U.S. GLOBEC Georges Bank
Phase II Principal Investigators' Meeting
July 2, 1996
NMFS Aquarium Conference Room
Woods Hole, MA

Description of Workshop and Results

The U. S. GLOBEC Georges Bank Executive Committee (EXCO) convened a meeting of the U.S. GLOBEC Georges Bank Phase II Principal Investigators prior to the finalization of the Phase II budgets. The objectives of the meeting (see Appendix 1 for the meeting agenda) were:

1. To discuss the funding recommendations that Philip Taylor, Marsh Youngbluth (Program Managers at NSF) and Judith Gray (Program Manager at NOAA) sent to us (dated June 18, 1996) which said, in part:

"On a separate page we have indicated budgets that are likely to be recommended for each of the projects. The levels of support are tentative; we expect that there will be some budgetary adjustments within each group. It is recommended that investigators within each group discuss these recommendations to ensure that the overall goals of the U.S. GLOBEC Phase II will be met.... Our goal is an integrated program, making the best use of available funds. "

2. Evaluate our shiptime request in light of the funding recommendations and prepare an amended shiptime request, if necessary.

The invitation to this meeting was emailed to all individuals identified in the GLOBEC Phase II funding table that accompanied the proposal review comments (June 18, 1996). We asked that it be forwarded to anyone else that these individuals thought should receive it.

The meeting took place on July 2, 1996 between 0900 and 1630 at the NMFS Aquarium Conference Room in Woods Hole, MA. It was chaired by Peter Wiebe. A substantial number of the Principal Investigators listed on the funded list were able to attend the meeting. Some of those individuals who could not attend had communicated with other PI's who represented their views during the meeting. (See Appendix II for a list of attendees.) The following issues were addressed:

  1. What was funded and what was not?
  2. What areas of research are missing?
  3. What does the investigator in a funded project expect from a project
  4. How does the level of funding affect the requirements for shiptime?
  5. How do we go about making dollar adjustments for programs that are under-funded or missing?
  6. What will be the products of this meeting?

For the most part, all of these issues were covered. This report summarizes the meeting and will be circulated to the Phase II investigators and the community at large.

A good part of the meeting was spent with the Principal Investigators describing what they intended to do in light of the funding level that had been proposed to support their work. Since there were a number of "new starts," having each individual provide such an overview enabled the group as a whole to develop a sense of the magnitude of the effort that will go on during the next two to three years. After the review of the phase II projects, discussion turned to the issue of what was missing as a result of reductions to proposed funding levels and of declined proposals.

Twelve items were identified and discussed, and are presented in Table 1 in order of priority. In addition to developing a group consensus about the relative importance of the items, costs to remedy the situation were estimated. Once all the items were on the table, the PI's present reached consensus about priorities to be attached to the items through a secret ballot vote. We emphasize that only the PIs present voted. Had all of the funded PIs been present, we assume that the top two or three items would remain the same, those in the mid-range might be rearranged, and the one or two with lowest priority would remain at the bottom of the list.

With a small increment in funding, most of the problems can be remedied. Appendix III to this report provides more detailed explanations of the problems and justifications for additional support to remedy them. Each item was prepared by the PI who was most closely related to the problem.

The final work of the day was to determine the requirements for shiptime given our new understanding of the Phase II working plans. A summary of shiptime required and a specific listing of each cruise is provided in Appendix IV. Note that our current needs are about 100 days less than was originally proposed. The new level (288 days) is almost exactly what was used during the 1995 field season. Action on the missing items will not impact the request for UNOLS/NOAA shiptime.

At the meeting, Principal Investigators were requested to provide copies of their revised work statements for inclusion in this document (see Appendix V.