NADP Technical Committee Meeting
Ellicottville, New York
October 6-8, 1997

Effects Subcommittee Meeting Minutes

Monday, October 6
10:20 a.m. - 12:00 noon


Rich Grant
Wayne Banwart
John Sherwell
Boris Chevone
Dan Orr
Stan Coloff
Howard Simonin
Douglas Lantagne
Richard Cline dcline/
Ellen Porter
Van Bowersox

The following topics were discussed by the group.

Subcommittee Officers

Ellen Porter and John Sherwell are the present co-chairs of the Effects Subcommittee. It was agreed that they would continue as co-chairs for another year. Dan Orr, the previous Effects chairperson, noted that the Effects Subcommittee has a distinguished history within NADP, and has often been the group that has suggested new areas for NADP to become involved in. For instance, it was the Effects Subcommittee that initiated discussion that led to the development of the Mercury Deposition Network. More recently, the Effects Subcommittee has explored ways in which NADP can contribute to understanding nitrogen deposition and effects.

Nitrogen Brochure Update

Porter: Four authors (Sherwell, Tonnessen, Grant, Porter) submitted text for brochure to CO at CSU in May. CO assigned CSU employee, Don Kolinski, to the project, with the task to edit the text and work on the layout and design of the brochure. Shortly afterwards, Don was transferred to the UV-B Program, and was not able to work on the brochure. Van Bowersox has agreed to take over the design and production of the brochure at ISWS. He has an editor in mind and is hopeful that a draft layout of the brochure could be produced in approximately 60 days. The original authors will coordinate with Van to complete the project. Other committee members will be given the opportunity to review a draft product.

NARSTO (North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone) Monitoring Initiative

Dick Cline attended a NARSTO meeting in September, at which time NARSTO discussed EPA’s initiative for a 300+ site monitoring network for fine particulates. EPA has approached NARSTO to implement the network. Cline received the impression that some of the network sites (~ 100) may be in rural areas and suggested to Dan Albritton and Jake Hales that if the sites were collocated with NADP sites, both NARSTO and NADP might benefit. The fine particle samplers would collect aerosol data that could potentially complement NADP data.

Discussion by subcommittee members raised several concerns. First, any collaboration with NARSTO should in no way compromise NADP operations or data quality. Second, it is unclear what the objectives of the NARSTO network are. Third, EPA has demonstrated in the past an inability to fund long-term projects; if this program is of short duration, it will probably be of limited value to NADP.

An ad hoc committee was formed, with John Sherwell, Dick Cline, Van Bowersox, and Dan Orr as members, to contact NARSTO (Hales and Albritton) and determine 1) what is the objective of the NARSTO program, and 2) would it benefit NADP to coordinate with the NARSTO program.

NADP and Urban Monitoring

The subcommittee, as requested by the full technical committee, addressed the issue of NADP monitoring at urban sites. The subject is timely because NADP has received a request to add a site classified as "urban." The discussion acknowledged that urban monitoring would provide interesting data, but was not consistent with the original objectives of NADP. All agreed that, if urban sites are added, data management should be performed so that the NADP database is in no way compromised. To ensure this, urban sites could comprise a separate subnetwork, with data managed separately. In addition, new sites should meet standard NADP criteria, such as having a long-term commitment to the program (i.e., at least 5 years). The subcommittee recognized that some existing NADP sites may already be "urban-influenced" because of development that has occurred since site installation, and suggested that it may be useful to re-examine existing site specifications to determine if such changes have occurred. However, members agreed that if existing site specifications are re-examined, it should be with a specific purpose in mind, e.g., looking at changes in data over time.

Program Review

The subcommittee, as requested by the full technical committee, addressed the issue of the upcoming program review. The subcommittee recognized that more specific directions from Jack Barnes were needed to plan the review. It was noted that the recent NRSP-3 proposal contains quite a bit of material (including ideas for future directions of NADP) that could be used by the reviewers.

Effects Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 7
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon

John Sherwell
Boris Chevone
Douglas Lantagne
Richard Cline dcline/
Ellen Porter
Gary Lear
Dennis Lamb
Michael Uhart
W.H. (Bill) Brown

The following topics were discussed by the group.

NARSTO Initiative

After the Subcommittee meeting of October 6, John Sherwell contacted a colleague at EPA to obtain more information about the NARSTO initiative (see Oct. 6 Subcommittee minutes). He was told that EPA would like to deploy approximately 110 fine particle samplers at regional sites. Porter noted that this was most likely part of EPA’s plan to place fine particle samplers in all Federal Class I areas to support EPA’s recently proposed regional haze regulations. At present, approximately 40 (out of 158) Class I areas monitor fine particles as part of the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) Program. Because of the national goal to improve visibility in all Federal Class I areas, the EPA needs to place samplers in the remaining Class I areas. Some of the areas receiving fine particle samplers may be NADP sites, and the two data sets may complement each other. An ad hoc committee (see Oct. 6 minutes) will explore the potential for cooperation with NARSTO.

New Directions for the Effects Subcommittee

As reported on October 6, the nitrogen brochure will be completed at the new CO. After some discussion, it was agreed that the brochure should be written for a general non-technical audience, with references to technical publications for those seeking more information. It was recognized that the brochure would be a valuable outreach tool for funding agencies and sponsors, supporters and potential supporters of NADP, as well as potential users of NADP data.

The Subcommittee recommended that the brochure be designed so that its format was easily recognizable as an NADP product, with a prominent NADP logo, and logos of sponsors on the cover. The design would serve as a format for future brochures and outreach materials, and would have a standard referencing format (e.g., Technical Bulletin No. 3,456). The brochure should also be written in a web-compatible format, and should be posted on the NADP website.

Ideas were then solicited for future brochures or other materials relevant to Effects. Several potential topics were discussed, including the importance of long-term monitoring programs, and the Mercury Deposition Network. Gary Lear noted that EPA has a similar need to promote long-term monitoring networks (e.g., CASTNET), and suggested that EPA may have funds to produce a brochure jointly with NADP. Gary Lear, Doug Lantagne, and John Sherwell will coordinate on the brochure, and will discuss with Mark Nilles the recent CENR document that discusses the importance of long-term monitoring efforts.

It was also suggested that a brochure be developed on the MDN, to disseminate information on the relatively new network. The brochure would be similar to the existing tri-fold brochure on NADP. The subcommittee suggested Steve Vermette as a possible lead person for the brochure, and Ellen Porter offered to approach Steve on the matter. (Note: When approached, Steve agreed to take the lead.)

Other topics for future projects included the value of NADP to educators and students.

The Subcommittee then discussed the possibility of organizing a technical session on deposition at a major national scientific meeting such as the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the Ecological Society of America, and the Air and Waste Management Association. The AGU was recognized as a good venue for deposition topics, reaching a large, broad-based audience. Gary Lear and Ellen Porter will investigate the possibility of such a session. Discussion ensued on whether such a session would replace the Fall Technical Meeting; pros and cons were discussed, but no conclusions were reached. It was recognized that the present format of technical sessions interspersed with business sessions is valuable, but reaches a limited audience that varies little year to year. All agreed that new participants are important, but it is difficult to attract persons to the meetings that are not directly involved in NADP. Participation in a large national meeting has the potential to promote interest in NADP and related research.