1 / 10

National Park Service, Air Toxics Workshop June 26-27, 2001 Seattle, WA

National Park Service, Air Toxics Workshop June 26-27, 2001 Seattle, WA. Dr. Kathy Tonnessen RM-Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit National Park Service School of Forestry Missoula, Montana 59812 kathy_tonnessen@nps.gov ph:406-243-4449. WORKSHOP HISTORY

eric-perry
Download Presentation

National Park Service, Air Toxics Workshop June 26-27, 2001 Seattle, WA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Park Service, Air Toxics Workshop June 26-27, 2001 Seattle, WA Dr. Kathy Tonnessen RM-Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit National Park Service School of Forestry Missoula, Montana 59812 kathy_tonnessen@nps.gov ph:406-243-4449

  2. WORKSHOP HISTORY • Concerns about POPs and metals in NPS units • Focus on Alaska and high elevation regions • No consistent monitoring of air toxics in NPS • Leadership in air monitoring by the NPS-Air Resources Division

  3. Request for technical assistance request for air toxics workshop • RM-CESU takes lead in outlining the workshop and finding technical experts • Three regions of NPS included: ARO, PWRO, IMRO • Possibility of new monitoring under the Natural Resource Challenge

  4. NRC provides new funding for air resources (FY 02; 04) • NRC includes “vital signs” monitoring at network parks • New research being funded in parks under different funding sources, especially USGS-NPS water resources partnership • New research projects on POPs at ROMO/GLAC and PNW parks

  5. Monitoring vs. Research • Focus of workshop on monitoring options for air toxics • What monitoring networks are currently in existence? • How do these relate to NPS goals and issues? • How can we collaborate with other agencies currently monitoring air toxics?

  6. Presentations on types of monitoring available • Expert input on how these monitoring protocols can be used to meet NPS needs • Choose chemicals of greatest interest and the best media to monitor Monitoring vs. Research

  7. Then recommend research or survey projects that are needed before network design is possible • Discuss “strawman” monitoring program for different funding levels: $200k, $400k $600k Monitoring vs. Research

  8. DAY 1 • Presentations by Experts • Interim discussion on pros, cons, and integration • Relate to existing programs on human health impacts • Experts modify and then transcribe their conceptual diagrams onto flip charts at the end of the day

  9. DAY 2 • Review pros, cons, integration • Review NPS monitoring goals • Recommendations from experts: chemicals, network design (‘hotspots’), and endpoints/ecological indicators • List existing protocols on template sheets

  10. DAY 2 • Describe research needs for new monitoring protocols/network design • Small groups discuss “strawman” monitoring programs • Follow-up • publish results of workshop • small group to pursue “next steps” • volunteers to do outreach

More Related