats related to bioterrorism, 

as well as naturally occurring pandemic disease outbreaks. 

Wildlife morbidity and mortality events can serve as early 

warning systems for detecting human-health threats associated with bioterrorism and natural pandemics. Most of the 

disease agents that could be used for bioterrorism listed in 

the National Select Agent Registry (Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service and Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 2011) can affect and (or) be transmitted by wildlife species. Engagement and collaboration with other DOI 

agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health and Human 

Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others is 

critical to effectively prepare for and respond to these types of 

threats. 

The USGS role in environmental health disaster response 

and preparedness is to provide impartial interdisciplinary 

research, data, and interpretations on disaster-related health 

issues including the sources, distribution, fate, and impacts of 

contaminants and pathogens. The USGS contributes specialized expertise in wildlife pathology, toxicology, epidemiology, 

environmental monitoring and wildlife disease surveillance. 

In addition, USGS has specialized diagnostic and experimental research laboratories, including those that are certified for 

working with selected disease agents. USGS has an extensive 

mix of expertise, data, and technologies across its mission 

areas that can be brought together to improve understanding 

of the implications of disasters on ecological, human, and 

animal health. To fully leverage its environmental health science capability, USGS must collaborate with external experts 

in emergency response, public health and safety, homeland 

security, law enforcement, and ecosystem and animal health 

(both agriculture and aquaculture).

Responding to Recent Wildfires and Their 

Potential Environmental Health Risks

Response to wildfires must consider 

both the dangers of 

the advancing fire 

as well as longterm environmental 

health concerns. 

USGS fire response 

includes helping 

to evaluate the 

environmental 

and human-health 

risks associated 

with exposure to airfall ash, residual ash, burned soils, 

and dusts generated from burned areas. For two recent 

wildfires—the 2009 Station Fire near Los Angeles, California, and the 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire in the foothills 

above Boulder, Colorado—samples of ash, soils, and 

debris were tested for contaminants and remote-sensing 

measurements were used to extend results to unsampled 

areas. The photograph, courtesy of Gregg Swayze, USGS, 

shows scientists collecting samples of ash and burned 

soil after the 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire. For fires such 

as these, which occur at the wild land/urban interface, it 

is essential to know the types of contaminants released 

from burned homes and structures, and their dispersal 

patterns in air, runoff, and rivers. USGS studies are identifying the products of combusted toxicants in building 

materials, with resulting implications for public health. 

More information is available online at http://health.usgs.

gov/geohealth/v08_n02.html#c05.
USGS Environmental Health Science Vision, Mission, and Goals 29

Priority Science Questions

• What types of hazardous materials can be released to, 

or mobilized in, the environment from various types 

of disasters? What are the associated ecological and 

human health threats? 

• How does the environmental disruption associated 

with disasters influence the emergence, incidence, and 

distribution of infectious diseases?

• How can we prepare and monitor for, and rapidly 

respond to pandemic outbreaks or acts of bioterrorism?

• How can the environmental and health impacts of past 

disasters be measured and interpreted to help anticipate plausible environmental health impacts of future 

disasters?

• What are the economic costs associated with the 

environmental health impacts of disasters? What are 

the costs versus benefits of alternative management 

strategies?

Strategic Science Actions

Natural and anthropogenic disasters are dynamic events 

that can cause significant environmental disruption and health 

risk. They require prompt investigation in order to define 

their immediate and enduring environmental health risks. The 

USGS will (1) establish a formal interdisciplinary science 

capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks 

associated with disasters, and (2) enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental health impacts of 

future disasters.

Strategic Science Action 1.—Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental 

health risks associated with disasters. 

• Establish a capability for rapid assessment of shortand long-term impacts of disasters on the environment, 

wildlife, and human health. These assessments will 

characterize changes in the environmental distribution of hazardous materials and pathogens produced 

by disasters, assess the potential for increased exposure, and explore the use of remote sensing to map the 

characteristics of disease agents within and away from 

disaster areas.

• Work with other federal agencies to conduct interdisciplinary investigations of environmentally driven 

diseases that result from disasters, including changes 

in wildlife zoonotic diseases and the adverse impacts 

of hazardous materials. Assist resource managers in 

utilizing this information to develop management 

strategies.

• Promptly gather and release preliminary data and 

interpretations to emergency responders, disaster planners, and other decision makers in a timely and useful 

context to aid in disaster recovery.

• Improve and expand capabilities to measure and anticipate the economic and social implications of environmental disasters.

Strategic Science Action 2.—Enhance methods to anticipate, 

prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related 

health impacts of future disasters.

• Enhance real-time capabilities to warn of associated 

environmental health risks as disasters are happening. 

• Gather new baseline data in areas identified as high risk 

for types of disasters and the associated environmental 

health concerns, and develop methods to reconstruct 

pre-disaster environmental baseline conditions, using 

knowledge of current environmental conditions and 

lessons learned from previous disasters. 

• Enhance methods, including predictive models and 

scenario development exercises, to anticipate and 

prepare for environmental, ecological, and related 

health impacts of future disasters. Work with USGS 

natural hazards experts to contribute environmental 

and ecological hazards components to multi-hazards 

disaster scenarios, such as the ARkStorm, New Madrid 

earthquake, and Great Southern California ShakeOut 

earthquake scenarios.

Outcomes and Relevance

An important outcome of this goal will be the development of a coordinated Bureau-wide, rapid-response capability 

to characterize the full range of short- and long-term environmental health impacts of disasters, and to support reduction of risk of adverse ecological and human health effects. 

These efforts are intended to integrate USGS expertise in the 

environment and wildlife health with USGS capabilities in 

preparation for and response to disasters (such as earthquakes, 

volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, droughts, wildfires, and 

biological threats), and provide that expertise to agencies with 

the primary responsibility for disaster response. By collaborating with other experts in environmental health and the agencies with primary responsibility for responding to disasters, 

USGS provides science that improves our ability to anticipate 

and respond to environmental health threats associated with 

disasters and minimize the adverse effects on the environment, 

wildlife and people. 
30 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

A Strategy for Communicating Science 

to Society

This strategy is built upon the premise that USGS activities are integrated within an adaptive management framework. 

The role of USGS within this framework is to provide continual improvements in scientific knowledge and tools that are 

used directly to guide recurring and incremental improvements 

in environmental health management and protection (fig. 3). 

Communication with partners and stakeholders regarding science needs is essential for successful implementation of this 

strategy. USGS is widely acknowledged as a source of highquality, objective, and unbiased scientific information; however, the best science has limited utility unless it is effectively 

disseminated and used to inform the highest priority decisions.

Keys to successful communication include (1) increasing awareness of USGS as a source of environmental health 

science; (2) engaging stakeholders from the onset in identifying priorities and goals; (3) coordinating with partners 

to increase synergies and make the best use of available 

resources; (4) delivering a synthesis of environmental health 

science information and tools from across the USGS in effective, useful, and useable formats, and (5) continuing to work 

with stakeholders through the decision making process to 

explain the implications of the available science. Maintaining 

a lasting, iterative exchange of priorities and knowledge will 

require formal and committed communication.

USGS must promote communication among those who 

develop the scientific information, (including both USGS 

scientists and partners), and managers, policy makers, industry, and the public. This is particularly important in improving 

communication among scientists involved in earth sciences, 

wildlife and animal health, and public health. The National 

Research Council on Research Priorities for Earth Science and 

Public Health stated, 

“Although valuable linkages do currently exist 

between the earth science and public health communities, the limited extent of interdisciplinary cooperation has restricted the ability of scientists and 

public health workers to solve a range of complex 

environmental health problems, with the result that 

the considerable knowledge at the interface of earth 

science and public health has been only partially 

realized” (National Research Council, 2007).

The need for effective and broad-ranging internal communication within USGS will only increase as national and 

international environmental health challenges require a wider 

range of scientific expertise. This communication strategy 

requires that scientists from across the USGS coordinate their 

activities, broadly advance the state of environmental health 

science, and develop technologies and tools that integrate 

science of varied disciplines to assist management actions.

U.S.-Mexico Border Health Initiative and 

Environmental Health-Risk Assessment 

Along the Upper Santa Cruz River

The primary 

objective of the 

USGS Border 

Environmental 

Health Initiative (BEHI) is to 

provide data in 

support of environmental health 

decision making 

by public health 

officials, resource managers, and concerned citizens. 

One focus is the study of inadequate water quantity and 

quality caused in large part by extreme human population 

growth in the dry regions of the U.S.–Mexico border. The 

Upper Santa Cruz River, located on the Arizona–Sonora 

border, is important for its cultural, historical, and ecological value. The river supports a high diversity of plants 

and animals, but it also sustains human communities 

by replenishing groundwater, a primary regional water 

source. Researchers involved in the USGS’s BEHI are 

developing a water quantity and quality model for the 

Santa Cruz watershed and investigating potential bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food web. The model 

can be used to analyze various land use and wastewater 

management scenarios. The photograph, courtesy of 

Hans Huth, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Border Environmental Protection, was taken 

Nov. 1, 2010, at the point of discharge of Nogales Wash to 

the Santa Cruz River, Arizona, and shows a public warning 

of water pollution. More information on the U.S.-Mexico 

BEHI is available online at http://borderhealth.cr.usgs.gov/

projectindex.html.

Strategic Actions

Access to, and awareness of, USGS environmental health 

science contributions will be increased by actions that consolidate and deliver health-related information to stakeholders in 

a timely manner. A USGS environmental health science web 

page will provide a portal to all USGS environmental health 

science information. Developing clear and objective messages about environmental and health threats will be aided by 

consultation with risk communication specialists, especially 

regarding communicating peer-reviewed findings in the face 

of scientific uncertainty. The USGS GeoHealth Newsletter 
Integrating Science Across USGS 31

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2012) will widely disseminate USGS 

environmental health science findings. USGS podcasts—available on the USGS CoreCast web site (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2011)—will help communicate new findings and activities to 

stakeholders, and will be especially useful for raising public 

awareness regarding actions that the public can take to safeguard the environment. In addition to traditional communication tools, new social media tools will be particularly useful 

for delivering time-sensitive and high-visibility findings, and 

communicating with a generation that relies heavily on social 

media for information. Social media and other emerging 

technologies can promote environmental awareness among 

the general public and enable the infusion of new ideas into 

our cultural fabric. Increasing our youths’ awareness of the 

importance of environmental health science to societal goals 

will enhance enthusiasm in the next generation for protecting the environment and improving our future. USGS should 

use social media and other emerging technologies to engage 

students in these issues and recruit the next generation of passionate young scientists.

Effective coordination with managers and policy makers to identify science priorities will be aided by a USGS 

Environmental Health Liaison Committee. This committee 

will increase the flow of information from stakeholders to 

USGS science planning. It also will improve collaboration 

with partners to achieve synergies and make the most of 

existing resources. It will supplement active participation in 

federal interagency committees on the environment, such as 

the National Science and Technology Council’s Committees 

on Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability, and 

Homeland and National Security (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2011) and the Institute of Medicine’s Roundtable on Environment, Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine 

(Institute of Medicine, 2011). The Environmental Health 

Liaison Committee will facilitate dialogue between scientists 

and managers that brings together their expertise, strengths, 

and perspectives. This dialogue will help to identify priorities, 

relate scientific information to manage decisions, and map 

next steps. Similarly, periodic environmental health conferences, such as recent USGS conferences targeting linkages 

with the public health community (Buxton and others, 2008), 

will foster collaboration with our partners and communication 

with stakeholders.

Coordination of science activities within USGS will be 

aided by a framework for synthesizing USGS environmental 

health science information from across the Bureau. The framework will link databases that have relevance to environmental 

health decision making and facilitate consideration of all 

relevant data regardless of source. The framework will include 

networking among scientists from diverse programs and 

organizational entities across the Bureau. The framework will 

be enhanced by use of modern informatics, geographic, and 

mapping technologies to improve USGS data and information 

integration, accessibility and dissemination.

Outcomes

The causes of newly discovered environmental health 

threats are often uncertain. The environmental data required 

to address the problem are frequently incomplete or unavailable. There is also a lack of available information necessary 

to anticipate and respond to emerging environmental health 

threats. As a result, decision makers often are left to integrate disparate threads of scientific evidence into a coherent 

understanding upon which scientifically and socially defensible decisions can be based. Through implementation of this 

strategy, the USGS will create, analyze, interpret, and manage 

environmental health data; provide it to decision makers in a 

manner that is easy to access, easy to use, and where appropriate, in real time; and aid in the interpretation in relation to 

management decision making. Delivery of such information 

enhances the Nation’s ability to prevent and mitigate future 

threats and take effective management actions to manage and 

minimize documented threats. 

Integrating Science Across USGS

The Environmental Health Science Strategy presents 

plans for research and development activities intended to identify emerging and other priority environmental health issues 

and provide information and tools to improve management 

responses to those issues. The USGS will synthesize and interpret a wide range of environmental information from across 

the Bureau and focus it on a broad spectrum of environmental 

health issues. One priority in implementing this strategy is to 

provide a point of access to all environmental health science 

within the Bureau. Overlap and coordination among this 

science strategy and the other 6 USGS science strategies is not 

only inevitable but essential. Scientific information collected 

to meet the goals of one strategy is inherently applicable to the 

goals of other science strategies. 

The research and development activities outlined in this 

strategy rely on broad national characterizations of background or baseline (pre-impact) environmental conditions and 

environmental stressors provided by companion USGS science 

strategies. The Water, Ecosystems, and Energy and Mineral 

Resources Science Strategies will provide information from 

significant environmental monitoring and assessment studies. The Climate and Land Use Change, Natural Hazards, and 

Energy and Mineral Resources Science Strategies will provide 

information on the nature of other environmental stressors. 

The strategy will support the activities of the other six 

science strategies by providing new and innovative tools, as 

well as broad fundamental understanding of disease outbreaks, 

environmental life cycle of anthropogenic and natural contaminants, ecology of pathogens that cause infectious diseases, 

and potential measures for preventing or mitigating exposure 

pathways and disease. Collectively, implementation of the 
32 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

seven USGS science strategies will allow the coordination of 

research activities, the sharing of expertise and information, 

and the coordination of efforts to put scientific information 

and tools into the hands of the decision makers that need them. 

The following sections describe examples of complementary 

activities with other USGS mission areas.

Climate and Land Use Change—Global change affects environmental conditions that determine the distribution of contaminants and pathogens, ecological and human exposures, the 

severity with which they might cause disease, and their ultimate fate. These environmental effects include changes in the 

distribution of pathogens, their hosts, and vectors caused by 

changes in habitat; the effects of changes in temperature and 

seasonality on disease resistance in fish, reptiles, and amphibians; increases in contaminant loads and pathogen abundance; 

changes in the number and severity of extreme weather events; 

and increases in windborne contaminant and pathogen exposure pathways. The varied impacts of global change will also 

influence the susceptibility of aquatic and terrestrial organisms to other environmental stresses, making those impacts 

an essential consideration in the multiple stressors that could 

be affecting the health of the environment. Knowledge of the 

environmental effects of climate and land use change gained 

by implementation of the Global Change Science Strategy 

will be essential for comprehensive environmental health 

assessments. The Environmental Health research activities and 

efforts to establish linkages with the public health community 

will assist global change assessments, particularly in regard to 

the human-health implications of global change. 

Core Science Systems—Data on the geographic, geomorphologic, and geologic characteristics of the earth and the human 

infrastructure across the landscape are essential for any evaluation of the factors that affect the environment and associated 

impacts on the health of the environment. Determination of the 

cause of current environmental impacts and forecasts of potential future environmental impacts will require core science 

information on past trends, and will require projections of 

future changes in human activities on the landscape. Activities 

under the Core Science Systems Science Strategy will be a 

valuable source of this information as well as a source of innovative tools for relating spatial data to environmental health 

outcomes, such as data on sources and distribution of environmental contamination and distribution of disease occurrence. 

Furthermore, the Core Science Systems Science Strategy will 

fulfill valuable supporting activities for the Environmental 

Health and other science strategies by providing tools for 

geospatial analysis of large datasets and providing innovative 

approaches to increase accessibility to a wide range of natural 

science information from all other USGS science strategies. 

Ecosystems—The improved understanding of fundamental 

ecosystem processes and functions that will be developed by 

the Ecosystems Science Strategy is essential in achieving the 

Environmental Health goals to anticipate, characterize, and 

respond to the impacts of environmental contamination and 

infectious disease on aquatic and terrestrial organisms and 

public health. The effects of ecosystem changes will alter 

organisms’ exposure to chemical contaminants, vectors, and 

pathogens. Changing habitats and biodiversity will affect the 

resilience of ecosystems to environmentally driven disease. 

The degradation of ecosystem processes may ultimately lead 

to adverse effects on human health. Invasive species can serve 

as a source of exotic pathogens. A broad range of ecological 

stressors will contribute to cumulative ecological impacts. 

Knowledge of the effects of ecological factors as well as alternative resource management actions will be essential in preventing and mitigating the effects of environmentally driven 

Uranium Production and Environmental 

Health

Re-evaluation of nuclear energy as a viable alternative 

energy source may have a significant impact on uranium 

production in the United States. Nuclear energy now 

provides about 20 percent of U.S. electricity from 104 

nuclear power plants; the U.S. is the largest producer of 

nuclear-sourced electricity in the world. Approximately 

3.9 million pounds of uranium were mined in the U.S. in 

2008; however, about 51 million pounds were consumed. 

Foreign sources and U.S. utility inventories supplied the 

difference. Informed decisions regarding future sources 

of nuclear resources in the U.S., as well as an effective means of resource extraction will be aided by an 

understanding of the potential environmental impacts of 

domestic production. USGS scientists with knowledge of 

extraction practices, the geochemistry of uranium deposits, the processes that affect environmental transport, and 

the pathways of exposure and ecotoxicity for uranium 

and its radionuclides, are working together to provide 

information to resource managers and industry that will 

minimize the environmental impacts of increased uranium 

extraction. Photo, courtesy of Don Bills, USGS, shows the 

Kanab North Mines, northern Arizona.
Integrating Science Across USGS 33

disease. An understanding of the linkages between changes in 

ecosystem function and health risks is necessary to identify 

and predict emerging health risks, and to develop adaptive 

management strategies.

Energy and Mineral Resources—All actions to extract and 

use energy and mineral resources have some implication for 

the environment (for example, mineral and coal mining, generation and disposal of produced waters, burning of fossil fuels, 

spills and leaks of energy and mineral industry chemicals, and 

development of alternative energy sources such as biofuels, 

new battery technology, and geothermal and wind energy). 

New methods of resource extraction, such as hydro-fracking, 

may introduce contaminants into the environment. Actions of 

the Environmental Health and Energy and Minerals Resources 

Science Strategies will be coordinated to evaluate the environmental impacts and resulting public health implications of 

energy and mineral resource production and use. Energy and 

Mineral Resources research activities will bring significant 

expertise in characterizing the mineralogic and geochemical properties of energy and mineral resource deposits, as 

well as baseline geochemical conditions in soil and sediment. 

Environmental Health research activities will provide expertise in the factors that affect contaminant transport, exposure 

pathways to aquatic and terrestrial organisms, and ecological 

effects.

Natural Hazards—– Beyond the immediate threats posed by 

floods, hurricanes, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, these disasters can leave lingering environmental 

health concerns. Natural hazards often cause environmental disturbances that have an impact on the sources of, and 

exposures to contaminants and pathogens. The long-term 

environmental health consequences of natural disasters, which 

are often less understood, can warrant significant concern. 

Strategic activities under the Environmental Health Science 

Strategy will be coordinated with the Natural Hazards Science 

Strategy to help characterize the environmental health effects 

of hazards by (1) building upon their actions in immediate 

response to such disasters with assessments of potential longterm environmental health implications, including changes 

in contaminant sources and exposure pathways and changes 

in the habitat of pathogens and (or) vectors; (2) improving 

preparedness by helping to identify measures that will prevent 

or mitigate potential environmental health problems; and 

(3) defining rapid-response actions that can be taken to quickly 

define environmental health risks in the immediate aftermath 

of disasters.

Water—The hydrologic cycle plays an essential role in the 

distribution of natural and anthropogenic contaminants, vectors, and pathogens in aquatic and terrestrial environments, 

and in determining ecological and human exposure to these 

contaminants. Knowledge gained from implementation of the 

USGS Water Science Strategy will be essential for effective 

implementation of this strategy. A fundamental understanding 

of the natural and human factors that affect water quantity, 

movement, and quality is required to define various sources of 

contaminants and pathogens, to determine their relative importance, and to characterize environmental settings that may be 

more vulnerable to various environmental health concerns. 

Many hydrologic factors influence the health of the environment and must be considered when determining the specific 

Sensitivity of Freshwater Mussels to 

Ammonia Results in Lower Water-Quality 

Criteria

Approximately 10 percent of native North American 

freshwater mussels and snails have become extinct 

in historical times, and about half of the remaining 900 

species are of conservation concern. Presently, 100 

freshwater mollusk species are listed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened or endangered. 

Factors that contributed to these declines include habitat 

alteration, invasive species, over-utilization, disease, 

predation, and contaminants. USGS toxicologists helped 

develop a new standard method for conducting toxicity 

testing on freshwater mussels and found that mussels are 

frequently more sensitive to ammonia than standard test 

organisms. This is noteworthy because ammonia is the 

most ubiquitous toxic chemical in our Nation’s surface 

waters. Consequently, USEPA is using mussel toxicity 

data to update the National Water-Quality Criteria (WQC) 

for ammonia, lowering the acute criterion by about threefold and chronic criterion by about five-fold. Photo, courtesy of Chris Barnhart, shows an assemblage of mussels 

from the Pomme de Terre River, Hickory County Missouri, 

including black sandshell, white heelsplitter, fatmucket, 

pink heelsplitter, three-ridge, deertoe, and pocketbook. 

More information is available online at http://www.cerc.

usgs.gov/ScienceTopics.aspx?ScienceTopicId=2.
34 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

causes of adverse environmental health outcomes and identifying best management practices. The Environmental Health 

Science Strategy will coordinate closely with large USGS 

water quantity and quality assessment programs to make 

added use of their national monitoring networks, infrastructure 

for surveillance, and the associated datasets in interpretations 

of environmental health issues. Furthermore, a priority of the 

Environmental Health Science Strategy is to develop new 

tools and methodologies to identify and address emerging 

environmental health concerns. This includes development of 

methods to measure contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern in the environment, and using those methods to 

make initial assessments of the relative priorities. These new 

methods and the information they provide will be made available to Water programs for design and implementation of their 

systematic national monitoring and assessment activities. 

Summary of Intended Outcomes

This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The 

ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the 

environment, the health of our living resources, and human 

health by providing high-quality objective environmental 

health science information and tools that are used by managers, regulators, other scientists, industry, and the public to 

make improved decisions that directly affect health outcomes. 

It is the responsibility of USGS to reach broadly across its 

scientific expertise and bring the fullest extent of its capabilities and scientific contributions to fulfill this role. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to scientific partners to ensure that 

our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the 

activities of others across the broader environmental health 

scientific community. Finally it is incumbent on USGS to 

reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are 

focused on the highest priority environmental health issues 

and that products are provided to all those who can use them 

in the most timely and usable form.

While prevention is not always feasible, science to support prevention is a high priority of this strategy. The strategic 

science actions proposed herein will provide new tools and 

fundamental knowledge for managing the release, mitigation, 

management, and remediation of the most significant environmental contamination problems facing the Nation in the next 

decade. These strategic science actions also will characterize the factors that affect transmission of diseases with the 

goal of informing decisions to reduce the spread and adverse 

health outcomes of disease among free-ranging populations 

of aquatic and terrestrial animals, domesticated animals, and 

humans. Strategic science actions to enhance the understanding of the effects of exposure to combinations of contaminants 

and pathogens are intended to help explain heretofore incompletely explained disease, and help to more accurately quantify 

the individual impacts of different disease agents on the health 

of aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Finally, strategic science 

actions to implement a coordinated Bureau-wide capability 

for rapid-response to characterize the environmental impacts 

of disasters are intended to integrate USGS expertise in the 

environment and wildlife health with USGS capabilities in 

preparation for and response to disasters (such as earthquakes, 

volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, droughts, wildfires, and 

biological threats), and provide that expertise to agencies with 

the primary responsibility for disaster response.

The actions proposed in this strategy will draw on science activities from across the Bureau including activities 

conducted as part of other science strategies. Similarly, the 

activities conducted as part of this strategy will support the 

activities of the other six science strategies. Collectively, these 

seven USGS science strategies will allow the coordination of 

Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and other natural disasters are well 

known for the threats they pose to human safety. USGS has helped describe the 

less publicized but potentially significant threats these disasters can also pose to 

environmental health, such as the Valley Fever outbreak associated with the 1994 

Northridge California earthquake and health implications of exposure to volcanic 

ash. More recently, USGS expertise from across the Bureau is being called upon to 

help assess the environmental, ecological, and human-health impacts of hurricanes, dust storms, flooding, wildfires, and other extreme events as they affect the 

United States. The USGS is also integrating environmental health considerations 

into its disaster scenarios that model and help prepare for plausible impacts of 

future disasters, such as the Southern California ShakeOut earthquake and ARkStorm extreme winter storm scenarios. More information is available in the article 

titled “Geoscientists Aid in the Aftermath of Disasters”, in the magazine Earth

(Plumlee, 2009).

Environmental Health and Hazards
References Cited 35

research activities and the sharing of expertise and information, while providing a point of direct access to USGS products and expertise in environmental health science, as well 

as for the science produced by the other six USGS science 

strategies. 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to recognize John Lamoreux for 

his work as executive secretary of the Strategic Science Planning Team responsible for preparing this strategy, and Eric A. 

Morrissey for the preparation of illustrations in this report. The 

report was improved by reviews from the following USGS 

scientists, Collin A. Eagles-Smith, James F. Fairchild, Milton 

Friend, Denis R. LeBlanc, William H. Orem, Frank Panek, 

John M. Pearce, Barnett A. Rattner, Roger Sayre, and William 

G. Wilber. We would also like to thank the scientists from 

many federal agencies who provided input to this strategy for 

their agencies. 

References Cited

American Veterinary Medicine Association, 2008, One health: 

A new professional imperative: Schaumburg, Illinois, Final 

Report, One Health Initiative Task Force, 71 p.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 2011, National Select 

Agent Registry, accessed June 26, 2011, at http://www.

selectagents.gov/select%20agents%20and%20Toxins%20

list.html.

Birnbaum, L.S., 2012, Environmental chemicals—Evaluating low-dose effects: Environmental Health Perspectives, 

v. 120, no. 4, p. A143–A144.

Blazer, V.S., Iwanowicz, L.R., Starliper, C.E., Iwanowicz, 

D.D., Barbash, P., Hedrick, J.D., Reeser, S.J., Mullican, J.E., 

Zaugg, S.D., Burkhardt, M.R., and Kelble, J., 2010, Mortality of centrarchid fishes in the Potomac drainage—Survey 

results and overview of potential contributing factors: Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, v. 22, no. 3, p. 190–218.

Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., McCracken, G.F., and Kunz, T.H., 

2011, Economic importance of bats in agriculture: Science, 

v. 332, no. 6025, p. 41–42.

Brian, J.V., Harris, C.A., Scholze, Martin, Backhaus, Thomas, 

Booy, Petra, Lamoree, Marja, Pojana, Giulio, Jonkers, 

Niels, Runnalls, Tamsin, Bonfà, Angela, Marcomini, 

Antonio, and Sumpter, J.P., 2005, Accurate prediction of 

the response of freshwater fish to a mixture of estrogenic 

chemicals: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 113, 

no. 6, p. 721–728.

Buxton, H.T., Griffin, D.W., Pierce, B.S., 2008, Earth science 

and public health—Proceedings of the second national conference on USGS health-related research: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5022, 47 p., 

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5022/pdf/

sir2008-5022.pdf.

Diamanti-Kandarakis, Evanthia, Bourguignon, Jean-Pierre, 

Giudice, L.C., Hauser, Russ, Prins, G.S., Soto, A.M., 

Zoeller, R.T., and Gore, A.C., 2009, Endocrine-disrupting 

chemicals—An Endocrine Society scientific statement: 

Endocrine Reviews, v. 30, no. 4, p. 293–342.

Feingold, B.J., Vogosen, Leora, Davis, Meghan, Leibler, 

Jessica, Peterson, Amy, Silbergeld, E.K. 2010, A niche for 

ingectious disease in environmental health—Rethinking the 

toxicological paradigm: Environmental Health Perspectives, 

v. 118, no. 8, p. 1,165–1,172.

Friend, Milton, 2006, Disease emergence and resurgence—The wildlife-human connection: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1285, 108 p., available online at 

http://137.227.242.129/publications/disease_emergence/.

Government Accountability Office, 2011, Antibiotic resistance—Data gaps will remain despite HHS taking steps 

to improve monitoring: Washington D.C., Government 

Accountability Office report GAO-11-406, 66 p.

Hinck, J.E., Blazer, V.S., Schmitt, C.J., Papoulias, D.M., and 

Tillitt, D.E., 2009, Widespread occurrence of intersex in 

black basses (Micropterus spp.) from U.S. rivers, 1995–

2004: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 95, no. 1, p. 60–70.

Institute of Medicine, 2011, Roundtable on Environment, 

Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine, accessed June 15, 

2011, at http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Environment/

EnvironmentalHealthRT.aspx.

Johnson, P.T.J., Chase, J.M., Dosch, K.L., Hartson, R.B., 

Gross, J.A., Larson, D.J., Sutherland, D.R., and Carpenter, 

S.R., 2007, Aquatic eutrophication promotes pathogenic 

infection in amphibians: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., v. 104, no. 40, p. 15,781–15,786.

Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, Adam, Balk, 

Deborah, Gittleman, J.L., and Daszak, Peter, 2008, Global 

trends in emerging infectious diseases: Nature, v. 451, 

no. 7181, p. 990–993.

Kidd, K.A., Blanchfield, P.J., Mills, K.H., Palace, V.P., Evans, 

R.E., Lazorchak, J.M., and Flick, R.W., 2007, Collapse of 

a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen: 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 

v. 104, no. 21, p. 8,897–8,901.
36 USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy—Providing Environmental Health Science for a Changing World

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., 

Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., and Buxton, H.T., 2002, Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams 1999–2000—A national reconnaissance: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 36, no. 6, 

p. 1,202–1,211.

Lederberg, Joshua, Shope, R.E., and Oaks, S.C., Jr., eds., 

1992, Emerging infections—Microbial threats to health in 

the United States: Washington, D.C., Institute of Medicine, 

National Academy of Sciences, 294 p.

McKinney, C.W., Loftin, K.A., Meyer, M.T., Davis, J.G., 

Pruden, A., 2010, tet and sul antibiotic resistance genes in 

livestock lagoons of various operation type, configuration, 

and antibiotic occurrence: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 44, no. 16, p. 6,102–6,109.

McNutt, M.K., 2010, Strategic science planning and high-level 

budget development—Charge to Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT): Director’s memorandum to USGS staff, 

January 26, 2010, available online at http://www.usgs.gov/

start_with_science/docs/ss_charter.pdf.

Morens, D.M., Folkers, G.K., and Fauci, A.S., 2008, Emerging infections—A perpetual challenge: Lancet Infectious 

Diseases, v. 8, no. 11, p. 710–719.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2006, 

NIEHS 2006–2011 Strategic Plan—New frontiers in environmental sciences and human health: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, NIH Publication 2006–218, 

24 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2008, National 

nanotechnology initiative—Strategy for nanotechnologyrelated environmental, health, and safety research: Washington, D.C., Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Technology, 90 p. 

National Research Council, 2007, Earth materials and health, 

research priorities for earth science and public health: 

Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 176 p.

Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2011, National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, accessed June 15, 

2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/

ostp/nstc/committees/cenrs.

Paine, R.T., Tegner, M.J., and Johnson, E.A., 1998, Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises: Ecosystems, v. 1, no. 6, p. 535–545.

Phillips, P.J., Smith, S.G., Kolpin, D.W., Zaugg, S.D., Buxton, 

H.T., Furlong, E.T., Esposito, Kathleen, and Stinson, Beverley, 2010, Pharmaceutical formulation facilities as sources 

of opioids and other pharmaceuticals to wastewater treatment plant effluents: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 44, no. 13, p. 4,910–4,916.

Plumlee, G.S., 2009, Report from ground zero—How geoscientists aid in the aftermath of environmental disasters: 

Earth, v. 54, no. 10, p. 38–47.

President’s Cancer Panel, 2010, Reducing environmental 

cancer risk—What we can do now: 2008–2009 Annual 

Report of the President’s Cancer Panel, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 

National Cancer Institute, 147 p. plus appendixes, accessed 

August 8, 2011, at http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/

annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf.

Prüss-Ütün, A., and Corvalán, C., 2006, Preventing disease 

through healthy environments—Towards an estimate of 

the environmental burden of disease: Geneva, Switzerland, 

World Health Organization, 104 p.

Stone, W.W., Gilliom, R.J., and Crawford, C.G. 2008, Watershed Regressions for Pesticides (WARP) for predicting 

annual maximum and maximum moving-average concentrations of atrazine in streams: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 08–1186, 19 p., available online at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2008/1186/pdf/ofr2008-1186.pdf.

Tillitt, D.E., Papoulias, D.M., Whyte, J.J., and Richter, C.A., 

2010, Atrazine reduces reproduction in fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas): Aquatic Toxicology, v. 99, no. 2, 

p. 149–159.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003, Economic impact of 

West Nile Virus on the Colorado and Nebraska equine 

industries: 2002. Info Sheet #N394.0403, April 2003, 

accessed March 22, 2012, at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

animal_health/nahms/equine/downloads/wnv2002_CO_

NB.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010, Colony collapse disorder progress report: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 7 p.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009, 

National health security strategy of the United States of 

America: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 43 p., accessed July 29, 2011 at 

http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/authority/nhss/

strategy/Documents/nhss-final.pdf.
References Cited 37

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2008, National 

response framework: Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-

ment of Homeland Security [FEMA publication P-682], 

82 p., accessed July 29, 2011, at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/

emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010, Strategic Plan for Fiscal 

Years 2011–2016: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 44 p., accessed August 8, 2011, at http://www.

doi.gov/bpp/data/PPP/DOI_StrategicPlan.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, 2008 report 

on the environment: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmen-

tal Protection Agency, National Center for Environmen-

tal Assessment, EPA/600/R-07/045F, 366 p., accessed 

August 8, 2011, at http://www.epa.gov/roe/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Drinking water 

strategy: World Wide Web accessed July 29, 2011, at http://

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.

cfm.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Facing tomorrow’s chal-

lenges—U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 

2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, 69 p., 

available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, GeoHealth Newsletter—The 

U.S. Geological Survey’s environmental health newsletter, 

accessed May 16, 2012 at http://health.usgs.gov/geohealth/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, USGS CoreCast—it’s natu-

ral science from the inside out, accessed June 15, 2011 at 

http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/.

The White House, 2010, National security strategy, Washing-

ton, D.C., The White House, 52 p., accessed July 25, 2011, 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/

national_security_strategy.pdf.

Vandenberg, L.N., Colborn, T., Hayes, T.B., Heindel, J.J., 

Jacobs, D.R., Lee, D., Shioda, T., Soto, A.M., vom Saal, 

F.S., Welshons, W.V., Zoeller, R.T., and Myers, J.P., 2012, 

Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals—Lowdose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses: Endocrine Reviews, v. 33, no. 3, available online at http://edrv.

endojournals.org/content/early/2012/03/14/er.2011-1050.

full.pdf+html.

Woolhouse, M.E.J., and Gowtage-Sequeria, Sonya, 2005, Host 

range and emerging and reemerging pathogens: Emerging 

Infectious Diseases, v. 11, no. 12, p. 1,842–1,847.

World Health Organization, 2011, About the One Health 

Initiative: accessed September 15, 2011, at http://www.

onehealthinitiative.com/about.php.