**Report from the September 25-28, 2000 EEGLE All-hands Meeting Draft 1
Oct 6,2000**

The EEGLE Program held an all-hands meting at the Homestead Conference
Center in Glen Arbor, MI. Approximately 40 participants spent three plus
days (Sep 25-28) discussing results, issues and potential
collaborations. A 130 page workbook was generated prior to the meeting
and is available on the EEGLE website, in four parts, at:

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/projects/p01/results-9.2000/Intro.pdf

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/projects/p01/results-9.2000/Hypo1.pdf

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/projects/p01/results-9.2000/Hypo2.pdf

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/projects/p01/results-9.2000/Hypo3.pdf

Meeting Agenda - Monday, September 25

2:00 Plenary

-   Goals for this meeting are to:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Distribute Workbook of results to date

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   refresh everyone on the breadth of activities and foster
    interdisciplinary thinking

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   New Strategy for use of the website to organize information
    (e.g.Schwab)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Charge to the Workgroups (below)

2:30 Brief overviews of all 20 PI Reports (Schwab, Eadie and
Fahnenstiel)

4:30 Any general discussions

5:00 Unstructured time

## Tuesday, September 26

> Plenary -- presentations of preliminary modeling results to focus
> interdisciplinary discussions.
>
> 8:30 Data synthesis (optimal integrated use of data sets and models)
> McCormick and Murthy
>
> Physical -- ecological modeling Chen et al.
>
> Sediment transport modeling
>
> Schwab et al.
>
> Bedford et al.
>
> 10:00 Charge to Workgroups

-   Physical -- Ecological \[Chair -- Kerfoot & Bundy\]

-   Sediment \[Chair -- Klump\]

-   Physical data assimilation \[Chair -- McCormick & Meadows\]

# Wednesday, Sep 27

> 8:00 Reconvene Plenary to discuss progress
>
> 9:00 Reconvene Workgroups
>
> 1:45 Bus trip to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Park
>
> 5:00 Workgroups or unstructured time

#### Thursday, September 28

> 8:00 Reconvene Plenary - Workgroup reports (\~20 minutes)
>
> 9:30 General discussion -- consensus on dedicated issue (venue \[JGR,
> Continental Shelf Research, other\], participants, and timing)
>
> 11:00 Adjourn

### 

After several thought-provoking presentations, the participents broke up
into three workgroups: Data Assimilation, Sediments Transport, and
Physical-Ecological Interactions. Separate brief reports from each
workgroup follow at the end of this report, after a brief summary of
meeting accomplishments.

##### Summary

First, our program timing has been fortunate; 1998 and 2000 were years
that had large sediment resuspension events while 1999 had only small
events (figure 1). This provides excellent data for a comparison of
transport and impacts. Second our data and sample collection success
rate was quite high, as illustrated in figure 2 and table 1.

Figure 1. NOAA AVHRR (Channel 1 -- Channel 2) reflectance for sediment
resuspension events for the three EEGLE field years (1998-2000).
Subjectively, these were the maximum events for the three years that
were observed by satellite.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.051388888888889in" height="6.975in"}

Figure 2. Selected EEGLE field activities. The figure provides
information on temporal coverage for several types of program
activities.

Table 1. EEGLE Cruise, Web, & Data Statistics as of August, 2000

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              | **1997 - 2000**       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Cruises                                      | 109                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Total Days                                   | 396                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Water Samples                                | 675                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Plankton Survey Tows                         | 115                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Trap samples                                 | 816                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Current meters                               | 66                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Drifter days                                 | 690                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Papers                                       | 13                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Presentations - Public                       | 46                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Presentations - Professional                 | 58                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| #                                            |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| # Data Objects Submitted                     | 871 (540 MB)          |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| # Visits to EEGLE web site                   | 58,325                |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

-   Substantial progress was made in interdisciplinary communication
    among the programs participants

-   It was generally agreed that a Joint EEGLE-KITES Special Issue of a
    journal was desirable. Some suggestions were made for journals and
    schedules

-   We have decided to make a significant revision to the EEGLE webpage.
    Products and activities will be moved to be under each of the
    appropriate proposals and PIs are being required to take more
    responsibility for keeping their pages up to date. Greg Lang will
    assit with this, moving existing materials and implementing
    additions provided by PIs.

-   We would like to create an explicit matrix of PI interactions
    (current, planned, or merely desirable but unexplored). We hope this
    will stimulate interdisciplinary thinking.

-   We agreed that continued communication was crucial in developing our
    products -- this should occur at several levels:

-   Direct PI with PI

-   Groups (e.g. Sediments) or smaller sub-groups

-   Another EEGLE all-hands -- tentatively scheduled for 1-2 days before
    the 2001 EEGLE-KITES all-hands next fall

-   Meetings thus far:

Special Sessions at:

-   ASLO-99 Sante Fe, NM, Feb, 1999

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   IAGLR-99 Cleveland, OH, May, 1999

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ocean Sciences, San Antonio, TX Feb, 2000

-   SIL Melbourne, Australia Feb, 2001

EEGLE All-hands meetings (3 day workshops)

-   Milwaukee, WI Oct, 1997

-   Ann Arbor, MI Oct, 1998

-   Minneapolis, MN Oct, 1999

-   Glen Arbor, MI Sep, 2000

-   Argonne National Lab Dec, 2000

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some PIs thought that a specific writing workshop would be useful,
    this will be explored and potential participants/schedules organized
    by the management team. This could range from days to weeks and
    perhaps be associated with the delivery of products for the Special
    Issue

**Dedicated issue of a journal:** all three workgroups dealt with this
and it was also discussed in plenary. The consensus was that such a
publication was generally desirable, that hard deadlines be made and
kept, that the issue be joint with KITES, and that there should be a
unifying theme, such as Cross Margin Transport rather than just a
collection of papers. Journals mentioned as possibilities were: Limnol.
Oceanogr. -- possibly a dedicated issue (Clifford Mortimer), and
Continental Shelf Reseach. Article submission times were discussed and 1
year from finding a journal was generally agreeable. The next step is to
seek consensus with KITES, then find a respectable journal.

##### [Workgroup Reports]{.underline}

**Sediment workgroup**

###### Status

Success in collection of a good suite of data -- both spatially and
temporally

Caveat: *"even with great ingredients you can make a lousy cake"*

K. Orlandini

Availability of a number of types of data to constrain models, e.g. in
the case of particle fields

direct TSM measurements

tripod measurements and moored transmissometers

CTD/Transmissometer casts

ADCP

satellite data

\*\* challenge is to integrate/concatenate -- importance of
cross-linking our data sets and interacting with one another

-   [Issues being worked on]{.underline}:

Transport models -- 2 general types

Simpler 2D -- pc based -- long term (years -- decades) simulations to
test ideas

Coupled 3D -- supercomputer based for event simulations

Initial conditions & boundary conditions for modeling efforts

materials available for resuspension

source -- time series of inputs of erosional material

particle size distribution effects

better "mapping" of bottom type/character

improving estimates of mass fluxes in resuspension events \~ 10^6^ MT

\-- alternatives/cross checks on sat data

Particle residence times, settling rates and horizontal transport rates
-- promising radionuclide tracer data + integrating into models

\-- Linking time scales & transport to transformation of
biogeochemically important materials

\-- tracking particles

\-- offshore transport

again initial conditions important

-   Agreement for the need to meet on periodic basis -- next for
    sediment bunch is the day before EEGLE-KITES @ Argonne - November 29
    (our 4^th^ group meeting).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Suggest making [explicit]{.underline} links and collaborations among
    all PIs

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some Issues under discussion:

Linking time scales and transport to transformation of BIMs

Tracking sources of material

Better "mapping" of bottom type and physical composition

How tie biogeochemical data to hydrodynamics

Questions for other groups \-- coming

##### Physical-Ecological Interactions Workgroup Report

###### Phytoplankton Optics

-   What we know:

The recurrent coastal plume (RCP) does not significantly stimulate
phytoplankton growth and productivity.

Initially, the RCP does not significantly change phytoplankton nutrient
status. However, over time, phytoplankton do seem to be more P-deficient
post-RCP than pre-RCP

-   Emerging Issues

Major issues to be resolved are:

\(1\) the importance of P *utilization* by bacteria and

\(2\) the role of P *scavenging* by particles

###### Phytoplankton populations

-   What we know:

Phytoplankton diversity is higher during the RCP

Because growth is not stimulated in the plume, this suggests this is a
"source" issue

Direct resuspension of meroplankton strongly influences (controls?)
phytoplankton community structure in the RCP.

-   Emerging Issues

**Resolve ecological significance of central-lake "donut hole"
phenomenon (charge to HAV, WCK, GAF -- with WCK having the lead to
initiate something)**

Qualify dynamics of phytoplankton community during resuspension event
using:

representative species as tracers

material from water column and sediment traps

Heterotrophic vs. autotrophic activity

N uptake and regeneration vs. light and P regime show that heterotrophic
activity dominated during winter-spring [except]{.underline} in region
influenced by St. Joseph River

Phosporus was not limiting to rates of heterotrophic activity outside of
regions of riverine influence

In areas of riverine influence, autotrophic activity dominated and
responded positively to phosphorus additions

-   Emerging Issues and Questions

How close will nutrient cycling rates and patterns relate to microbial
food web composition at the riverine vs.. non-riverine sites?

The Microbial Food Web (MFW)

-   What we know:

Biomass and growth rates of heterotrophic components increase with
respect to RCP

Abundance and biomass of protozoans seems to be correlated with spatial
distribution of sediment associated with the RCP

Protozoan grazing rates are tightly coupled to bacterial and algal
biomass and production

-   Emerging Issues and Questions

If the protozoa are consuming so much production, where does it
originate?

Over time, does bacterial biomass accumulate in the plume?

Is there a significant contribution of resuspended meroplanktonic
bacteria????

Are there differences in grazing rates on particle-associated vs. free
bacteria?

Is there evidence that the organisms (including resting stages)
associated with the nearshore plume are transported offshore?

What percentage of bacterial production is associated with particles?
**(Jim- comment please..)**

The **BIG** question\...

To what degree does the RCP shift the nearshore environment from
autotrophy toward heterotrophy by:

(1)"turning off the lights"

\(2\) modifying the nutrient regime

\(3\) shifting community structure as a result of resuspension?

Mesozooplankton (copepods, cladocera) provide a link to higher trophic
levels

**Evidence:**

Late winter/early spring is time of high mesozooplankton reproduction

Calanoid copepods are long-lived (generation times of months),
therefore, success of juveniles in late winter/early spring is key to
success of population in spring

In the spring, copepods are the major prey of larval and juvenile fish

Mesozooplankton

-   What we know:

The RCP occurs at a critical time during zooplankton reproduction and
recruitment.

Copepod clearance (e.g. feeding rates) of MFW organisms are higher than
clearance rates of phytoplankton.

Egg production and survival rates of offspring of dominant calanoids can
be enhanced if females and juveniles are feeding on microzoplankton.

There is a significant resuspension of zooplankton resting stages in the
RCP.

PSS data reveal that there can be shifts in species dominance from year
to year

-   Emerging Issues and Questions

Does enhanced microbial food web production enhance *new*
mesozooplankton production in the RCP? (Consider time and spatial
scales)

How does the RCP impact zooplankton recruitment through resuspension of
resting stages if the epiphia don't hatch at cold temperatures? Does it
"set the table" for later hatching?

**BIG** questions and issues:

Need to resolve Chen's food web model with ground-truth data and
satellite data. How much error is there in the satellite data and model
data?

During a single event, are there multiple resuspension events that move
and resuspend resting stages?

If recruitment (i.e., fecundity and survival of offspring, and injection
of resting stages) is stimulated, what is its relevance to the entire
lake food web? To higher trophic levels later in year?

Data Assimilation Workgroup Report

###### Progress

-   HF Radar

1999 data reduction complete

2000 data reduction underway

-   Physical Oceanography

Statistical/dynamical analysis of 1999 data completed

1997-1999 GLERL data on web -- 2000 GLERL data in production

1997-2000 CCIW data on web

-   Hydrodynamic Modeling

Mar/Apr 1998 and 1999 modeling completed -- provided to Chen

-   OSU Sediment transport modeling

Coding completed for coupled model, parallel version implemented

Bottom sediment mapping and particle tagging completed

First week of March 1998 completed

-   Meterological Modeling

###### Critical Questions

Can we qualitatively/quantitatively characterize:

The conditions necessary to initiate a major event ?

The physical conditions within the lake during a major event ?

How well do the numerical model hindcasts compare to in-situ and
remotely sensed data ?

###### Plans

-   Six Months

Surrogate climatology of Lake Michigan events (Schwab et al.)

1998-99 major event analysis (Saylor et al)

based on observations and models in support of offshore sediment
transport

Statistical/dynamical analysis of 1998-99 EEGLE data (Murthy et al)

March 1998 Sediment model completed (Bedford et al)

Meterological model case studies (Roebber et al)

-   One year

Statistical analysis of drifter data (McCormick et al)

Statistical data comparison (HF, ADCP, Drifter (Vesecky et al)

2000 major event analysis (Saylor et al)

Statistical/dynamical analysis of 2000 EEGLE data (Murthy et al)

Comparison of HF data with hydrodynamical model (Vesecky et al)

Comparison of Sediment model with EEGLE data (Bedford et al)

###### Integrated Products

Event Climatology

Integrating wave hindcast, wind data/model output, remote imagery, and
in-situ measurements

Models

Numerical

Meterological, hydrodynamic, and sediment dynamic

Integration with observations

Semi-empirical/conceptual

Major event physics integrating physical measurements

EOS summary

Encourage publications in open literature to assure visibility

###### What would we do differently ?

Abandon point measurements in favor of profiling devices (ADCP)

Alter frequency of some data collection devices (example PSS)

Increase number of over-water or near-water met stations

Include vessel-mounted ADCP transects

Obtain micro-structure measurements

Improve HF hardware design for freshwater

###### New Plans

Ecological model (Fahnenstiel and McCormick, others)

Dictated by data

Null hypothesis: Plume has no biological impacts on Lake Michigan