Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “One Health”

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.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2024

One Health best practice case study: Advancing national One Health coordination in the United States through the One Health zoonotic disease prioritization process

The U.S. government advances One Health coordination through the best practices of jointly developing shared priorities and utilizing formalized coordination platforms to connect partners from public health, agriculture, wildlife, environment, and other sectors at the national, subnational (e.g. state, tribal, local, and territorial), and non-governmental levels (e.g. academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and the public) levels. Coordinated efforts were strengthened through the U.S. One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) workshop in 2017, which led to the prioritization of eight zoonotic diseases and development of next steps and action plans for One Health collaboration across federal agencies (Prioritizing Zoonotic Diseases for Multisectoral, One Health Collaboration in the United States, 2017). This One Health best practice was used to prioritize the top endemic and emerging zoonoses of greatest concern for the United States, identify gaps, and define plans for U.S. government One Health collaboration to address the priority zoonotic diseases. Multiple actions that strengthened One Health coordination were enacted, including establishing the One Health Federal Interagency COVID-19 Coordination (OH-FICC) group. To further advance One Health in the United States, Congress mandated that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture collaborate to develop the National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States as well as formalize a One Health, multisectoral coordination mechanism, the United States One Health Coordination Unit at the federal level (Appropriations Committee Report, 2021; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023). Enhancing national level One Health coordination in the United States has also helped advance collaboration with subnational and non-governmental levels to address timely One Health issues.

One Health Cases↗
USGS2016

“One Health” or three? Publication silos among the One Health disciplines

The One Health initiative is a global effort fostering interdisciplinary collaborations to address challenges in human, animal, and environmental health. While One Health has received considerable press, its benefits remain unclear because its effects have not been quantitatively described. We systematically surveyed the published literature and used social network analysis to measure interdisciplinarity in One Health studies constructing dynamic pathogen transmission models. The number of publications fulfilling our search criteria increased by 14.6% per year, which is faster than growth rates for life sciences as a whole and for most biology subdisciplines. Surveyed publications clustered into three communities: one used by ecologists, one used by veterinarians, and a third diverse-authorship community used by population biologists, mathematicians, epidemiologists, and experts in human health. Overlap between these communities increased through time in terms of author number, diversity of co-author affiliations, and diversity of citations. However, communities continue to differ in the systems studied, questions asked, and methods employed. While the infectious disease research community has made significant progress toward integrating its participating disciplines, some segregation—especially along the veterinary/ecological research interface—remains.

PLoS Biology↗
USGS2024

Balancing the scales: Including under-represented herptile species in a One Health approach

The One Health High-Level Expert Panel’s definition of One Health includes optimizing the health of people, animals (wild and domestic) and ecosystems. For many One Health practitioners, wildlife that can spread zoonoses are the focus, particularly if they can come in contact with people. However, ecosystem health is often best-indicated by less-encountered species, for instance, amphibians and reptiles. This review highlights how these taxa can benefit human health and well-being, including cultural significance, as well as their impact on plant, animal and environmental health. We highlight current challenges to the health of these species and the need to include them in the One Health Joint Action Plan. We conclude with a call to action for inclusion of amphibians and reptiles in a One Health approach.

Research Directions: One Health↗
USGS2017

Optimization of human, animal, and environmental health by using the One Health approach

Emerging diseases are increasing burdens on public health, negatively affecting the world economy, causing extinction of species, and disrupting ecological integrity. One Health recognizes that human, domestic animal, and wildlife health are interconnected within ecosystem health and provides a framework for the development of multidisciplinary solutions to global health challenges. To date, most health-promoting interventions have focused largely on single-sector outcomes. For example, risk for transmission of zoonotic pathogens from bush-meat hunting is primarily focused on human hygiene and personal protection. However, bush-meat hunting is a complex issue promoting the need for holistic strategies to reduce transmission of zoonotic disease while addressing food security and wildlife conservation issues. Temporal and spatial separation of humans and wildlife, risk communication, and other preventative strategies should allow wildlife and humans to co-exist. Upstream surveillance, vaccination, and other tools to prevent pathogen spillover are also needed. Clear multi-sector outcomes should be defined, and a systems-based approach is needed to develop interventions that reduce risks and balance the needs of humans, wildlife, and the environment. The ultimate goal is long-term action to reduce forces driving emerging diseases and provide interdisciplinary scientific approaches to management of risks, thereby achieving optimal outcomes for human, animal, and environmental health.

Journal of Veterinary Science↗
USGS2025

Enhancing One Health outcomes using decision science and negotiation

One Health initiatives have advanced zoonotic disease management by recognizing the interconnectedness of three sectors of governance (human, ecosystem, and animal) and by identifying options that can improve full-system health. Although One Health has had many successes, its full realization may be inhibited by a lack of strategies to overcome simultaneous impediments in decision making and governance. Decision impediments that hinder management may include uncertainty, risk, resource limitations, and trade-offs among objectives. Governance impediments arise from disparities in costs and benefits of disease management among sectors. Tools and strategies developed from decision science, collaboration, and negotiation theory can help articulate and overcome coinciding decision and governance impediments and enhance multisectoral One Health initiatives. In cases where collaboration and negotiation are insufficient to address disparities in cross-sector costs and benefits, altering incentive structures might improve disease-specific outcomes and improve the realization of One Health.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2022

One Health in action: Flea control and interpretative education at Badlands National Park

One Health involves interdisciplinary collaboration to improve, protect, and preserve the health of humans, wildlife, and ecosystems, and advocates for unified approaches to One Health challenges (Buttke et al. 2015). Here, we focus on a One Health challenge of nearly global distribution: Yersinia pestis , the flea-borne bacterial agent of plague. The bacterium poses a significant risk to humans and wildlife, causing social strife in some regions and transforming ecosystems (Eads and Biggins 2015). The conservation implications are profound in the western United States, where Y. pestis was first introduced in 1900. Considerable effort is devoted to plague mitigation, sometimes for human or wildlife health purposes separately. We present a synergy between plague mitigation for human and wildlife health.

South Dakota↗
USGS2019

One Health: A perspective from wildlife and environmental health sectors

Loss of biodiversity, habitat fragmentation and pollution, and subsequent degradation of natural environments threaten the range of ecosystem services that support all life on this planet. These changes, among others, are also driving the emergence of infectious diseases, with negative health outcomes for humans, animals, and our shared environment. Historically, interventions aimed at human and agricultural health issues did not always integrate wildlife or environmental health as part of the solution, which has resulted in unintended consequences. One Health recognises the interdependence of humans, animals and their shared environment, and provides a conceptual framework for developing interventions that optimise outcomes for human, animal and environmental health. However, there is a need to clearly articulate the core values, goals, and objectives of One Health for all relevant sectors in order to maximise synergies for communication, coordination, collaboration, and, ultimately, for joint actions on disease control and prevention. Application of systems and harm reduction approaches, focusing on the socio-economic and environmental determinants of health, and ensuring good governance and effective leadership will also maximise the opportunities to develop ‘win-win-win’ solutions to global health and environmental challenges. These solutions would help propel One Health forward to reach its full potential and truly optimise health outcomes for all.

Scientific and Technical Review↗
USGS2024

One Health collaboration is more effective than single-sector actions at mitigating SARS-CoV-2 in deer

One Health aims to achieve optimal health outcomes for people, animals, plants, and shared environments. We describe a multisector effort to understand and mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk to humans via the spread among and between captive and wild white-tailed deer. We first framed a One Health problem with three governance sectors that manage captive deer, wild deer populations, and public health. The problem framing included identifying fundamental objectives, causal chains for transmission, and management actions. We then developed a dynamic model that linked deer herds and simulated SARS-CoV-2. Next, we evaluated management alternatives for their ability to reduce SARS-CoV-2 spread in white-tailed deer. We found that single-sector alternatives reduced transmission, but that the best-performing alternative required collaborative actions among wildlife management, agricultural management, and public health agencies. Here, we show quantitative support that One Health actions outperform single-sector responses, but may depend on coordination to track changes in this evolving system.

Nature Communications↗
USGS2022

Exploring and mitigating plague for One Health purposes

Purpose of Review In 2020, the Appropriations Committee for the U.S. House of Representatives directed the CDC to develop a national One Health framework to combat zoonotic diseases, including sylvatic plague, which is caused by the flea-borne bacterium Yersinia pestis . This review builds upon that multisectoral objective. We aim to increase awareness of Y. pestis and to highlight examples of plague mitigation for One Health purposes (i.e., to achieve optimal health outcomes for people, animals, plants, and their shared environment). We draw primarily upon examples from the USA, but also discuss research from Madagascar and Uganda where relevant, as Y. pestis has emerged as a zoonotic threat in those foci. Recent Findings Historically, the bulk of plague research has been directed at the disease in humans. This is not surprising, given that Y. pestis is a scourge of human history. Nevertheless, the ecology of Y. pestis is inextricably linked to other mammals and fleas under natural conditions. Accumulating evidence demonstrates Y. pestis is an unrelenting threat to multiple ecosystems, where the bacterium is capable of significantly reducing native species abundance and diversity while altering competitive and trophic relationships, food web connections, and nutrient cycles. In doing so, Y. pestis transforms ecosystems, causing “shifting baselines syndrome” in humans, where there is a gradual shift in the accepted norms for the condition of the natural environment. Eradication of Y. pestis in nature is difficult to impossible, but effective mitigation is achievable; we discuss flea vector control and One Health implications in this context. Summary There is an acute need to rapidly expand research on Y. pestis , across multiple host and flea species and varied ecosystems of the Western US and abroad, for human and environmental health purposes. The fate of many wildlife species hangs in the balance, and the implications for humans are profound in some regions. Collaborative multisectoral research is needed to define the scope of the problem in each epidemiological context and to identify, refine, and implement appropriate and effective mitigation practices.

Current Tropical Medicine Reports↗
USGS2014

Making One Health a reality: Crossing bureaucratic boundaries

A One Health approach that achieves optimal outcomes requires that nontraditional partners come to a common table to identify solutions that transcend organization-specific mandates. This collaboration requires individuals to go beyond their accustomed comfort zones and function on teams with partners who very likely come from unfamiliar organizational, disciplinary, and even national cultures. Each participant represents a separate mandate and an individual corporate culture and values, and each potentially communicates in agency-specific or industry-prescribed cultural terms that may be foreign to the rest of the team. A recent review paper reports that such interdisciplinary teams are most likely to succeed when they have a unified task and a shared goal and values, and when personal relationships are developed from a foundation of trust and respect (1).

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

Habitat, wildlife and one health: Arcanobacterium pyogenes in Maryland and Upper Eastern Shore white-tailed deer populations

Background : Understanding the distribution of disease in wildlife is key to predicting the impact of emerging zoonotic one health concerns, especially for wildlife species with extensive human and livestock interfaces. The widespread distribution and complex interactions of white - tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) with humans suggest deer population health and management may have implications beyond stewardship of the animals. The intracranial abscessation suppurative meningitis (IASM) disease complex in deer has been linked to Arcanobacterium pyogenes , an under - diagnosed and often misdiagnosed organism considered commensal in domestic livestock but associated with serious disease in numerous species, including humans. Methods : Our study used standard bacterial culture techniques to assess A. pyogenes prevalence among male deer sampled across six physiogeographic regions in Maryland and male and female deer in the Upper Eastern Shore under Traditional Deer Management (TDM) and Quality Deer Management (QDM), a management protocol that alters population demographics in favor of older male deer. Samples were collected from antler pedicles for males, the top of the head where pedicles would be if present for females, or the whole dorsal frontal area of the head for neonates. We collected nasal samples from all animals by swabbing the nasopharyngeal membranes. A gram stain and catalase test were conducted, and aerobic bacteria were identified to genus and species when possible. We evaluated the effect of region on whether deer carried A. pyogenes using Pearson's chi-square test with Yates’ continuity correction. For the white-tailed deer management study, we tested whether site, age class and sex predisposed animals to carrying A. pyogenes using binary logistic regression. Results : A. pyogenes was detected on deer in three of the six regions studied, and was common in only one region, the Upper Eastern Shore. In the Upper Eastern Shore, 45% and 66% of antler and nasal swabs from deer were positive for A. pyogenes , respectively. On the Upper Eastern Shore, prevalence of A. pyogenes cultured from deer did not differ between management areas, and was abundant among both sexes and across all age classes. No A. pyogenes was cultured from a small sample of neonates. Conclusion : Our study indicates A. pyogenes may be carried widely among white-tailed deer regardless of sex or age class, but we found no evidence the pathogen is acquired in utero. The distribution of A. pyogenes across regions and concentration in a region with low livestock levels suggests the potential for localized endemicity of the organism and the possibility that deer may serve as a maintenance reservoir for an emerging one health concern.

Infection Ecology and Epidemiology↗
USGS2023

Stakeholder attitudes and perspectives on wildlife disease surveillance as a component of a One Health approach in Thailand

Coordinated wildlife disease surveillance (WDS) can help professionals across disciplines effectively safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. The aims of this study were to understand how WDS in Thailand is utilized, valued, and can be improved within a One Health framework. An online questionnaire was distributed to 183 professionals (55.7% response rate) across Thailand working in wildlife, marine animal, livestock, domestic animal, zoo animal, environmental, and public health sectors. Twelve semi-structured interviews with key professionals were then performed. Three-quarters of survey respondents reported using WDS data and information. Sectors agreed upon ranking disease control (76.5% of respondents) as the most beneficial outcome of WDS, while fostering new ideas through collaboration was valued by few participants (2.0%). Accessing data collected by ones own sector was identified as the most challenging (50%) yet least difficult to improve (88.3%). Having legal authority to conduct WDS was the second most frequently identified challenge. Interviewees explained that legal documentation required for crossinstitutional collaborations posed a barrier to efficient communication and use of human resources. Survey respondents identified allocation of human resources (75.5%), adequate budget (71.6%), and having a clear communication system between sectors (71.6%) as highest priority areas for improvement to WDS in Thailand. Authorization from administrative officials and support from local community members were identified as challenges during in-person interviews. Future outreach should be directed towards these groups. As 42.9% of marine health professionals had difficulty knowing whom to contact in other sectors and 28.4% of survey respondents indicated that communication with marine health professionals was not applicable to their work, connecting the marine sector with other sectors may be prioritized. This study identifies priorities for addressing current challenges in the establishment of a general WDS system and information management system in Thailand while presenting a model for such evaluation in other regions.

One Health Newsletter↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address highly pathogenic avian influenza and its effects on wildlife health 2025–29

Executive Summary Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an ecologically and economically important animal disease that can also directly affect humans (a “zoonotic” disease). HPAI was once limited almost exclusively to domestic poultry but has rapidly adapted to diverse animal hosts. Viruses causing HPAI now appear to be maintained and dispersed by wild birds largely independent of poultry, though HPAI continues to cause considerable economic losses and supply chain disruptions in the domestic poultry trade. Coincident with the adaptation of HPAI viruses to wild birds, particularly waterfowl and gulls, increasingly diverse wild bird hosts are becoming exposed to HPAI, often resulting in disease and death. More sporadically, HPAI has caused mass mortality events, particularly among seabirds. Furthermore, viral spillover to wild and domestic mammals has become more common. Spillover to wild mammals has resulted in mortality among diverse terrestrial and marine taxa, including episodic losses of such scale as to represent potential conservation challenges. Since approximately March 2024, HPAI has also affected dairy cows, which represents a new threat to the agricultural economy. Lastly, HPAI has increasingly affected humans through domestic animal exposures, exemplifying the considerable implications of this disease beyond animal health. Rapid changes in the ecology of HPAI are currently outpacing research efforts. For example, it is not entirely clear which newly established hosts may become reservoirs for HPAI viruses (in other words, capable of maintaining HPAI viruses within a broad population indefinitely) and how this may influence viral evolution and dissemination. As a result, there are considerable information gaps regarding HPAI in wildlife that, if filled, would improve the ability of scientists, managers, agricultural industry representatives, and healthcare professionals to understand and to anticipate the effects of HPAI on wild animal, domestic animal, environmental, and human health (“One Health”). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead Federal agency providing scientific research on avian influenza viruses (AIVs), including HPAI viruses, that affect wildlife for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has management authority. States have jurisdiction over wildlife on Federal lands within their borders (43 CFR § 24.3), so the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA) coordinates with State natural resource management agencies. The EMA focuses its research on HPAI through priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team ( app. 1 ). Priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team are based on Administration priorities, Congressional direction, and discussions with State, Federal, and Tribal natural resource management agencies that identify specific scientific gaps that need to be filled to inform sound wildlife management decisions. Notable non-DOI Federal partners include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lead for the HPAI regulatory response in poultry and livestock, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lead agency for the HPAI response pertaining to human health. The USGS offers unique expertise and capacity pertaining to research on diseases affecting free-ranging wildlife populations. This expertise has been critical to interjurisdictional surveillance and capacity-building efforts, including programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the CDC. The USGS also provides resources, guidance, and tools to inform surveillance and interventions conducted by natural resource management agencies. More specifically, the USGS EMA provides objective and rigorous scientific data for inferring (1) the utility of new methods to detect and characterize AIVs, including those maintained in wildlife and the environment; (2) effects of HPAI on wildlife; (3) spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife host and AIV dispersal; (4) the presence and persistence of AIVs in the environment; (5) how HPAI in wildlife influences consumptive and nonconsumptive utilization of wildlife; (6) how new tools and scientific methods may promote sound management decisions for HPAI-affected wildlife, particularly species of conservation concern; and (7) the combined effects of HPAI and other stressors on ecosystem health and resiliency. This science strategy builds upon research outlined in a previous USGS science strategy for HPAI (2016–20) by Harris and others (2016) . This strategy also details research priorities identified by the Administration (for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025 ) and others based on USGS Avian Influenza Science Team discussions with natural resource management agencies to address HPAI and wildlife health over the next 5 years (2025–29). This strategy presents 7 goals and 26 objectives that focus USGS and partner efforts on priorities that will fill data gaps regarding the effects of HPAI on wildlife managed by or co-managed with the U.S. Department of the Interior such that agencies and partners might anticipate or limit adverse effects on public resources. This strategy also identifies research priorities intended to address HPAI in wildlife and wildlife habitat that are anticipated to support interjurisdictional One Health efforts.

Circular↗
USGS2020

An ecological and conservation perspective

Natural ecosystems are facing unprecedented threats which directly threaten human well-being through decreases in critical ecosystem services (IPBES 2019). The top five drivers causing the largest global impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services include: 1) changes in land and sea use; 2) direct exploitation of organisms; 3) climate change; 4) pollution, and 5) invasive alien species (IPBES 2019). Although One Health acknowledges the link between the health of humans, animals, and the environment, One Health discussions have historically focused on the prevention and control of infectious disease at the human-animal interface rather than these large-scale drivers of health. While One Health has succeeded in bringing awareness to the need for proactive disease control measures such as strengthened biosecurity and vaccine development (e.g., Machalaba et al., 2018; Middleton et al., 2014), disease is only one component of health. In this chapter, we explore the potential for One Health to shift its focus from disease prevention to health promotion to more fully integrate solutions that protect the health of humans, animals, and the ecosystems on which we all depend for our economies, livelihoods, food security, and health. This shift will facilitate a more seamless inclusion of ecological health and environmental conservation in the One Health paradigm and can serve as the basis for a comprehensive approach to complex problems at the root of global health. We also suggest a framework for creating and applying health metrics for wildlife and ecological systems that will be essential for measuring the success of actions aimed at maintaining or shifting systems to desired states.

Book chapter↗
USGS2025

Disease, environment, and pollution: Understanding drivers behind tumour outbreaks in sea turtles

Various wildlife diseases of the Anthropocene (the Anthropocene currently has no formal status in the Divisions of Geologic Time https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3054/fs20183054.pdf , accessed 4 June 2024) have root causes that are found in human-driven environmental disturbances. Fibropapillomatosis of sea turtles is exemplary of a human-exacerbated wildlife disease, and this case study offers an overview of how we applied a One Health approach and interdisciplinary process to better understand its complexity and highlight the interconnections existing between the health of the environment, and of the wildlife and humans living in it. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have known detrimental effects on human and wildlife health. Ubiquitous in the environment, these degradation-resistant chemicals have a high bioaccumulation potential. This case study describes the interdisciplinary plan and One Health design implemented to measure the role of harmful pollutants in the occurrence of a marine turtle panzootic fibropapillomatosis (FP). FP is a neoplastic disease that causes the growth of debilitating tumours on soft tissues and internal organs. Disease incidence has been increasing significantly throughout the Anthropocene and the reasons are still uncertain. The pervasive effect of pollution in marine coastal habitats has often been hypothesized as a driver of high disease prevalence but never fully tested. Our project combines disease ecology, marine field biology, and chemical toxicology in the attempt to unravel the intricate dynamics behind FP. We here describe the complex process used to develop a methodology to measure levels of harmful seawater pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in important sea turtle habitats in Florida. The proposed contaminants are among the top priority harmful pollutants, highly carcinogenic in aquatic animals, and bioaccumulate in sea turtles. Although only providing a description of the methodological process, this case study can help future research to apply similar transdisciplinary studies in the context of wildlife diseases. Understanding the effects of anthropogenic-driven pollution activity on ocean health can clarify its consequences to the health of wildlife and humans living in and around that environment.

One Health Cases↗
USGS2024

New approaches to wildlife health

Recent environmental change and biodiversity loss have modified ecosystems, altering disease dynamics. For wildlife health, this trend has translated into increased potential for disease transmission and reduced capacity to overcome significant population-level impacts, which may place species at risk of extinction. Thus, current approaches to wildlife health focus not on the absence of disease but rather on the concept of health promotion. That is, wildlife populations will be more resilient to disease if they have the basic requirements for survival, as well as functioning ecosystems, within an enabling socio-economic environment. In this context, animal health programmes must adapt to design and implement wildlife health programmes that bridge knowledge gaps and fully integrate conservation goals. This article proposes new pathways and additions to the animal health management toolbox, including new approaches to surveillance and information management, partnerships and new wildlife health management practices. Solely because of risks to domesticated animals and human health, the traditional approach to disease surveillance in wild animals has now been replaced by a drive to recognise the intrinsic value of wildlife and the extended benefits of actively pursuing ecosystem health and associated life-sustaining ecosystem services. In this context, it is paramount to transition to holistic health programmes that embrace One Health as a pathway to set the health of all on equal footing.

Scientific and Technical Review↗
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↗
USGS2024

Integrated science for the study of microplastics in the environment—A strategic science vision for the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Evidence of the widespread occurrence of microplastics throughout our environment and exposure to humans and other organisms over the past decade has led to questions about the possibility of health hazards and mitigation of exposures. This document discusses nanoplastics as well as microplastics (referred to solely as microplastics); the microplastics have a range from 1 micrometer to 5 millimeters (1 μm–5 mm) in length, whereas the nanoplastics are less than 1 μm in length (sidebar ES1). A myriad of environmental exposure pathways with microplastics to humans and wildlife, including ingestion, inhalation, and bodily absorption, are likely to exist. A growing body of evidence has documented bioaccumulation of microplastics in tissues and organs of humans and wildlife, benthic community effects, and potential nutritional and reproductive effects in some wildlife species. Understanding if or when environmental exposures pose a health risk is complicated by the diversity of microplastic sizes, morphologies, polymer types, and chemicals added during manufacturing or sorbed from the environment; ongoing challenges in analytical methods used to detect, quantify, and characterize microplastics and associated chemicals in our ecosystems; and the fact that ecotoxicological studies regarding microplastics are still in their infancy. Therefore, the study of environmental exposures and potential related health hazards of microplastics to the public and wildlife is a One Health (sidebar ES2) research topic that necessitates integrated science approaches. A better understanding of the sources, pathways, fate, and biological effects of microplastics has become a priority of the Federal Government, State governments, Tribes, stakeholders, and the public. Examples of Federal and State microplasticfocused legislation and programs to prioritize microplastic research and reduction include the Federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, California Senate Bills 1422 and 1263 (2018), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Trash Free Waters Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Microplastic and Nanoplastic Metrology project, and Minnesota’s microplastic project. With its unique expertise and capabilities, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is well positioned to help fill some of the most important microplastic science gaps. This strategic science vision document for microplastics identifies current (2023) microplastic science gaps and prioritizes research relevant to the mission, expertise, and capabilities of the USGS. It is intended for USGS scientists and stakeholders to use as a starting point for planning, prioritizing, and designing collaborative environmental microplastic science. Many of the microplastic science gaps and priorities are scalable, from local to national, and thus, can be made commensurate with available funding and evolving analytical and field tools, laboratory capacity, and stakeholder needs. Current (2023) or future research by academia and other Federal or State agencies, and Tribes may be aimed at some of the same microplastic science gaps identified in this document. Therefore, this document can be used as an information resource to maximize strengths and capabilities and minimize redundancy in communication and collaboration.

Circular↗