10:45 a.m.: Subcommittee Reports

ES-  Ellen Porter gave report.

The Effects subcommittee discussed the development of the N brochure. Eva Kingston, a technical writer with ISWS, will be working on the brochure, under Van's supervision. Authors were asked to submit graphics to Eva. Eva may be able to have a draft layout by late June.

Steve Vermette will be the lead on a brochure describing the MDN.

At present, Gary Lear does not have time to take the lead on a brochure describing the benefits of long-term monitoring.

The Effects Subcommittee also discussed the need for an NADP Strategic Plan. The Plan should address network spatial coverage (expand into urban, coastal sites?), new analytes, adequacy of methods for current analytes (should preservative be used for NH3?), adequacy of current sampling methods for snow, and equipment needs (new collector, rain gauge). The Plan should address the integration of NADP and CASTNET.

DMAS - Luther Smith gave report.

There was some discussion of non-standard data requests, and the possibility of automating such requests on the web site.

NOS- Scott Dossett gave report.

Scott reported that Bob Brunette showed the NOS group (he also showed it to the combined session) the dual-pen recorder developed by Wally Weber for sites with both an NADP and MDN sampler. The recorder is being tested at Chassahowitzka NWR and will soon be available for other sites. Site sponsors will be given a rebate for older single-pen recorders so that the cost of the dual-pen recorder is reduced. During the NOS session, Bob also displayed portions of the MDN sampling train which the HAL is requested changes to. The NOS required a comparison study of two sampling trains. And of a larger MDN sample bottle. The HAL will complete the studies as required and the NOS will debate and vote on then via e-mail.

Van noted that the CO would like to set up email aliases for NADP subgroups. Subgroup leaders were asked to send information on subgroup members to kmccormi@uiuc.edu. Information should include member's name, address (street and P.O. Box), city, state, country code (there are 4 address lines), phone, fax, and email. Note what subgroup the person is on. Van asks that this information be sent as soon as possible.

The group also discussed the need for a new sampler because of current problems regarding the manufacture and delivery of the samplers. A NOS 3 person ad-hoc group will write an issue paper on the topic.

11:30 Gary Lear: CASTNET (schedule was rearranged to accommodate Gary Lear's early flight)

There are currently 50 dry deposition monitoring sites (mostly in the eastern U.S.), plus 19 National Park Service (NPS) sites (mostly in the West), for a total of 69 sites. Not many sites are in the central U.S.

EPA would like to expand the dry deposition network, and may launch an initiative to do so. Some of the current sites are at or near NADP sites; about 20 dry deposition sites are over 50 km from an NADP site. These dry deposition sites have wet deposition samplers because wet deposition data is needed to calculate total deposition. These samplers, however, are not part of NADP.

A study is needed to compare data from NADP sites to data from non-NADP CASTNET wet deposition samplers. These sites will be converted to NADP sites by 10/1/98.

CASTNET also has 7 visibility sampling sites, similar to IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments). These sites should be brought into IMPROVE.

CASTNET also operates 3 mountain-cloud sampling sites that will be transferred to EPA's Office of Research and Development. These are research sites that were not intended to be long-term, and thus do not belong under NADP.

The organizational changes at CASTNET should improve operations with EPA's OAQPS.

As noted above, CASTNET sites (total of 20) will be converted to NADP sites. Gary will initiate this process and report to the Executive Committee this summer on his progress. Van Bowersox asked that if this transfer seems probable, should the Budget and Executive Committees be notified. Gary replied yes. Mark Nilles asked if the ISWS lab can handle the additional samples. Mark Peden replied yes. Gary Stensland asked if NPS dry deposition sites are the same as CASTNET sites. Gary Lear replied yes, that the new DISPRO sites are essentially CASTNET sites. There is some confusion now, because of the various terms used in different programs. Gary noted that, for all practical purposes, the term NDDN is no longer used. The old NDDN sites are now CASTNET.

11:45 National Dioxin Monitoring Network- Scott Dossett

Scott gave a history of the Program Office action to date. EPA has proposed a new network to measure dioxin in ambient air. EPA has proposed 9 sites for this year, 30 more next year. Sampling would be weekly, contracted with Versar Corp. Versar is considering having 8 of those sites at NADP sites, and in March 1998, the ISWS sent a memo to the 8 sites, describing the program and encouraging collaboration with the Dioxin Network. Versar may be asked to report at the fall meeting. (See Appendix C)

12:00 Urban Monitoring- Mark Nilles

Mark gave an historical perspective, citing the 1985 NADP design document "Design of the NTN (USGS Circular 964)". The design document allowed placement of urban-influenced sites in the NTN (Mark noted that the NTN and NADP have always been identical). Why did that plan include urban sites? Mark noted that the authors were criticized for proposing only positive, clean sites for the NTN. In response, they proposed 5 urban-influenced sites:

These sites are still operating. The design document allows for adding more urban sites. Should NADP consider adding more? In the meantime, it's possible that formerly rural sites have become urban-influenced (e.g., Indiana Dunes NP).

Discussion followed of NADP siting requirements. Mary Ann Allen noted that there is a unified siting document. The NADP siting criteria probably need to be revised, and exceptions to siting criteria noted (e.g., the Brigantine site is 9.6 km from Atlantic City, closer than the siting criteria minimum distance of 10 km).

12:15 Existing Urban Siting Criteria- Scott Dossett

Scott showed overheads and discussed the issues surrounding urban siting principally drawing from published criteria from NADP, EPA and ASTM. (See Appendix A). In general NADP siting criteria seem to be at dual purpose. The Site Selection and Installation Manual discusses sampling of industrialization however, the distances requirements for minimum proximity to population centers makes this seemingly impossible. The EPA criteria (from work by Eaton and Tew at RTI) simply remove the distance requirements and discuss instead the proximity to specific urban sources (for example dust and power plant emissions. Other criteria distances are shortened in an attempt to make it possible to establish a suitable site in the urban environment. The ASTM work is actually part of ASTM D 5111-95 by Dave Bigelow. The major thrust of that work seems to be that definitions of regional representativness (should be) based on meteorological phenomena (and) are best developed a posterior. In short very little clear guidance could be found in these sources.

12:30 Urban NADP data- Luther Smith

Luther described some comparisons he had made of urban site data (from state networks) to NADP site data (e.g., Palomar, an NADP site, vs. Escondido; Davis, an NADP site, vs. Sacramento). He noted that more careful comparisons should be made, but that existing state data can be used to determine the extent of urban influence when siting NADP samplers. In locations where state samplers are located near NADP samplers, site comparisons can be made.

He posed the question, can we test NADP sites for urbanization with the current database? Sometimes this can be done with the QA data (e.g., operator=s notes of dirt, dust). Mary Ann Allen asked if cation/anion ratios can detect urbanization. Gary Lear questioned the spatial representativeness of urban sites.

The Louisville Study- Mark Nilles

The City of Louisville would like to establish 5 NADP sites. A discussion followed on how to deal with data from the sites. Should the data be considered part of a special study? Noted as urban sites? Gary Stensland made a motion that we look favorably upon the request to add the 5 sites to NADP. The length of the study was discussed. In general, NADP requires a minimum of 3-5 years commitment; in this case, 2 years might be enough. We would like an understanding with Louisville that the data would be accessible through the network and would like (1) a strong expectation of multi-year funding, (2) except for siting, all other NADP protocol be followed, and (3) samplers be placed along transect for statistical reasons.

The motion, that we support a multi-site wet deposition network in Louisville, with the strong expectation of multi-year funding. Except for siting, all other NADP rules and procedures be followed, was seconded and unanimously passed.

1:15 Marketing the NADP- Mark Nilles

Mark's overheads are attached (Appendix B).

For many people, the NADP products (e.g., web site, data, maps) are the NADP. Marketing comes down to information transfer, and it's important to have knowledge of our customers. This should be a priority. A canned strategy won't work for us.  NADP is too different from other organizations.

Recommendations: form ad-hoc group for product launch strategies (e.g., new web info, brochures, maps). Members of marketing committee include Mark Nilles, Gary Lear, Mary Ann Allen, Scott Dossett, Steve Vermette, and Luther Smith.

Mark proposed that the scope of the marketing committee be fairly narrow product launch strategies. A discussion ensued as to whether marketing committee was the proper name for the group. Communication committee, Information transfer committee, Product distribution committee were suggested.

Mary Ann Allen, who served on the program review committee, noted that the review committee was thinking of ways to promote the NADP and thought that this was more than just a product launch strategy.