News & Politics
EROS Fall 2009 Meeting Minutes Saratoga Springs, NY October 6, 2009 CLAD-EROS Joint Meeting N&S deposition maps redesign- NADP QA Manager approached chairs of EROS and CLAD to discuss whether color scheme should be modified. --Recent maps, particularly SO4 and NO3, show large areas of green, suggesting that deposition is now at “safe” level for ecosystems in those areas. However, very sensitive ecosystems respond at very low deposition rates and may be harmed. Issue-current color scale does not give fine detail at low/high ends. --Recommendation was to refine detail at low/high ends of concentration and deposition bins. Previously lows were <1.0 kg N/ha; the expanded color bin is now <0.5 kg N/ ha. Previously high bin was <7 kg N/ ha; the new expanded color bin is 9 kg N/ ha. For SO4, previously low bin was <1.0 kg S/ha and expanded bin now is 0.3 kg S/ha. CLAD and EROS chairs met via conference call to discuss values to define low/high bins. There are 3 different maps (A=current, B= Expanded scale, C= expanded scale with blue bins and refined low values). --Blue bin (level at which minimal impact to ecosystem is expected). --Proposal to create maps for total N and S with ueg/L for concentration eq/ha for deposition since critical loads for acidity are often defined by total N and total S (S+N). --Should these maps replace the old maps or supplement maps? --Are values for low/high bins reasonable? --Check with Ellen Porter for presentation so that we can add to the EROS records and refine notes. Other issues.- --Does urban vs. rural designation matter? Should maps include contours over the Great Lakes? Official maps prior to 2008 have not been re-drawn to change to Criterion 4; if maps are re-drawn, should new maps reflect change to Criterion 4 (collection efficiency of >75%. High elevation sites were impacted by this). Discussion- Do we want to relate the isopleths maps to ecosystem impacts? Are we expanding the low ends of the isopleths were the areas of uncertainty are as great as the values themselves? Low ends are more interesting to some people. Revisit information back from 1987 to address some of the similar issues dealing with expanding the scale of the maps? Critical Loads Brochure -Brochure was developed during the summer 2009 between members of CLAD and EROS. Comments were received and revised and returned for a vote. The results of the brochure were 32 yays and zero nays. Brochure was accepted. Recommendation is next taken to Executive Committee to vote on accepting the brochure. EROS Business Meeting 1.) Spring 2008 minutes were accepted and approved in meeting d. Election of Chair and Vice Chair/ Secretary for the coming year. -Maggie Kerchner nominated Suzanne Fisher for chair of committee, with the language suggested that secretary doesn’t always assume that role of chair after serving. A nomination was suggested that Maggie Kerchner assume secretary role. Motion seconded and approved for 2010. 2.) New Business a.) Critical loads document. Pam Padgett moved to approve the brochure as an outreach document for NADP that helps explain what critical loads. Maggie Kerchner seconded motion. Motion passed. b.) Discussion on CLAD’s consideration and potential request for full NADP subcommittee status. CLAD has been an Ad Hoc committee of the NADP since 2006. It is a requirement that an ad hoc group re-new their status every year according to the by-laws. The EROS subcommittee and the CLAD ad hoc group have similar goals. Each subcommittee must provide a service to the overall NADP program. Three options: independent, joint, and keep the subcommittees as they are. In the beginning the ecological effects has driven what analytes were chosen to measure with the networks. One subcommittee of CLAD and EROS- CONS- -danger in losing the outreach function of EROS -In terms of ecological effects, CLAD doesn’t focus on all effects, example Hg -Doesn’t taken into effect managed ecosystems -Agenda would be too full in joint meeting and there would still be sub-groups split off. -CLAD’s purpose is not to serve the needs to the network. If they were designated as a separate committee, then would they have to take on charges of the NADP network? PROS- -increased participation and interests It was suggested that EROS wait to hear the discussion among CLAD to determine what the result of their desire for subcommittee status was. CASTNet meeting update- there was a push-back for providing the model for the spatial network. Need to determine how to make relevance with the desire for total deposition. c.) Discussion on the fate of the “CALendar” for purposes of the Program Office. Currently there are no plans to print the FY10 calendar. Pam is going to query supervisors, operators, and sponsors on the usefulness of the calendar. 3.) Old Business-updates and reports a.) NRSP-3-Twenty four letters and invitations were sent to NRSP-3 scientists. This is year two of three for the invitations to go out. David Gay invited all the NE Agricultural Station Program Directors. The NRSP-3 has been renewed for another five years. Ray Knighton approves contributing projects under NRSP-3 and could provide feedback during project review from EROS subcommittee on contributing projects. To receive hedge-funding you have to have a contributing project. If we encourage scientists to participate in fall meeting, then we need to make sure that we give them information that makes them feel like their time is worth-while. The current drive is the fall symposium. One big drive is the ammonium component. Need to emphasize the pieces in the symposium that are interesting to agriculture. Suggestions would be that the contributing projects make presentations at the fall symposium. Next theme for Fall 2010 is “Networking the Networks”. How could this tie into agriculture? Discussion on the new proposed networks and special session for fall meeting followed. Proposed agricultural session topics. b.) Draft 3 of the Hg dry deposition (AmNet) information sheet was provided and moving forward with brochure is on hold until the network is approved and input is provided from the AmNet group. c.) Website related updates-feedback was received on the new website. Open discussion on website use. EROS should keep a “tick-list” on how the website information can be used in regards to user data. Awards page updates? Outreach and advertising of NADP? Kids list? There is still a loop-back to the old webpage for data, but it is seamless to the user. Program Office plan is to hire two people (a programmer –half time and a web master-half that adds content to website and updates. Technical writer and graphic designer at Illinois State Water Survey have offered free of charge to add updates to the webpage. Program Coordinator has asked them to add “basic science of acid rain” and what happens to the sample once it is collected. Comments and suggestions on these areas should be directed to David Gay (Program Coordinator). EROS needs to prioritize a fairly broad topic list on what needs to be addressed. Does EROS need to develop a process for submitting ideas? Plan currently is the come up with the list among the group and then prioritize before passing on to Program Coordinator. This list could be updated every six months. RSS feed, new publications and links. Visit this for the spring meeting to generate ideas for new website information. Check with Program Coordinator on updated list on what is in the works. Document server or sharepoint could be created for sub-committees. Sharepoint site is not to be created yet. Motion was moved to adjoin meeting.