1. 1. Why Care About Air Toxics in the NPS? Toxic deposition from Asian sources is occurring Degree of risk is undetermined Toxic re-deposition with elevation is very likely Snow is an efficient pathway for toxic deposition Snow is the primary alpine precipitation source Bioaccumulation through food webs will occur Multiple stressors and sources (local, region, hemisphere) High elevation sites could be “sinks” for toxics Early warning sites for the rest of the continent

2. 2. Where have we seen effects? What concentrations? Effects seen in Arctic Food web dependent (marine, fw, terrestrial) Fish Piciverous birds (eagles, falcons) Waterfowl (green-winged teal/Hg & PCB) Cause/effect relationships are poorly studied; non-lethal effects on immune system and reproduction probable http://www.amap.no/

3. 3. Toxic Distribution and Effects in Western United States? Trans-Pacific toxics are poorly characterized Distribution of toxics in general is very poorly understood both spatially, vertically and temporally! Investigations at a few sites are beginning: amphibians in Southern Sierra; Denali NP; others?

4. 4. Recommendations to NPS Develop clear objectives Consider a robust spatial design Sediments - history of exposure, system flux Snow - annual and spatial loading variability Biota - select meaningful biological indicators: wide distribution, relatively abundant, easy to sample, known food web position

5. 5. Advance Work Develop clear objectives Consider a robust spatial (geographic) design Integrate effort with atmospheric monitoring efforts (analyte selection) Combine exposure and effects monitoring (snow, sediment, biota) Create a Research Plan Obtain very high quality analytical support Create a Scientific Advisory Board to guide effort Factor in adequate peer review Strive to collaborate with Canada, Mexico? Get more money (POP analyses are @~$500, logistics may involve aircraft, interdisciplinary investigation team, many parks, multiyear effort)

6. 6. What trends are predicted for toxic emissions, deposition and impacts? Regulations have reduced many POPs and declines in emission, deposition and impacts have been observed (DDT, Pb, HCH) Arctic and high latitudes may lag behind since they may function as environmental “sinks” Mercury is just beginning to be regulated - anthropogenic sources abound New Generation Pesticides (NGP)??? Impacts need much greater study to link contaminants with effects

7. 7. Research Gaps Effects are difficult - outside normal monitoring program - establish bioaccumulation 1 o Production: Not where the wise would look for effects! But if you MUST investigate effects (get more money): Link effects at the individual and population level Determine contaminant effects on eggs and larvae of invertebrates Investigate cumulative effects. Investigate non-lethal effects Urgent: develop methods to assess the individual health of zooplankton and fish larvae, mainly to establish causality between effects and environmental factors. (emphasis on 1 o Production - Aquatic?)

8. Problem: Possible deposition of trans-pacific air toxics to high elevation ecosystems in N. America Toxic substances of concern are not well established Identify most likely toxics substances transported to and accumulated in N. A. Ecosystems Probable materials Are: HCH, DDT, PCB, & Hg Collaboration with Atmospheric Scientists Final List of Toxic Materials To Evaluate long lived toxic unique origin Probability based spatial Design - High elevation Western N. America EffectsExposure Biological indicator of Bioaaccumulation (Gammarus spp.?) Historic Loading Lake Sediments Annual Variability Snowpack Quantitative Regional Scale Risk Assessment

14. Sediment Sampling: Design matches objectives Design matches objectives Bathymetry screening Bathymetry screening Gradients (elev./ Lat.) Gradients (elev./ Lat.) Watershed type/size Watershed type/size Inflows/glaciers Inflows/glaciers Nice to have p-chem, Nice to have p-chem, biotic inventory, sed. Rate Importance of coresurface Importance of coresurface

15. Coring set up for large diameter, heavy corer in remote location Ice thickness - 2 m Core head - 50-100 kg Hole diameter - 30 cm

16. “Lightweight” mobile coring operation 21.5 diameter corer Ice thickness - 1 m 83 mm ID corer Corer weight - ~15 kg max

17. Corer in core rack Winch

21. Key References Macdonald, R. W., L. A. Barrie, et al. (2000). Contaminants in the Canadian arctic: 5 years of progress in understanding sources, occurrence and pathways. The Science of the Total Environment 254: 93-234. Carrera, G., P. Fernandez, et al. (2001). Persistent organic pollutants in snow from European high mountain areas. Atmospheric Environment 35: 245-254. Landers, D. H., C. Gubala, et al. (1998). Using lake sediment mercury flux ratios to evaluate the regional and continental dimensions of mercury deposition in arctic and boreal ecosystems. Atmospheric Environment 32(5): 919-928. Muir, D. C. G., A. Omelchenko, et al. (1996). Spatial trends and historical deposition of polychlorinated biphenyls in Canadian mid-latitude and arctic lake sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol.(30): 3609-3617. http://grida.no/amap/ [Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program web site]