Oil Spill Recovery Institute
Advisory Board Spring Meeting
April 26-27, 2000
Location: Fisheries Industrial Technology Center (FTIC), Kodiak
The meeting was called to order about 4:10 p.m. by Chair Barbara Moore. A quorum was established, ten of thirteen voting members being present. John Bauer was recognized as an alternate representative for Larry Dietrick, of the Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
Advisory Board members present:
Virginia Adams, John Bauer, Carol Fries, R.J. Kopchak, Marilyn Leland, Jim McHale, Barbara Moore, Doug Mutter, Capt. Ed Page, Ed Thompson, and non-voting representative John Goering.
Board members absent:
OSRI staff present: Nancy Bird and Penny Oswalt.
Others: Jay Stinsom, chair of the FTIC and Scott Smiley, Director of FTIC.
Introductions
Scott Smiley welcomed the board and described the mission and activities of the FTIC. He also offered to do a tour of the facility later for any interested Board members.
Approval of the Agenda:
Several additions to the agenda were suggested:
- Program evaluation discussion inserted following lunch, prior to discussion of the FY01 Work Plan
- Discussion of the Renfro proposal inserted following the program evaluation discussion.
Motion by Thompson to appove the amended agenda, seconded by Adams. Motion passed.
Public comments:
None from the public. McHale stated his appreciation of OSRI’s support for the Oil and Ice Workshop; he also took the opportunity to present Marilyn Leland, of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council with an embossed glass paperweight in the shape of iceberg (RCAC also supported the workshop). Goering and Page commended Alaska Clean Seas for an excellent workshop.
Approval of minutes:
Motion by Leland, seconded by Kopchak to approve the minutes of Nov. 15-16, 1999. Motion passed.
Motion by Kopchak, seconded by Adams to approve the minutes of Dec. 14, 1999. Motion passed.
General discussion followed on several topics: Kodiak whales, schedule for rest of the meeting, and the Oil and Ice workshop.
Meeting reconvened at 8:30 am Thursday, April 27, 2000.
Board members present:
Barbara Moore, Virginia Adams, John Bauer (Dietrick’s alternate), Gail Evanoff, Carol Fries, R.J. Kopchak, Marilyn Leland, Jim McHale, Doug Mutter, Capt. Ed Page, Ed Thompson, Glenn Ujioka and John Goering. Non-voting representative Mead Treadwell joined the meeting in progress about 9:15 a.m. via teleconference after his plane was cancelled.
Absent: Claudia Slater.
Chair’s Report:
Moore noted that there will be a change in administrations and this will likely result in a change in the appointment of a chair for the OSRI.
Bird did a brief overview of the Board current and background information book and took questions. Note: Ujioka did not receive this manual.
Director’s report:
There was a brief discussion regarding establishment of the North Pacific Research Board and funding for administration of this Board. Thomas then returned to his formal report, calling attention to the "Action Item” table included in the meeting packet (under Tab 3).
· He commented on reviews of the investment policy and strategies to improve the interest earnings.
· Cook Inlet (CI) Risk Assessment Project - Thomas said he received an unsolicited proposal before the last Board meeting from the Cook Inlet RCAC. He remembers the amount requested as being in the $200,000 range while the Board recommended only $25,000 for the CI risk assessment project. All Board members received a letter and copy of a December 1999 proposal requesting $115,000. Further discussion was tabled until later in the meeting.
· Copper River Delta resources at risk project – Thomas reported that funding for this project was awarded to Dr. Mary Anne Bishop of the Prince William Sound Science Center and Dr. Charles “Pete” Peterson, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
· Education programs are expanding in cooperation with the PWS Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council and others.
· Partnerships – Thomas briefed the Board on various partnerships, either current or pending with NOAA, the PWS RCAC, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and others.
· Annual schedule for proposals- This issue needs further discussion, either later in the meeting or by a work plan committee that may be appointed.
Thomas noted that other items on the Action Items list will either be discussed later in the meeting or presentations will be made covering the issue.
Walter Cox presented a mid-year status report through a Powerpoint presentation. He briefly discussed each project included in the work plan and noted grants awarded.
Comments/questions: Capt. Page asked about the remote sensing project and requested more details and explanation on the project. Cox stated that the dispersant simulation project proposed by SINTEF is different from what was requested in the Broad Area Announcement. Leland, Moore and Kopchak requested a single-page summary for each project. Page said it would be very helpful to have an executive summary and a brief explanation of how the project fits into OSRI’s charter and the expected outcome for each project. Leland asked if OSRI has developed a mission statement. Staff response is that the mission statement is dictated by the congressional legislation (Oil Pollution Act of 1990 – Title V). Moore asked about the two post-doc positions that remain unfilled and asked if Board members had any comments. Thomas said he would like the Board to first hear the presentation by Dr. Shari Vaughan and Dr. Chris Mooers and then discuss those positions. Treadwell questioned the network problems and Thomas summarized it as a personnel issue.
Mid-morning break – at 9:50 for 10 minutes.
Meeting reconvened at 10:10.
Presentation by Drs. Mooers and Vaughan: Status Report on the Development of the Prince William Sound Nowcast/Forecast System for the Oil Spill Recovery Institute.
There were various questions about the system. Thompson suggested Lynn Crystal in Valdez be contacted regarding winds and other weather data. Additional discussion. The presentation ended about 11:35 am.
5 min.break.
Finance Committee Report:
Mid-year report: Treasurer RJ Kopchak reviewed the mid-year report included in the meeting packet. He asked for comments on the new summary cover sheet.
A correction was noted on page 3 of the report: FY00 Balance figures for the Program Operations should be moved one colmn to the left, to the “encumbered” column.
It was noted that the finance report pages for each of the three program areas (Technology, Ecology and Education) are designed to coincide with the projects as listed in the annual work plan.
Finance Committee meeting minutes of Feb. 10, 2000. Draft minutes of this meeting weere included in the packet. Kopchak reported that the Finance Committee recommends separate accounting for OSRI administrative and program funds be set up and read the committee’s recommended policy statement.
Committee’s recommended policy statement:
Twenty percent of the annual OSRI deposit shall be credited to the administrative fund and the remaining 80% placed into the OSRI program fund. All interest earnings shall accrue to the program fund. Interest income on OSRI deposits shall be subject to a 20% administrative fee when those funds are appropriated for annual work plan projects.
Financial reports for both the administrative and program funds shall be provided quarterly to the OSRI Advisory Board.
Questions/discussion: If this policy is adopted, will it take effect retroactively or from this point forward? It will be retroactive. Will there literally be separate accounts or will the two funds be internally managed as separate accounts? The staff plan is to internally manage the administrative and program funds as separate accounts.
Discussion: If we’ve been doing better than 20% for administrative costs, it seems to be a disincentive to be efficient to allocate a flat 20%. Flip side: It will require more time on part of the Board to manage it when time could be spent on program issues. Additionally, it was noted that the Prince William Sound Science Center’s recognized federal Indirect Cost (IDC) rate is 28.6%. Efficiency should be expected with OSRI’s administration attached to the PWSSC. Thompson stated that he doesn’t want to micromanage but would like to get every extra percent possible into the program budget. Kopchak said the limited meeting hours for the OSRI Board (approximately 16 hours per year) leaves little time for program discussions. He believes a detailed review of the administrative budget is something we should try to manage more efficiently by agreeing to a flat rate. Page agreed with Kopchak and pointed out that there will continue to be oversight of the administrative functions through the financial reports received. He said he wants to spend more time on reviewing the programs and projects. Ujioka asked for clarification of the administrative fee of 20% on the interest earnings. He then advocated support for Thompson’s position that as much money as possible go into the programs.
Revised language suggested for the policy statement: These funds will be managed as a unit and all interest earnings shall accrue to the program fund.
Motion by Kopchak, seconded by Leland to accept the amended language. Mutter reiterated the Board’s responsibility to review the administrative fund and added that he’s not sure anything is broken that needs fixing. Fries agreed that the Board has a responsibility to review administrative expenditures and said the Finance Committee did not intend that to be part of this recommendation. Kopchak agreed with this assessment and asked consent from his second to include the final sentence of the original recommendation: Financial reports for both the administrative and program funds shall be provided quarterly to the Advisory Board.. Second (Leland) agreed.
Treadwell spoke as Treasurer of the Prince William Sound Science Center, noting that the two Boards have overlap and that the primary benefit of the proposed policy is not just a savings of time but continuity in planning and running the administrative operation. Regarding oversight, he said additional needs can be addressed annually when the workplan is approved. He also believes this policy strengthens our position in an audit.
Policy Statement, as revised:
Twenty percent of the annual OSRI deposit shall be credited to the administrative fund and the remaining 80% placed into the OSRI program fund. These funds shall be managed as a unit and all interest earnings shall accrue to the program fund. Interest income on OSRI deposits shall be subject to a 20% administrative fee when those funds are appropriated for annual work plan projects. Financial reports for both the administrative and program funds shall be provided quarterly to the OSRI Advisory Board.
Vote in favor: Moore, Page, Leland, Kopchak, Evanoff, Adams, Fries, McHale, and Bauer. Opposed: Mutter, Thompson, and Ujioka.
Motion passed (9-3).
FY99 audit – Penny Oswalt, Finance Director for PWSSC, stated that the only finding in this audit is that the PWSSC’s federally recognized IDC is not current (it was approved in 1996). Oswalt said she will submit the paperwork soon to the federal government for an updated IDC.
Investment issues: Treadwell reported that staff at Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot (a Washington, D.C. law firm) have met with Coast Guard officials and determined various options for investment of the OSRI $22.4 million principle fund that should result in better interest earnings. These options do not require additional Congressional action.
During lunch at a Japanese restaurant, Board members were joined by about 10 Kodiak residents and Director Gary Thomas gave a presentation titled “Nowcast/forecasting: an information system on coastal resources at risk to oil spills.”
Meeting reconvened at 2:20 p.m.
Program evaluation: Moore stated that it is standard procedure to implement a program evaluation and suggested this be included in the FY01 work plan. Reviews can cost upwards of $150,000-200,000 when done through the National Research Council. However, she noted that there are other, less expensive ways to accomplish similar reviews which result in 90% or more of what the Council’s review would provide.
Discussion: The Board needs to establish the criteria for an evaluation. Page asked if the Board is comfortable with the current direction/goals and their linkages to the OPA90 legislation. He suggested that this must be agreed on prior to a program evaluation. He further stated that Thomas’ presentation at lunch had more clearly outlined for him some of the linkages of the current support for the nowcast/forecast system to the OSRI mission. Thompson stated that his major concern right now would be a risk assessment as to whether the particular program goals can or cannot be obtained. Further discussion.
Mutter recommended that staff be requested to prepare a summary description of the Academy review process for discussion at the next meeting. Moore said she doesn’t believe the program is yet ready for an Academy review and encouraged a review prior to that step; she agrees that a summary description of the academy process would be useful for Board members but would like to see another review process begun immediately. This review can serve a number of purposes, one of which is to build constituency in your own community. The choice of reviewers is critical and Moore recommended that some Alaskans be included. Moore described the review process used within NOAA for individual programs.
Consensus regarding program evaluation: Staff will prepare a summary on the NRC process and Moore will prepare a description of the NOAA process. Moore volunteered to prepare a first draft scoping document for a program evaluation.
North Pacific Research Board development – Treadwell reported on various conversations over the past few months with staff at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Senator Ted Stevens’ office and others regarding the formation of the NPRB. He recommends that the OSRI Board send a letter to Governor Tony Knowles encouraging his appointments to the NPRB so that the Board will be established sooner rather than later.
After further discussion, consesnus reached that Thomas draft a letter to Jim Balsinger, the new Alaska Director for NMFS, offering OSRI’s services to convene the first meeting of the NPRB. Moore said she would follow up with Balsinger by telephone after the letter is sent. In further discussion, it was clarified that between $10,000 and $60,000 might be required to convene this meeting (covering transportation and meal expenses for those Board members unable to do so) and that these funds could be applied through a science planning workshop proposal. The list of 19 members of the NPRB were read aloud.
Action items from Director’s Report:
SINTEF proposal – The Director requests approval by the Board for an increase of approximately $71,000 to the remote sensing project so that SINTEF’s proposal may be awarded. The SINTEF project total budget is $171,000 while the remote sensing project is currently limited to $100,000. Lengthy discussion. Thomas said the model SINTEF will provide through this grant award will be an important tool in the nowcast/forecast program. He also noted that the peer reviewers of this project proposal were very positive. Concerns expressed about this request and proposal included:
- Lack of background information provided to Board members prior to the meeting on this proposal.
- Concern that the model will not be compatible or interface with other models currently in use by other entities involved in oil spill tracking.
- Leland suggested the Board be given an opportunity to hear the peer reviewers’ comments in an executive session.
In response to questions, Cox and Thomas said the SINTEF model is the most sophisticated model available. They said the work represents approximately $10 million and 6 years of research being made available to OSRI for $170,000. Thomas said the $70,000 additional funds for which approval is requested would come from $66,000 in unspent funds for the remote sensing project and $4,000 from the $200,000 unappropriated technology funds. Further discussion.
Motion by Kopchak, seconded by Thompson to approve the proposal submitted by SINTEF and re-appropriate existing funds to cover the increased cost. Motion passed, 8-2.
Procedural change. Chair noted that when large proposal items like this come up in future, more background material should be provided by staff with a specific recommendation. She also asked that those Board members who have not seen the SINTEF proposal be sent a copy of it.
Post-doctoral positions – The Directors recommends reallocation of the $80,000 appropriated for these positions to instead continue support of Dr. Chris Mooer’s work on the modeling project. Moore questioned whether the Board’s approval is required for this action. Thomas said he wants the Board to be aware of his intentions. Board members indicated their desire to leave this decision to the Director.
Cook Inlet Risk Assessment proposal (received from Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council) – There was some disagreement regarding when the proposal was received and why it was not sent through the review process. Page had several questions; the first one is whether the proposal addresses issues which OSRI should be addressing. A second question is whether OSRI wants to support this proposal without matching funds. Thomas suggested that this project might be included in the FY01 budget. Thompson suggested that the five-member working group to be formed to work on the FY01 plan be directed to communicate with CIRCAC on this proposal. Fries noted that CIRCAC is contributing staff and travel funds in-kind.
Marilyn Leland left the meeting at 3:50 pm during the CIRCAC proposal discussion.
Adams noted that CIRCAC needs to be informed that the proposal “fell through the cracks.” Cox and Thomas both stated that they have been in contact with Susan Saupe at CIRCAC.
FY01 Work Plan development:
Cox said there are a number of suggestions for new projects that might be considered as well as the ongoing projects related to the nowcast/forecast system. Moore suggested that instead of discussing the details of the projects, the working group should be appointed at this meeting and a timeline agreed on for development of the FY01 Work Plan. She asked for volunteers to serve on this committee/work group.
Leland, Thompson, Dietrick, Mutter and Page volunteered and were appointed. All Board members are to be invited to participate in their work sessions.
The rough timeline will be to complete a draft work plan by the third week of June. The work group agreed to meet immediately following this meeting to establish a schedule. This schedule will be shared with all Board members via e-mail.
McHale asked that the Renfro proposal be referred to the working group. General consensus was in agreement with this. It was noted that the FY00 workplan will be used as the draft for the upcoming year.
Discussion ensued regarding the amount of funds left unallocated/unencumbered: should it be put to use or should it be earning interest? Comments: if OSRI is spending $1.9 million (as budgeted) this year, that’s a lot so it may be best to save for future programs. If programs mature, as we expect them to, we may need more money in later years.
Schedule for upcoming Advisory Board meetings:
The next Advisory Board meeting is scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday, August 15-16, 2000, in Cordova. For those interested, a day of fishing/sightseeing will be scheduled either immediately prior or after the meeting. Four members expressed interest: Page, McHale, Mutter and Thompson.
Meetings in 2001: Suggestion to schedule one in early March but do not conflict with either the PWS Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council spring meeting or spring break for schools. In September, try to schedule a meeting after Labor Day.
Public comments: Mooers commented on the need to integrate the model with some of the users. Thomas suggested that a meeting could be convened of the scientific advisory committee and the users invited to participate.
Board comments: Ujioka thanked others for being willing to speak up when they are confused during the meetings. Adams was thanked for the great weather! Staff was complimented for both the meeting logistics and on the OSRI newsletters.
The meeting was adjourned at about 4:45 p.m.
|
Doug Mutter, Secretary