Oil Spill Recovery Institute

The meeting was called to order about 9:45 a.m. by Chair John Calder, Director of the Arctic Research Office, NOAA. He introduced himself and invited everyone in attendance to do so.

Larry Iwamoto, alternate representative for Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Advisory Board members absent: Virginia Adams, Fishing Industry Representative

John Goering, Ph.D., Institute of Marine Science/Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks (non-voting representative)

OSRI staff present: Gary Thomas, Director; Walter Cox, Technology Coordinator; and Nancy Bird, Administrator.

Visitors: Don Costanzo, Director, Emergency Response Services, and Tom Jones, E.A. Renfroe and Company; Rep. John Harris, Alaska State Legislature; Shari Vaughan, Oceanographer, PWS Science Center; and Lee Kellar, Alaska SeaLife Center.

Safety Minute: Bird pointed out the exits and noted where cords are taped to the floor.

A quorum was established. McHale said he has proxies for Advisory Board members Doug Lentsch and Ed Thompson. Bird stated the bylaws do not specifically allow proxies and that while OSRI has recognized alternate representatives from state and federal agencies, proxies have not previously been recognized. Leland reported that the Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council received legal counsel on this issue indicating that organizations like OSRI cannot use proxies.

Approval of Agenda: An executive session regarding the grant award process was added to the agenda for late Wednesday afternoon (4:20 p.m.).

Approval of minutes: Motion by Page, seconded by Leland, to approve the minutes with corrections in the “Board members absent” and OSRI staff present sections (Board members Claudia Slater and Mead Treadwell were absent April 26 and OSRI staff Gary Thomas and Walter Cox were present on April 27).

Chair’s Report: Calder described the role of the Arctic Research Office which he directs, stating that its focus is support for marine and atmospheric research related to Arctic science.

Program evaluation: Calder referenced two handouts which were distributed , one a memo from Gary Thomas and the other prepared by Calder. Both describe methods to accomplish a program evaluation for the Oil Spill Recovery Institute. This issue will be discussed later in the meeting.

There was also a brief discussion about the new North Pacific Research Board. Calder noted that he is not NOAA’s representative on that Board.

Director’s Report: Thomas welcomed everyone. He noted that Jim Balsiger, Alaska Director for the National Marine Fisheries Service, had planned to attend this meeting until yesterday but was held in Juneau for court hearings related to Stellar sea lions. The first meeting of the North Pacific Research Board may be scheduled October 11 although Parker noted that this date conflicts with the Arctic Council meetings which have been scheduled for a long time to be held in Barrow.

Nowcast forecast workshop – Thomas said OSRI is following up on recommendations for this program made at the April meeting by Chris Mooers. A preliminary workshop is scheduled tomorrow at noon to discuss expansion of weather stations and ocean buoys in Prince William Sound.

Program review – Thomas referred to his memo which reviews the process if OSRI wants to seek a National Research Academy review of its programs. He noted that a National Research Academy review will likely be expensive.

Program report – Thomas said more detailed updates will be given on projects by Cox in his presentation. He did call attention to the Cook Inlet oceanography workshop proceedings, the Cook Inlet tidebooks and the Oil and Ice proceedings made available on CD-rom.

Travel report – Thomas summarized travel he’s done recently related to OSRI programs. There was brief discussion regarding the MORICE program, the OSRI Work Plan Committee (members include Capt. Ed Page, Ed Thompson, Doug Mutter, Claudia Slater and Larry Dietrick), and the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) program sponsored by the EVOS Trustee Council.

Partnerships - Thomas noted a number of partnerships that have developed for OSRI programs: 1) SERVS (Ship Escort Response Vessel System) has provided vessels for the acoustical surveys of zooplankton in Prince William Sound in April and May;

2) The EVOS (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill) Trustee Council and Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council have joined in support for several nowcast/forecast projects;

3) The Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, EVOS Trustees and SERVS have provided in-kind contributions for biological monitoring projects;

4) NOAA Hazmat is working with local organizations on Geographic Information System (GIS) development for coastal Alaskan resources;

5) The MORICE project continues as a collaboration among SINTEF, industry and several federal agencies;

6) SINTEF is now also beginning work with the Univ. of Miami to linking SINTEF’s oil behavior model with the Princeton Ocean Model for Prince William Sound developed by Miami.

Points of information – Thomas stated he is preparing a grant proposal to be submitted to the Murdock Charitable Trusts requesting support to develop the information system for the nowcast/forecast program and provide the information through Internet technology to all the user groups.

Thomas also noted that the Advisory Board may wish to discuss the North Pacific Research Board meeting scheduled October 11 – 12.

He also stated a workshop for review of the nowcast/forecast projects now underway should be scheduled this fall.

FY00 Work Plan update and proposed FY01 Work Plan – Capt. Page introduced the process the work plan committee used to help develop the proposed FY01 Work Plan. He then turned the floor over to Walter Cox who began a Powerpoint presentation summarizing the proposed plan.

In discussion, questions were raised about how matching money projects work (i.e., tide height data collection) and which program area some projects fit into. The presentation was interrupted to stay on schedule with other presenters on the agenda; it was agreed to continue this item in the afternoon session.

Presentation: Alaska Statewide Response Resource Tracking and Management System – Jim McHale introduced the guest speakers from E.A. Renfroe and Company. McHale stated that the oil spill cooperatives* requested Renfroe to prepare and submit the proposal received by OSRI last winter. McHale corrected the record stating that this proposal was not “unsolicited.” He noted that all coops in the past few days have submitted letters of support for this proposal.

Don Costanzo and Tom Jones were introduced and gave a Powerpoint presentation with examples of the software system in action. It was clarified that the software is owned by Visual Information Systems and distributed through Renfroe. The proposal includes software licensing in perpetuity.

Discussion: There will be costs for the coops in doing the data entry to keep the system current. All coops have agreed to commit to doing that maintenance. Iwamoto noted that ADEC sent all Board members a position paper prior to the meeting supporting this system. The proposed common database is seen as an asset. Thomas noted that his concern when this proposal initially came to OSRI was whether the coops were willing to commit some of their own resources toward this project. He also noted that this was deemed “unsolicited” because no advertisement had been issued for a similar project; the legislation establishing OSRI requires a competitive process for award of projects. He suggested that the procedures for such projects need to be reviewed and new guidelines or procedures established.

Copies of the Renfroe proposal were distributed to all who had not already received it. Also distributed were copies of the SINTEF proposal regarding remote sensing.

Costanzo and Jones were thanked for their presentation. Action on this proposed project will be taken later in the meeting.

It was agreed to revise the agenda as follows: Continuation of FY01 work plan presentation by Cox will occur at the end of presentations. The field trip this evening is cancelled and replaced by a barbecue at the Science Center. This is to accommodate further discussion on the work plan and other issues by the Board during the afternoon session.

The meeting reconvened about 1:45 pm – all Board members present earlier in the day returned except Evanoff (due to a medical appointment).

Presentation: Herring, pollock, and zooplankton acoustic measurements - Thomas described the acoustic surveys done this year in Prince William Sound of herring, pollock and plankton populations. The herring surveys indicate the lowest biomass of herring in, at least, the past decade. While doing the herring surveys, bird and marine mammals were also observed and recorded using an infared video camera. The surveys for plankton were completed using the SERVS vessel Valdez Star; the Alaska Department of Fish and Game also provided some in-kind support for these projects.

New visitors were invited to introduce themselves: Roxanne Bash, Alaska Department of Transportation, Juneau, and David Janka, Auklet Charters, Cordova.

Presentation –Environmental sensitivity mapping – Doug Mutter described the environmental sensitivity maps currently available, explaining that there are 10 state and federal sub-area contingency plans but detailed maps are not yet available for all sub-areas. OSRI is growing as a leader in assuring that ESI maps will be completed for all sub-areas. He stated prior OSRI support has helped produced updated maps for Prince William Sound, Southeast Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. He noted that this is creating a good track record of collecting information needed for planning an oil spill emergency response. Mutter distributed a handout, a sample of one of the Kodiak Island maps. He noted the many partners in the project listed in Table 1. He emphasized that Alaska’s west coast (Chukchi and Bering Seas region) is the one area not adopted by many groups and lacking information. Mutter said, assuming that the Board approves the FY01 Work Plan project later in the meeting, that OSRI will contribute toward a long-term program that will help fill this void in the maps. He and John Whitney (NOAA Hazmat) estimate that approximately $150,000 is required annually for each of four sub-areas on the west coast. OSRI’s work plan proposes a four-year cooperative agreement with NOAA Hazmat that would commit $60,000 per year from OSRI. Mutter said other funding will be solicited from development organizations, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and local coastal agencies.

Presentation – Nationwide standards for wildlife capture and treatment activities

Kelley Weaverling was introduced and distributed a handout titled “A Proposal Outline for a New OSRI Project: Developing nationwide standards for wildlife capture and treatment activities.” At the end of his remarks, he invited Mutter to add comments regarding his conversations with Ron Brittain of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Mutter indicated there is interest in a workshop on this issue resulting in recommendations that could be presented at the March oil spill meeting (IOSC) in Tampa. Mutter distributed a handout titled “Fish and Wildife and Countermeasures Coordination Project.” He also noted that the Environmental Forum meeting in Anchorage, Feb. 5-9, might be a good time for this workshop.

Discussion: There is a special day set aside for this topic in conjunction with, but outside of, the IOSC agenda. Mutter emphasized that if there is support for this project, a committee will have to be formed quickly and a contractor hired to organize the February workshop. He noted that it’s important to immortalize the high standard that Alaska’s program has established and ensure that it will be maintained and recognized. Further discussion and a final decision on this proposed project will occur later in the meeting.

Matter of information: The EPPR meeting is scheduled in Sweden in January 2001.

Finance Committee Report

Penny Oswalt distributed a replacement page 2 of the FY01 proposed budget. Treasurer R.J. Kopchak then led a review of the financial information materials provided.

- 1999 audit – It was clarified that OSRI does not have a separate audit because its funds are managed by the PWS science Center. The PWSSC 1999 audit covers the OSRI funds although there is not a separate letter to management. Kopchak stated his desire to see a separate management letter attached to next year’s audit (not a separate audit, simply a separate management letter addressed to the OSRI Advisory Board). Kopchak stated all Advisory board members will receive a copy of the management letter for the FY99 audit. He has reviewed that letter and found no significant changes or recommendations made by the auditors in their letter.

- The FY00 audit will be completed in November so the next report for this Board will be given in the spring meeting.

- Kopchak pointed out the summary report for FY00. Discussion. There was a question regarding the Technology Coordinator position’s time; should it be pro-rated among ecology, ecology and education?

- Question regarding the administrative budget. It is limited to 20% of the total revenues received annually. No additional administrative expenses are included/expended in the budget.

- Investment strategies - Oswalt reported that she has been in touch with the Coast Guard. While they were initially thinking of transferring the funds into a longer-term Treasury bill, agreement was reached to wait until the end of September and then decide whether it would be wise to move the funds. Kopchak noted that Finance Committee and others will receive an update on that issue at a later date.

- FY01 Work Plan proposed budget. Kopchak suggested that discussion of this be postponed until after the FY01 work plan has been fully presented. Budget questions for individual projects could then be answered during those discussions. There was a question regarding where funds for projects not included in the proposed workplan would come from; if approved, those projects would have to come from the unencumbered, unallocated fund line.

Kopchak also noted that a Finance Committee meeting will be held prior to the next Board meeting.

Began about 3:40 pm – Cox finished reviewing projects included in the Applied Technology section and continued onto predictive ecology

Ecology projects: Cox reviewed the list of projects as proposed in the FY01 Work Plan. He spoke briefly on each of the projects and answered questions.

Education projects: Cox reviewed the list of projects as proposed in the FY01 Work Plan. He spoke briefly on each of the projects and answered questions.

Projects tabled by the FY01 Work Plan Committee: Cox highlighted three projects which the work plan committee tabled in their recommendation.

- Alaska Statewide Response Resource Tracking and Management System – Motion by McHale to include the response database project in the FY01 Work Plan. Motion withdrawn due to lack of quorum until Evanoff returns from a medical appointment. Discussion. Several members expressed support to include a $186,000 allocation for a response database project in the work plan, but noted that this does not mean approval of a contract with E.A. Renfroe. Others stated support for a lower amount ($100,000). The Chair pointed out that the software that is a key part of this project is proprietary and only available from E.A. Renfroe. Discussion regarding how OSRI responds to unsolicited proposals. It was also noted that we’re currently running behind in the technology area for our targeted allocation of 40% funds awarded to technology projects. General consensus to recommend moving forward on this project through a process of developing cooperative agreements with the OSROs and including funding for the project in the FY01 Work Plan. Action deferred until Wednesday morning.

- Ocean surface current radar (OSCR) - Cox summarized the ocean surface currents project and Thomas spoke in more detail about it. Oceanographer Dr. Shari Vaughan answered some questions regarding how the OSCR (ocean surface current radar) system would complement other ocean current data being collected. Calder suggested that this topic might be discussed and a direction decided on pursuing it during the planned workshop later this fall on the nowcast/forecast program.

- Viscous fluids transfer - The viscous fluids transfer project was proposed to solicit innovative approaches that might solve the inability to transfer viscous fluids. The work plan committee determined that OSRI should wait until the results of some other agencies’ work in this area are known.

In summary, Cox noted that the proposed $1,530,000 budget in the draft work plan does not include the Renfroe proposal. Adding $185,000 for that project, the technology portion of the total budget will increase.

In response to a question about education programs, Thomas said he’s been encouraging an educator with PWS RCAC, Leann Ferry, to submit a collaborative proposal that might bring together many of the educators in the oil spill region. In further discussion, there was general support for a regional workshop on education programs; it was suggested that Alaska Sea Grant’s education program be included.

Page pointed out that there is 100K allocated in the FY01 work plan for projects of opportunity in the applied technology and that those funds might be directed to the Renfroe proposal.

McHale asked everyone to review the placement of projects within the three categories of applied technology, predictive ecology and public education and outreach. He suggested it may be appropriate to move some projects from one category to another; for example, the small spill technology might fit better under public education and outreach because it’s described as a project to distribute information.

Question about the process when funds are not fully expended in a project area; do these funds revert to the general budget, or are they carried over from year to year? Discussion. General consensus that the work plan should include all continuing projects and new projects. It was suggested that it would also help to give the Board a report at the end of the year that highlights projects that were not completed (or funds fully awarded) and not planned to be carried over for award in the next year. Calder recommended that the “project status” column in the Work Plan have information for each project listed that details X dollars budgeted, Y dollars spent, and Z dollars reverting to an unencumbered category, or Z dollars being recommended for spending in the new fiscal year.

Further discussion ended in agreement that staff will prepare a new summary sheet that combines the information included in the proposed FY01 work plan and the proposed budget and clarifies which projects are continuing and those where unspent funds are being recommended to revert to the general fund. This summary sheet will be distributed Wednesday morning.

Grant award process – executive session - Leland requested an executive session to discuss the process of awarding grants. Kopchak said that unless it deals with a specific instance, it probably must be discussed in public. He summarized Alaska law regarding public bodies and executive sessions. According to the statute, executive sessions are limited to discussions “matters the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the government; subjects which tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided that the person may request a public discussion; matters which by law, municipal charter or code are required to be confidential; or matters involving consideration of governmental records that by law are not subject to public disclosures.” Bird stated that, due to a majority of OSRI Advisory Board members either being state representatives or being appointed by the state’s Governor, the Board’s majority are probably required to adhere to the state’s statute.

Leland said she will not discuss the specifics of the instance, i.e. the person involved. The instance Leland is aware of occurred in the past and the grievance procedure is past. She said she has received calls indicating there is a perception that OSRI is less than fair in its award of grants; that OSRI is funding more than is fair to the PWSSC; and that the grant policy process is not being followed. Leland said she is not making judgments but felt the perception and concern should be passed on. Leland said she’s been told some people will not submit proposals to OSRI because of their perception that it is unfair. She discussed this with Thomas briefly yesterday. Thomas pointed to the Grant Policy Manual (GPM) and detailed the procedure to award grants to other entities prior to the Science Center if proposals are ranked equally. He also stated that similar procedures do not exist for other government and university awarded grants. Kopchak recommended all Board members review the policies as stated in the GPM under Section 4.6, Impartiality. If everyone is comfortable with those policies, are they being adhered to? How do we do an audit to insure that those procedures are being followed? That’s not to slight staff but to give the Board assurance that the policies in place are being followed. Kopchak’s second question is what level of award by the Executive Director is the Board comfortable with?

Mutter requested a list of the number of grant awards to the PWSSC and the percentage of total projects awarded to PWSSC. It was noted that current policy requires OSRI staff to notify the OSRI Executive Committee each time a grant award is made to the PWSSC. Bird stated that all grant awards are listed in the FY99 Annual Report (currently in press) and the previous FY97-98 Annual Report. Discussion ended with staff agreeing to work overnight to prepare new spreadsheet summaries of the FY00 and FY01 work plans and provide the detail requested on OSRI projects awarded to PWSSC.

Larry Iwamoto, alternate representative for Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation

As a follow-up to discussions yesterday, Oswalt distributed and explained a one-page list of all contracts awarded by OSRI to date. She also summarized FY99 contracts to PWSSC at 35% of the total issued that year and 37% in FY00.

New visitors: Phil Mundy, Science Coordinator of the EVOS Trustee Council introduced himself.

Cox explained the two new handouts that summarize the FY00 spending and revised proposed FY01 workplan.

Technology Coordinator’s funding: Board directs that this be re-allocated to a 40:40:20 formula within program areas.

EA Renfroe proposal – Discussion. General consensus that OSRI should negotiate a coop agreement or MOU with the OSROs to proceed with this project. Further discussion and consensus that staff should proceed with negotiating an agreement but that that the cooperative agreement must be reviewed by the full Advisory Board and then formally approved by the Executive Committee.

- Calder encouraged staff to work toward an equitable coop agreement, where matching is equal and perhaps not the entire amount approved by OSRI for this project is committed. He also noted that this must be a one-time award and not be used for ongoing maintenance of the system.

- There was some discussion supportive of ADEC being included in this cooperative agreement so that it also gets this software.

- Discussion of possible MOU among the OSROs separate from the cooperative agreement with OSRI.

- Parker wants assurance that this will not create any problems with the Incident Command System.

Kopchak commented on projects of opportunity and suggested that the Board needs a process to respond to these kind of projects. Thomas said staff’s recommendation is that when unsolicited projects are received which are deemed time-critical projects and are cooperative agreement-type projects with a public or non-profit entity, approval of the project may occur by the Board through a teleconference or a meeting of the Executive Committee. However, if the project will result in a single contract or grant award to a single entity, the project concept must be advertised through a Broad Area Announcement or Request for Proposals.

Calder summarized the above amendments for the applied technology section of the work plan. The predictive ecology and public education and outreach sections were then reviewed. Consensus reached in support of a regional science educators workshop which could be funded through the science planning workshop category. There was also discussion regarding funding for a meteorological workshop.

Leland suggested that each of the three program areas have a “projects of opportunity” line item. Discussion resulted in agreement that “Projects of opportunity” be listed on the cover summary sheet for the work plan, as a fourth line item in addition to the three program area. The $100,000 proposed for projects of opportunity within the applied technology section will be moved to this general projects of opportunity program area; these funds will be available to any project and not limited to projects defined as applied technology.

Motion by Mutter to approve the FY01 work plan. Calder requested the Board first review the FY00 year end report and asked for concurrence with the three carryover project funds. Mutter’s motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Kopchak , seconded by Leland, to move the three carryover projects from FY00 (40K for Small Spill Technology, two proposals for spending project of opportunity funds on an ice detection project and to provide a balance of funding needed for the computer simulation of oil dispersal, and 60K for Sentinel fisheries) and include them in the FY01 work plan. Iwamoto asked about moving the small spill item back to the public education and education category; discussion. Agreement to keep it in the applied technology. Motion passed unanimously.

Motion by Kopchak to approve the FY01 work plan as amended in the discussions described above, seconded by Evanoff. Motion passed unanimously.

Discussion on the need for graphs/spread sheet indicating the past spending in the categories so the Board can see the history to date of spending.

Grant Policy Manual - Bird led a discussion of the proposed revisions to the GPM, going page by page through the manual. Kopchak distributed a double-sided handout titled “OSRI Grant Policy Manual – Proposed Amendment to language 2.0 Research Programs.” Bird also distributed a one-page memo dated August 14, 2000 proposing additional amendments to Section 4.0 for submitting proposals.

Section 2.0

Motion by Mutter, seconded by Kopchak , to retain and amend Section 2.1 “Background” as follows:

Latest projections of Arctic and Subarctic oil supplies indicate this industry has, perhaps, another century ahead of exploratory drilling and extraction. In 1997, the industry announced that the Alaska pipeline and Valdez terminal have, at least, another 30 years of life. This projection does not include the potential opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. While these developments continue, the risk of another major oil spill remains a possibility. OSRI funded research products are expected to help prevent such spills and will certainly be used well into the future.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee's Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan (April 1997) provides the national plan for oil spill R&D. OSRI's "Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan (1995)" provides broad areas of focus for its R&D programs. OSRI will concentrate its efforts on high priority programs/projects from both of these strategic plans. The OSRI Business Plan (adopted April 1999) further identifies the strategic vision and objectives of the OSRI research programs.

Motion by Page, seconded by Kopchak to amend and retitle Section 2.2 “General Program Mission”:

The Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) was authorized by the United States Congress (Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996). The Institute’s functions are to identify and develop the best available techniques, equipment and materials for dealing with oil spills in the Arctic and sub-arctic marine environment; and to conduct cooperative research on the long-term effects of oil spills on the environment, the economy and the people of the affected regions. In carrying out this mission statement, the OSRI Advisory Board has targetted resource allocations of 40% to applied technology, 40% to predictive ecology and 20% to public education and outreach programs.

Motion by Page, seconded by Kopchak to amend Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 as follows:

The OSRI has targeted 40% of program funding resources for research and development efforts related to Applied Technology.

The applied technology program is focused on the design, engineering, development, fabrication and evaluation of new products and technology. Programs and funded projects can range from new tools for the prevention and remediation of oil pollution to the implementation of systems that provide information to decision makers on natural resources at risk to oil spills. Applied technology projects may include predictive ecology and education components, and collaborative efforts are encouraged.

Applied technology programs are expected to contribute information needed to make decisions on spill prevention, response protocols and remediation and recovery strategy.

The OSRI has targeted 40% of program funding for projects and research related to predictive ecology.

The Predictive Ecology program is focused on developing the capacity to predict the seasonal distribution, abundance and level of risk to natural resources during an oil spill and subsequent remediation effort. Programs and funded projects can range from long term monitoring programs in both biology and physical oceanography to the identification of gaps in scientific knowledge and the acquisition of data that will help fill those gaps.

Predictive ecology programs are expected to contribute information needed for making decisions on spill response protocols, remediation and recovery strategy.

The OSRI has targeted 20% of program funding for projects related to education and outreach.

Programs and funded projects can range from fellowships and internships for students to the composition, publication and distribution of printed materials, graphics and digital material, from science outreach and education programs to workshops that promote better understanding of available technologies.

Public education and outreach programs are expected to contribute to the dissemination of information related to the OSRI mission to the public, industry, government and research community.

Staff was directed to correct the spelling of “Principal Investigator” throughout the policy manual.

Motion by Leland, seconded by Mutter to concur with amendments proposed as revised during Advisory Board discussions and printed below:

Each OSRI award letter and/or the contract specifically identifies certain conditions which are applicable to and become part of that award. When these conditions reference a particular section of this manual, that section becomes part of the award requirements through incorporation by reference.

Conference or travel award grants may have specific conditions that will be included in the award letter. Cooperative agreement conditions will be detailed in the cooperative agreement.

Section 4.0

Research programs for each fiscal year are adopted by the OSRI Advisory Board, usually at their fall meeting held in August or September. Based on the Annual Work Plan, the staff issues Board Area Announcements (BAAs) or Requestsf or Proposals (RFPs) to solicit proposals for specific projects listed in the work plan.

The BAAs or RFPS are posted at the OSRI web site and advertised in different venues as appropriate to the topic. Proposal grant applications are accepted from individuals, organizations and businesses nationally and internationally.

Proposal requirements vary depending on the size and type of the grant. There are two types of award programs:

The application procedures for each grant program are detailed below. Decisions for all large awards are made by the OSRI Advisory Board after a peer review process that includes the OSRI Scientific and Technical Committee. Decisions for all small awards are made by the OSRI Executive Director after a peer review process.

Proposals may be submitted without reference to a specific Broad Area Announcement (BAA) or Request for Proposals (RFP). If these unsolicited proposals are in support of an existing or new cooperative agreement for a project with public or non-profit organizations, and the project falls within the scope of OSRI’s mission, the unsolicited proposal may be processed through the normal proposal review.

Unsolicited and time-sensitive proposals received from individual businesses or non-public entities may result in the issuance of a special Broad Area Announcement for projects. The OSRI Director will determine whether the proposal meets the time-sensitive criteria. Only after issuance of the BAA will the proposal then proceed through the normal proposal review.

All other unsolicited proposals – whether from private or public entities – will be referred to the work plan committee for the upcoming fiscal year and projects related to the proposal may be included in the following year’s work plan.

All proposals received are confidential and copies are only released to OSRI review staff and peer reviewers. The identity of peer reviewers remains confidential.

After the deadline for a Broad Area Announcement has passed, and during the peer review process, the total number of proposals received will be made public through the OSRI web site or through other means and are available to anyone requesting that information. Identities of those submitting proposals and the amounts requested in their proposals remains confidential.

Decisions regarding contract awards will be posted on the OSRI web site or through other means, listing the company/organization and principal investigator/project director awarded a contract. After contract award, an abstract of the proposal receiving a contract and the dollar value of the contract is available to anyone requesting it.

Copies of all proposals received are kept on file, but held in confidence, in accordance with the OSRI records retention plan.

(Note: Staff was directed to correct references to sections that have been renumbered through these amendments.)

For multi-year projects, Principal Investigators are required to submit an annual progress report. This report will include:

2. Non-technical abstract or summary – The Annual Progress Report must, at a minimum, contain a non-technical abstract or summary that does not exceed two pages and includes an overview of the project. The abstract should describe the nature and significance of the project and progress made toward realizing project goals. The report may be provided to the Advisory Board and could be used by OSRI staff to answer inquiries as to the nature, significance and status of the project.

3. Programmatic or Technical Progress Report that briefly reviews the objectives and reports progress related to these objectives; description of any roadblocks encountered in project implementation; highlight accomplishments and conclusions to date; appendix including copies of all written reports or publications completed or in progress.

For continuing grants awarded for two or more years, progress reports are required annually, no later than 45 days after the anniversary of the effective date of the grant. The progress report is part of the annual request for continued support, described in Section 3.9.3 Continued Support (Continuing Grants). If the grant is not renewed, no progress report is required at the end of the final year or final quarter, only the final project report need be submitted.

Within 30 days following expiration of the grant, a summary Financial Statement shall be submitted to the OSRI Contracting Officer. The final invoice and final financial statement report shall be submitted within 90 days of the grant expiration.

The final product or report required for each grant will differ depending on the project area, and approach. All projects will submit a final Program or Technical report describing the results of their work. The final program or technical report must include a non-technical abstract/summary that does not exceed 2 pages and includes an overview of the project. This abstract should describe the nature and significance of the project. It may be provided to the Advisory Board and could be used by OSRI staff to answer inquiries as to the nature and significance of the project.

The preferred written product for many awards will be a peer-reviewed publication or manuscript prepared for publication.

Section 7.4 Payment Procedures

Almost all grants awarded by the OSRI will be made on a cost reimbursable basis. Cash advances will only be awarded in rare cases.

As a general condition, the awardee shall be expected to finance the project with its own working capital, and payments shall be made to reimburse the awardee for actual cash disbursements based on request for reimbursement submitted to OSRI.

On occasion, fixed price grants or contracts may be awarded. The amount will be negotiated using acceptable cost principals. Up to seventy-five percent (75) of the fixed price amount may be awarded with the balance of the funds to be paid after the project deliverables have been met. Quarterly progress and financial reports, as per section 7.6, are still required.

Signed award contracts may, in some cases, include provisions for a working capital advance. Awardees may receive an advance payment from OSRI for project start-up costs incurred. The amount of the initial advance shall be geared to the reimbursement cycle so that after the initial period, the advance approximately equals the average amount of the awardee’s unreimbursed program disbursements. This advance payment will be for an amount not to exceed 25% of the total award. Following the advance payment, the awardee must submit regular invoices with documentation to receive reimbursement. At the end of the first and subsequent quarterly reporting periods, documentation shall be submitted to account for the entire advance payment.

Calder stated all revisions as proposed and amended through the Board’s discussions were unanimously adopted. Motion passed.

Bird reiterated that she will be working on Sections 8-11 of the Grant Policy Manual and will probably bring additional revisions for these sections to the Advisory Board at its next meeting.

Bylaw amendments – This item was deferred to the next meeting due to not having the 2/3 of membership required for voting.

Calder stated the question to be answered, “Should there be a program review and, if yes, how?” He summarized what legislation references on this issue. Unless section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was also revised in 1996, it appears that the Dept. of Transportation may be directed to do a review. Page and Bird will research this issue and report back to the Board.

Thomas reported that he has investigated other means to do a review. Most reviews are of larger programs, $10 million per year or more. Mundy said the EVOS review being done by the National Academy is costing $460,000. Thomas noted that the Sound Ecosystem Assessment (SEA) program review was completed for under $100K. Thomas reiterated the importance of the Board determining its objective for this review, clearly stating its objective.

Discussion. It was suggested that the Arctic Research Council/Board or the National Academy of Sciences be asked to help choose a panel. Thomas suggested that OSRI prepare a draft list of reviewers and determine the objective for the review. Discussion ensued on how to budget for this; Kopchak expressed support for a possible mid-year appropriation.

It was questioned whether this will be considered an administrative or programmatic cost. Staff support will be critical to do a good, efficient review. Reports must be in order, project posters ready, and all other materials related to projects. Calder recommends that he, Page and Thomas work on a proposal for the Board for the spring meeting. Consensus agreement to this recommendation.

Public Comments: Lee Kellar expressed appreciation for the invitation to sit in; Phil Mundy stated that his primary duty is to get the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) program in place; he invited comments and participation in the Oct. 12 and 13 workshop in Anchorage on this issue, noting that GEM has relevance to OSRI, ecological forecasting and education programs as well. Mundy also noted that the North Pacific Research Board will meet on October 11, just prior to the GEM meeting.

Board member comments: McHale thanked Bird and Oswalt for arrangements, and Cox, for extra time last night preparing additional financial information; Calder seconded the motion; Page also; Mutter invited agenda items for the Environmental Forum meeting in February. Thomas thanked Bird and Kopchak for work on the Grant Policy Manual; and, also thanked Cox for his presentation on the workplan. Kopchak commended staff for moving us forward and Board members for pointing out areas where we’re still short.

Thomas was asked to send Barbara Moore a thank you letter; Kopchak and other Board members directed that a Board plaque be developed to be presented to outgoing Board members.

These minutes were reviewed and approved by the Advisory Board on _______________________.

* Alaska response cooperatives are: Alaska Clean Seas (ACS), Alaska Chadux Corp, Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response, Inc. (CISPRI), Southeast Alaska Petroleum Resource Organization (SEAPRO), and the Ship Escort Response Vessel System (SERVS).