Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental Impact Assessment Review”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

115 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Ungulate migration in a changing climate—An initial assessment of climate impacts, management priorities, and science needs

Executive Summary Migratory behavior among ungulates in the Western United States occurs in response to changing forage quality and quantity, weather patterns, and predation risk. As snow melts and vegetation green-up begins in late spring and early summer, many migratory ungulates leave their winter range and move to higher elevation summer ranges to access high-quality forage and areas with vegetative cover for protection during fawning. Ungulates remain on these ranges until the fall when increasing snowfall and decreasing temperatures trigger them to migrate back to their lower elevation winter ranges. While researchers have begun to assess the effects of physical barriers such as roads and energy infrastructure on migration, less attention has been paid to understanding how changing climate conditions might affect ungulate movements and range habitats. Does earlier spring green-up make ungulates leave their winter ranges sooner? Do persistent drought conditions reduce the carrying capacity of seasonal range habitats or lead to shifts in migration pathways? These and other questions remain largely unanswered but could have cascading effects on ungulate population dynamics and migratory behavior. In February 2018, the Secretary of the Interior signed Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362 (SO3362), “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors.” The order, which focuses on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn in 11 Western States, directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to partner with State wildlife agencies on their priorities and objectives for identifying and conserving ungulate migration corridors and winter-range habitat. The USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) were established to help managers of the Nation’s fish, wildlife, waters, and lands understand the effects of climate change and adapt to changing conditions. To support the recent Department of the Interior (DOI) emphasis on ungulate migration corridors and winter-range habitat, this report assesses current information on how climate change could affect elk, mule deer, and pronghorn migration. The report synthesizes the drivers of migration, outlines what is known about how climate change might affect these drivers, and summarizes management priorities and science needs related to ungulate migration corridors and range habitat. A review of the literature on ungulate migration shows that the core drivers of spring migration are the timing of spring green-up and snowmelt, and the core driver of fall migration is winter severity. After exploring what is known about how these drivers affect or could be affected by climate change, several pathways through which ungulate migration could be altered were identified: (1) ungulates alter migration timing to better track plant phenology or in response to changes in winter conditions; (2) ungulates change their migration route or distance traveled during migration to accommodate changes in environmental conditions; and (3) ungulate populations that are currently migratory may begin to demonstrate interannual variability in whether they migrate, depending on environmental conditions and density-dependence, and may remain resident for sets of consecutive years. Through discussions with managers, physical barriers to movement such as roads and fences were identified as a core concern. In addition, the primary research needs of States are the acquisition and analysis of data on ungulate movements, to refine delineation of winter range, summer range, and corridors, and to support a better understanding of how ungulates use these habitats. When it comes to understanding climate effects, managers were more concerned with understanding the vulnerability of winter- and summer-range habitats than the vulnerability of migration corridors because of the influence of summer and winter forage on ungulate condition and reproductive success. Managers were also concerned about how forage quality and quantity might change because of stressors such as drought, wildfire, and invasive species and how they might need to alter habitat-treatment strategies as a result. More baseline data are needed before effective projections of ungulate migration, at a West-wide scale under climate change, can be made. These data needs include (1) more clearly defined corridors and seasonal range habitats; (2) a comprehensive understanding of the ecological drivers of migration across ungulate species and populations; and (3) the identification of environmental thresholds for key variables that influence migration, above which ungulates alter migratory behavior. The CASCs have several opportunities to play a role in addressing these needs. The CASCs could initiate projects to identify past and potential future changes and trends in key variables known to affect ungulate migration, such as plant phenology, forage quality, or winter severity. However, it would be difficult to use this information to determine what those trends mean for ungulate migration due to the lack of knowledge about environmental thresholds for ungulates. Additional projects would be required to compare multiple years of movement data with key variables to define thresholds. Once available, information on environmental thresholds could be integrated with projections of key variables to forecast the likelihood that the migration routes or the distance traveled could change—another area in which the CASCs could contribute. A more immediate role for the CASCs would be to carry out synthesis projects. One such project could summarize the “state of the science” on the drivers of ungulate migration. Although there are dozens of population- and location-specific studies on this topic, collating this information could help highlight trends in migration drivers that span species and geographies: a necessary first step toward determining the extent to which migration drivers could be affected by climate change. A second project could focus on what is known about how climate variability and change affect ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in the Western United States. The goal of this effort could be to identify knowledge clusters and information gaps that require further investigation. Together, these synthesized products could focus future scientific activities on the most pressing issues of ungulate migration and climate change in the Western United States.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New↗
USGS1997

Summary of information on aquatic biota and their habitats in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, through 1995

Available information on aquatic biota of the Willamette Basin was reviewed and summarized to describe current and historical conditions as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Biological parameters emphasized include the status, distribution, and trends of aquatic biota, particularly algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish; the condition of aquatic and riparian habitat in which these biota reside; and the response of these biota to natural and human-associated impacts, including the level, type, and effect of contaminants. Considerable data are available on aquatic biota in the Willamette Basin, although the information is highly uneven relative to taxa and spatial scope. Extensive information exists for high-profile taxa, such as salmonid fishes, but less information is available for macroinvertebrates, and relatively little data exist for algae. Additionally, some areas such as the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest and the main stem Willamette River have been extensively studied, whereas data are limited for many other areas. The basin supports a diverse aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna. Available data indicate a relatively high diversity of taxa and a high richness of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) taxa in the upper reaches of the basin. In the lower main stem reaches, macroinvertebrate assemblages are dominated by pollution tolerant organisms and those adapted to low dissolved oxygen levels. Most of the limited data on algae are from sampling in the main stem Willamette River. Diatoms and blue-green algae are the dominant algal forms. Approximately 61 fish species occur in the basin, although nearly half are introduced. Species richness and distribution are highly correlated with elevation, stream gradient, and water temperature. High elevation, cold water, mountain streams are characterized by a few species of salmonids, sculpins, suckers, and whitefish. Low elevation, main stem reaches of major rivers and streams are dominated by warm water species, such as bass, catfish, and several species in the pan fish group. The only species of fish listed as threatened or endangered is the Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri). The effect of an expanding human presence in the Willamette Basin has substantially altered aquatic and riparian habitats, and the biota that use or reside in these habitats. Construction of dams, channelization and bank stabilization of rivers, species introductions, supplementations of fisheries through aquaculture, timber harvesting, agricultural activities, and urbanization have contributed to changes in aquatic habitats and biota from historical conditions. Aquatic toxicological investigations in the basin have focused primarily on fish. These studies have addressed chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and trace elements in aquatic tissue, as well as fish health assessments, skeletal abnormalities, and aquatic toxicological responses. Several pesticides exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State water-quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Elevated PCB, dioxin, and furan concentrations were associated with point sources, such as pulp and paper mills. Elevated concentrations of mercury in aquatic tissue were associated with several reservoirs. Fish health assessments and skeletal abnormality studies detected high levels of abnormalities in fish from the main stem Willamette River. Few investigations have examined aquatic toxicological responses, such as enzyme induction assays, growth assays, and biomarker studies.

Oregon↗
USGS1999

The effects of global climate change on seagrasses

The increasing rate of global climate change seen in this century, and predicted to accelerate into the next, will significantly impact the Earth's oceans. In this review, we examine previously published seagrass research through a lens of global climate change in order to consider the potential effects on the world's seagrasses. A primary effect of increased global temperature on seagrasses will be the alteration of growth rates and other physiological functions of the plants themselves. The distribution of seagrasses will shift as a result of increased temperature stress and changes in the patterns of sexual reproduction. Indirect temperature effects may include plant community changes as a result of increased eutrophication and changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. The direct effects of sea level rise on the coastal oceans will be to increase water depths, change tidal variation (both mean tide level and tidal prism), alter water movement, and increase seawater intrusion into estuaries and rivers. A major impact of all these changes on seagrasses and tidal freshwater plants will be a redistribution of existing habitats. The intrusion of ocean water into formerly fresh or brackish water areas will directly affect estuarine plant distribution by changing conditions at specific locations, causing some plants to relocate in order to stay within their tolerance zones and allowing others to expand their distribution inland. Distribution changes will result from the effects of salinity change on seed germination, propagule formation, photosynthesis, growth and biomass. Also, some plant communities may decline or be eliminated as a result of increased disease activity under more highly saline conditions. Increased water depth, which reduces the amount of light reaching existing seagrass beds, will directly reduce plant productivity where plants are light limited. Likewise, increases in water motion and tidal circulation will decrease the amount of light reaching the plants by increasing turbidity or by stimulating the growth of epiphytes. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will directly elevate the amount of CO 2 in coastal waters. In areas where seagrasses are carbon limited, this may increase primary production, although whether this increase will be sustained with long-term CO 2 enrichment is uncertain. The impact of increases in CO 2 will vary with species and environmental circumstances, but will likely include species distribution by altering the competition between seagrass species as well as between seagrass and algal populations. The reaction of seagrasses to UV-B radiation may range from inhibition of photosynthetic activity, as seen for terrestrial plants and marine algae, to the increased metabolic cost of producing UV-B blocking compounds within plant tissue. The effects of UV-B radiation will likely be greatest in the tropics and in southern oceans. There is every reason to believe that, as with the predicted terrestrial effects of global climate change, impacts to seagrasses will be great. The changes that will occur in seagrass communities are difficult to predict; our assessment clearly points out the need for research directed toward the impact of global climate change on seagrasses.

Aquatic Botany↗
USGS2021

Assessing the uncertainties in climatic estimates based on vegetation assemblages: Examples from modern vegetation assemblages in the American Southwest

Assemblages of fossil plant remains have been widely used to reconstruct past climatic conditions, usually through the application of methods that involve either finding vegetation analogues on the modern landscape (and using the modern associated climatic values as the basis for an estimate) or using the modern climatic ranges of individual taxa in an assemblage to determine the range of a given climate variable that would allow these plant taxa to live together. Although these approaches are relatively straightforward, it is difficult to assess the uncertainties associated with each approach, particularly in regard to their application to plant macrofossil assemblages. To explore the uncertainty that may arise from inaccuracy and imprecision in climate reconstructions and from ecological considerations we used variants of both approaches to estimate climate from two data sets of modern vegetation assemblages from the southwestern United States: (1) 1752 gridded “virtual plant assemblages” based on plant range maps that provide uniform spatial coverage of the presence or absence of major woody plant taxa across the study area; and (2) 43 modern packrat ( Neotoma spp.) midden presence-absence assemblages that are similar to fossil midden assemblages. By comparing observed and estimated climate values, we evaluated the quality of the climate estimates, identified sources of uncertainty, and characterized the nature and magnitude of the effects of these uncertainties on the climate estimates. Uncertainties in estimating climate from vegetation assemblages arise because any given plant taxon (or assemblage) must have the resiliency to survive a range of climatic variability, and because of the strong intercorrelations among climatic variables in the modern climate data. Additional sources of uncertainty in climate estimates from plant assemblages include: (1) the modern climate and plant distribution data that are selected as the basis for estimation; (2) the particular quantitative approach that is used to estimate climate; (3) the sufficiency of the number of taxa in the analysis for providing an unbiased representation of the vegetation community as it existed for each time period in the analysis; and, (4) the location of the assemblage on the climatic and environmental gradients in the calibration data set for each climate variable under consideration. We conclude that vegetation assemblages can provide valid and reproducible estimates of climatic variables and that the primary trends and mapped patterns in the observed climate data can be reconstructed from such estimates. However, many factors may affect the quality of an estimate from a given plant assemblage, including aspects of data selection, data adequacy, methodologies, and the location of the assemblage site relative to gradients in the base climate data. It is particularly difficult to accurately estimate extreme values in the observed climate data, because estimated values from either end of an observed climate gradient necessarily “move toward the middle” of the gradient. In addition, the interval chosen to represent modern climate (here we used 1961 to 1990) may have a large impact on the size of the estimated difference between modern and past climate at a given site.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2016

Hydrologic analyses in support of the Navajo Generating Station–Kayenta Mine Complex environmental impact statement

Introduction The U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region (Reclamation) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Navajo Generating Station-Kayenta Mine Complex Project (NGS-KMC Project). The proposed project involves various Federal approvals that would facilitate continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) from December 23, 2019 through 2044, and continued operation of the Kayenta Mine and support facilities (collectively called the Kayenta Mine Complex, or KMC) to supply coal to the NGS for this operational period. The EIS will consider several project alternatives that are likely to produce different effects on the Navajo (N) aquifer; the N aquifer is the principal water resource in the Black Mesa area used by the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and Peabody Western Coal Company (PWCC). The N aquifer is composed of three hydraulically connected formations—the Navajo Sandstone, the Kayenta Formation, and the Lukachukai Member of the Wingate Sandstone—that function as a single aquifer. The N aquifer is confined under most of Black Mesa, and the overlying stratigraphy limits recharge to this part of the aquifer. The N aquifer is unconfined in areas surrounding Black Mesa, and most recharge occurs where the Navajo Sandstone is exposed in the area near Shonto, Arizona. Overlying the N aquifer is the D aquifer, which includes the Dakota Sandstone, Morrison Formation, Entrada Sandstone, and Carmel Formation. The aquifer is named for the Dakota Sandstone, which is the primary water-bearing unit. The NGS is located near Page, Arizona on the Navajo Nation. The KMC, which delivers coal to NGS by way of a dedicated electric railroad, is located approximately 83 miles southeast of NGS (about 125 miles northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona). The Kayenta Mine permit area is located on about 44,073 acres of land leased within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations. KMC has been conducting mining and reclamation operations within the Kayenta Mine permit boundary since 1973. The KMC part of the proposed project requires approval by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of a significant revision of the mine’s permit to operate in accordance with the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (Public Law 95-87, 91 Stat. 445 [30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ]) . The revision will identify coal resource areas that may be used to continue extracting coal at the present rate of approximately 8.2 million tons per year. The Kayenta Mine Complex uses water pumped from the D and N aquifers beneath PWCC’s leasehold to support mining and reclamation activities. Prior to 2006, water from the PWCC well field also was used to transport coal by way of a coal-slurry pipeline to the now-closed Mohave Generating Station. Water usage at the leasehold was approximately 4,100 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) during the period the pipeline was in use, and declined to an average 1,255 acre-ft/yr from 2006 to 2011. The Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) section of the mining and reclamation permit must be modified to project the consequences of extended water use by the mine for the duration of the KMC part of the project, including a post-mining reclamation period. Since 1971, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted the Black Mesa Monitoring Program, which consists of monitoring water levels and water quality in the N aquifer, compiling information on water use by PWCC and tribal communities, maintaining several stream-gaging stations, measuring discharge at selected springs, conducting special studies, and reporting findings. These data are useful in evaluating the effects on the N aquifer from PWCC and community pumping, and the effects of variable precipitation. The EIS will assess the impacts of continued pumping on the N aquifer, including changes in storage, water quality, and effects on spring and baseflow discharge, by proposed mining through 2044, and during the reclamation process to 2057. Several groundwater models exist for the area and Reclamation concluded it would conduct a peer review of the groundwater flow model that will be used to assess the direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative effects of future groundwater withdrawals on the D and N aquifers in the Black Mesa area. Reclamation made this determination because of the level of controversy around the effects of continued water use and the comments received from the 2014 draft EIS scoping meetings. Reclamation requested assistance from the USGS in evaluating existing groundwater flow models of the Black Mesa Basin that can be used to predict the effects of different project alternatives on the D and N aquifers.

Arizona↗
USGS2009

Prevention, early detection and containment of invasive, nonnative plants in the Hawaiian Islands: current efforts and needs

Introduction: Invasive, non-native plants (or environmental weeds) have long been recognized as a major threat to the native biodiversity of oceanic islands (Cronk & Fuller, 1995; Denslow, 2003). Globally, several hundred non-native plant species have been reported to have major impacts on natural areas on oceanic islands (Kueffer et al ., 2009). In Hawaii, at least some 50 non-native plant species reach dominance in natural areas (Kueffer et al ., 2009) and many of them are known to impact ecosystem processes or biodiversity. One example is the invasive Australian tree fern ( Cyathea cooperi ), which has been shown to be very efficient at utilizing soil nitrogen and can grow six times as rapidly in height, maintain four times more fronds, and produce significantly more fertile fronds per month than the native Hawaiian endemic tree ferns, Cibotium spp. (Durand & Goldstein, 2001a, b). Additionally, while native tree ferns provide an ideal substrate for epiphytic growth of many understory ferns and flowering plants, the Australian tree fern has the effect of impoverishing the understory and failing to support an abundance of native epiphytes (Medeiros & Loope, 1993). Other notorious examples of invasive plant species problematic for biodiversity and ecosystem processes in Hawaii include miconia ( Miconia calvescens ), strawberry guava ( Psidium cattleianum ), albizia ( Falcataria moluccana ), firetree ( Morella faya ), clidemia ( Clidemia hirta ), kahili ginger ( Hedychium gardnerianum ), and fountain grass ( Pennisetum setaceum ), to name just a few. Fireweed ( Senecio madagascariensis ) is a recent example of a seriously problematic invasive species for Hawaii’s agriculture and is damaging certain high-elevations native ecosystems as well. The threat of invasive plants has long been recognized in Hawaii and is well documented (e.g. Cox, 1999; Loope & Kraus, 2009 in press; Loope et al ., 2004; Mooney & Drake, 1986; Stone & Scott, 1985; Stone et al. , 1992). In many respects, Hawaii may be near the forefront among national and international efforts to address the burgeoning threat of invasive plants, perhaps especially in the field of outreach and education (Holt, 1996; Van Driesche & Van Driesche, 2000). However, given the scale of the problem many challenges still need to be addressed and gaps in the existing management system need to be identified. In particular, it appears that new non-native plant species are still introduced to the Hawaiian Islands at a high rate with little or no regard for their potential invasiveness. In fact, a Pacific-wide and a global survey of non-native plants on oceanic islands have both shown that on Hawaii among all archipelagos by far the highest number of problematic invasive species known from other areas in the world is already present (Denslow et al . 2009, Kueffer et al . 2009). Hawaii lacks an effective mechanism for tracking what species are present or incoming. For instance, early detection nursery surveys conducted on Maui in 2008 found over 300 species of cultivated vascular plants that have not previously been recorded in Hawaii (Starr et al. , in prep.). In spite of an innovative Hawaii Biological Survey (e.g. Eldredge & Evenhuis, 2003), there is no mechanism for recording presence of a species until it becomes naturalized. Some of these new introductions may quickly become serious pests. Fireweed, first recorded in Hawaii on the Big Island in the early 1980s, is now considered one of the Kueffer & Loope 2009 5/48 worst weeds of pastures and is also invading natural areas from near sea level to above 10,000 feet. Although the cultivated and as yet non-invasive Cortaderia selloana has been present in Hawaii for 50 years or more, the morphologically similar Cortaderia jubata was simultaneously found to be present on Maui and invading on a large scale in 1989. It played an important role in inspiring the establishment of the Maui Invasive Species Committee (MISC) in 1997, and MISC now spends roughly $200,000 per year removing and containing C. jubata to keep it from becoming widespread in high elevation conservation lands of East and West Maui. The existence of many similar examples shows that to date regulatory action to prevent new invasive plant species from establishing and spreading in Hawaii has not yet been as successful as it needs to be. In particular, because some problematic invasive species known from other areas in the world (Kueffer et al ., 2009; Weber, 2003) have not yet been recorded from Hawaii, preventive measures against the introduction and spread of such likely invasive species is therefore an urgent need for Hawaii. Indeed, regulation of importation and early detection and eradication of introduced species before they become abundant and widespread are widely considered the most cost-efficient and often only effective measures against the threat of new invasive species (Kueffer & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008; Wittenberg & Cock, 2001). Timing seems favorable for Hawaii to achieve effective protection against the threat of new invasive species through prevention, early detection, and eradication/containment. Through the establishment and evolution of Invasive Species Committees (ISCs) on each major Hawaiian island, the institutional capacity has been built up for prevention, early detection, containment, and outreach at an island scale. Weed risk assessment (Daehler et al ., 2004) and early detection methodologies (Starr et al. , in review-a, b) have been developed and tested specifically for Hawaii. Containment strategies have been successful (e.g., Special Ecological Areas in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park), and so have eradications of particular species on an island scale (e.g. mullein ( Verbascum thapsus ) and other species on Maui, fireweed ( Senecio madagascariensis ) on Kauai). These successful management strategies may be further strengthened through recently developed novel approaches in research (e.g. remote sensing, species distribution modelling, and molecular genetics tools). Another major recent achievement is the gained support of the plant industry for preventive measures against invasive species (see p. 13ff). Last but not least, regulatory action is also moving forward. Passage of House Bill 2517 by the 2008 Hawaii House and Senate and prompt signing of the bill into law by the Governor provides hope that action to ban the sale of a meaningful suite of restricted weeds can quickly proceed through the rulemaking phase into the implementation phase. This report documents these achievements and experiences and provides a range of perspectives on how to further develop prevention, early detection and containment of invasive species in Hawaii. The report is based on a symposium and workshop held at the 2008 Hawaii Conservation Conference in Honolulu on 31 July 2008.

Hawaii↗
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

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: - 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 health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction 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. 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.

Open-File Report↗