The meeting was held in the ARCO Operations Center at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.
Board members present:
Barbara Moore, Dept. of Commerce
Doug Mutter, Dept. of Interior
Capt. Buzz Rome, Dept. of Transportation
Virginia Adams, Fishing industry representative
R.J. Kopchak, Fishing industry representative
Grant Vidrine, Oil and gas industry representative
Larry Dietrick, Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Claudia Slater, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game
Carol Fries, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
Glenn Ujioka, Native representative
Marilyn Leland, At-large representative
Mead Treadwell, non-voting representative, Prince William Sound Science Center
John Goering, non-voting representative, Institute of Marine Science, Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks
Not present: Governor Steve Cowper, Kevin Meyers, and Gail Evanoff.
Staff and visitors: Gary Thomas, Penny Oswalt, Nancy Bird, Jennifer Allen, Jay Kirsch (PWSSC and OSRI staff); Jim McHale (Alaska Clean Seas), Walter Parker (Arctic Research Commission and Prince William Sound Science Center Board of Directors) and Barclay Jones-Kopchak.
Advisory Board Chair Barbara Moore called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. and asked for introductions by all present. Moore also thanked Kevin Meyers and his staff for making it possible for the meeting to be held in Prudhoe Bay.
| Public Comments | None.
|
|---|---|
| Approval of minutes | Motion by Leland, seconded by Kopchak to
approve the minutes of October 29-30, 1997.
Motion passed. Moore noted the inclusion of Executive Committee
minutes in the packet and asked if there were any questions
or comments regarding those minutes.
|
| Chair's report | Moore gave a brief report regarding Arctic issues and
programs her NOAA office is involved with. She noted that
a new announcement of opportunity will be released in
October 1998 for CIFAR programs. Moore also described
the JASON program - an environmental education program
administered through NOAA - and said special sites, one in
New Jersey and another in Alaska are being added in the
coming year. Finally, she reported that the Alaska office of
the National Marine Fisheries Service is taking the lead for
NOAA in the formation of the Congressionally established
North Pacific Research Board (NPRB).
|
| Discussion | Suggestions were made that OSRI help initiate the
NPRB by convening a workshop for science planning that
would be held in conjunction with the first meeting of the
NPRB. Discussion ensued on Bering Sea research, the
EVOS restoration reserve fund, and proposed reductions in
the composition and size of the NPRB.
|
| Action item | Moore suggested a letter from the OSRI Board be sent
to Secretary of Commerce James Baker with a copy to
Senator Ted Stevens; the letter would compliment NMFS
on their taking the lead role in compiling science plans,
point to some of the strengths of the OSRI, and request that
a meeting of the NPRB be scheduled. Treadwell suggested
that after the letter is sent, he and Moore schedule a
conference call with Steve Pennoyer, Alaska Director of the
NMFS. Thomas volunteered to do the first draft of the
letter to Secretary Baker (by March 31).
|
| Executive Director's report | Grants Programs - Thomas noted that OSRI
staff have kept busy issuing Broad Area Announcements
and reviewing proposals. Proposal forms and the Grant
Procedures Manual are being revised (and improved).
Legislation - The NPRB was already discussed. Thomas reported that OSRI was recently made an ex-officio member of the Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (RCAC) and that RCAC took the lead in getting state legislation introduced to give state procurement recognition to those entities established by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (2 RCACs and OSRI). Leland and Dietrick commented on this issue, noting that its passage will make it easier for the state to do business with these groups. Partnerships - Thomas reported that he has not found a lot of interest from the EVOS Trustee Council regarding a Memorandum of Understanding. Treadwell suggested OSRI respond formally to the Council's request for comments on how to use the Restoration Reserve Fund. Further discussion ensued on sensitivity mapping projects which might be good candidates for partnerships among OSRI, NOAA, the Department of Interior and other groups (see continued discussion below). Travel - In January, Thomas attended a workshop on Circumpolar Mapping of Resources at risk from oil spills in the Arctic. This workshop was sponsored by the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) unit of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and was held in Tromso, Norway. He noted that a follow-up to this meeting is scheduled in Finland in April 1998.
|
| Sensitive Area Mapping | This issue was discussed for about 20 minutes. Jim
McHale, President and General Manager of Alaska Clean
Seas, was introduced and briefly described work on a
technical manual that will tie into sensitivity mapping.
Mutter noted that they are putting together an 11 x 14 atlas
of sensitive areas which will be available on GIS. Vidrine
and others endorsed cooperative efforts and partnerships.
Vidrine also said the information from the Sound Ecosystem
Assessment presentation should be incorporated into this
sensitivity mapping. Rome emphasized the importance of
having this information available in a computer format.
There also was discussion on the map's scales and Slater
noted that you can scale up, but not down.
Dietrick complimented the work of the North Slope Project Team, and noted that the need for a custodian and updating process. He suggested OSRI might fill this role. Fries said the Alaska Department of Natural Resources takes the lead role for the state in GIS mapping and houses all NOAA sensitive area maps. Treadwell said the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation has set aside $200,000 a year to promote Alaska mapping companies.
|
| Action item | Discussion ended with the suggestion that a technical writer
draft a summary on the sensitivity mapping projects and try
to complete this before the April meeting in Finland. It was
also suggested that this be posted on the OSRI web page.
Kopchak and Vidrine both expressed interest in seeing OSRI taking a lead role toward becoming custodian for the mapping projects. OSRI was invited by Mutter to be on the mapping work group; their next meeting is March 25. Thomas will be the initial representative for the OSRI. Moore directed Thomas to get more involved in the work group and report back to the next meeting. |
| Continuation of Director's report | Thomas reported that OSRI joined as a sponsor of two
workshops, both held in Anchorage. The first focused on ice
hazards in relation to oil shipping and the second workshop
reviewed the role of dispersant applications for oil spills in
Alaskan waters. OSRI took responsibility for publication of
proceedings from each workshop and has hired technical
writers to compile these documents.
|
| Break | Meeting recessed at about 10 am for 20 minutes.
Moore noted two documents distributed at the meeting, (1) the Business Plan, and (2) the Annual Work Plan, She also said that after discussion of the work plan, she would like to discuss the Grants Policy Manual.
|
| Continuation of Director's report | Thomas summarized work with the Executive
Committee on the 1998 Annual Work Plan and the Business
Plan. He also reviewed the table summarizing responses
received to the Broad Area Announcements (included in
meeting packet). He noted that more advertising is needed
for the student internships, and said no proposals have been
received for science planning workshops; he is considering
reopening this BAA indefinitely. He said that he'd like to
encourage more vertical and horizontal integration in the
proposals being submitted.
A draft brochure for the OSRI was distributed and comments were requested. Members were asked to particularly proof their names and titles.
|
| Technology Coordinator | Questions were raised regarding the BAA for a
Technology Coordinator. There was confusion as to
whether this is a grant or staff position, and whether it
should be considered part of the administrative budget.
Moore said she sees three general functions in the budget: (1) administrative issues including bookkeeping; (2) the grants program which must be a nationally competitive process; and (3) program management that includes legitimate program related expenses that, for expediency, might best be awarded through a different competitive process. She cited hiring the Technology Coordinator, printing a brochure and managing the web site as examples of program management expenses. Kopchak strongly agreed and described his memory of legislative intent regarding the 20 percent limit on administrative costs. Thomas said, to date, he has nationally advertised every project and the Technology Coordinator's position.
|
| Review of OPA '90 and recommended action | Further discussion ensued. The language in the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 was reviewed, specifically the section
regarding Policies. There was general agreement that a
Technology Coordinator is required to assist the leadership
of OSRI. The question is whether this individual can be
hired on staff or must be hired as a contractor. Treadwell
urged care in proceeding and recommended legal review of
the issue. He said the Prince William Sound Science
Center's Board of Directors recognizes a need for a
Technology Coordinator. Fries expressed concern about the
intent of the 20/80 budget split for administrative and
program expenses. Vidrine asked for a definition of
administrative costs. Leland noted legal issues regarding the
role of employees versus contractors.
|
| MOTION | Motion by Treadwell that advertising for a
Technology Coordinator continue and that legal counsel be
consulted to ascertain whether this position can be funded
as a programmatic contract under our legislative mandate;
and, that further we consult with the PWSSC Board to
determine if co-funding for the Technology Coordinator
position is possible. Motion seconded by Leland.
Motion passed unanimously.
|
| MOTION | Motion by Kopchak to have the Executive
Committee seek legal advice on the ability of OSRI to
create internally funded programs outside the provisions of
the granting process. Motion seconded by Vidrine.
In discussion, Leland suggested a dollar limit and category
may be good to get as well. Motion passed
unanimously.
|
| Follow-up discussion | Rome expressed concern that this issue needs to be
resolved soon so that the position can be hired with clear
knowledge of long-term funding.
Treadwell called attention to the legal review (included in the packet) regarding the Freedom of Information Act and OSRI. Moore said the NOAA general counsel is still reviewing the separate issue regarding payback on interest. A Memorandum of Understanding between PWSSC and NOAA for administration of the OSRI is probably not required but might be helpful.
|
| Grants Policy Manual | Thomas and Bird reported that the first draft of this
manual, largely copied from the National Science
Foundation's manual, is overly cumbersome. The proposal
application forms and entire manual are currently being
revised. Bird promised to have a final draft available for the
next Executive Committee meeting by the end of March.
Mutter expressed concern that a grants process must be in place and other members agreed that high priority must be given to finishing the grants policy manual so that the Board can officially approve it.
|
| Conflict of interest | Kopchak urged immediate attention to the grants
policy manual and emphasized the need for a clear
articulation of issues regarding conflict of interest. Moore
said she brought some policies established by NOAA on this
issue that might be incorporated into the manual. Kopchak
suggested Boards and Commissions in Juneau also be
contacted for such policies.
|
| Other issues | Dietrick asked about approval of the Business Plan and
the 1998 Annual Work plan. These will be discussed under
Executive Committee report after lunch.
|
| Presentation | A 30 minute presentation "Review of the Kuroshima
spill," was made by Larry Dietrick, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
|
| Lunch break | Meeting recessed for lunch about 12:15 pm and
reconvened about 1:30 p.m.
|
| Presentation | Jim McHale of Alaska Clean Seas was introduced and
made a brief presentation on the sensitivity mapping project
on which ACS is currently working. Discussion followed
on possible cooperative projects that OSRI might fund
related to mapping issues.
|
| Executive Committee report | Treadwell reported on three tasks delegated to the
Executive Committee at the last Advisory Board meeting:
(1) Review and approval of the Broad Area Announcements
(2) Draft a Business Plan and bring it back to the Board
(3) Review a revised 1998 Annual Work plan
At their December meeting, Treadwell reported that the Executive Committee approved the BAAs and gave general approval to the Business Plan, although they noted it could be improved. Motion by Treadwell recommending adoption of the Business Plan with whatever process the Board would like to suggest for its refinement. Motion died for lack of a second. Discussion: Dietrick and Fries said they had not seen the Business Plan before. Moore also said she had only seen it to review it last night; she said it could be more reader-friendly. Kopchak was involved in the Executive Committee review and though he supports it as a first step, he agrees that it needs to be more readable. Kopchak suggested a small workshop be scheduled to include whomever on the Board wants to contribute to refining the Business Plan. There was about 15 minutes of discussion regarding elements to include in a Business Plan, whether it should be treated as an internal or external document, and formats for the plan.
|
| Action | Moore invited comments/specifics to be sent to Bird
who will distribute them to all Board members and Thomas.
Moore requested that a new plan, based on these comments,
be prepared and distributed to the Board by at least three
weeks before the August meeting.
Rome suggested that, as a starting point, everyone ask themselves if they fundamentally agree with the "short-term and long-term vision" statements included in the current Business Plan. All comments are due by March 31. Treadwell outlined two Executive Committee meetings to be scheduled between now and the August meeting. All comments received will be compiled and distributed to all Board members and Thomas. Thomas will prepare a revised Business Plan by early May for Executive Committee review. Moore said she would also call Meyers and see if he can contribute to this process.
|
| Treasurer's report | The first quarter report was included in the packet and
referenced by Treasurer R.J. Kopchak. Kopchak said for
future reports he would like to develop a Consolidated
Summary Budget Sheet that will include:
(1) Investments - what did we start with, end with, interest earned - further details would be in an appendix; and, (2) Program areas: Technology, Education, Ecology, Administration - invited input on what to include in this, and suggested a format that he outlined on a board.
|
| Annual Work Plan and Business Plan | There was confusion regarding approval of the Annual
Work Plan. Kopchak said it was his understanding that the
Executive Committee approved this plan at its December
meeting, pending Board approval and invited amendments
at this time. Thomas stated he had only proceeded in issuing
Broad Area Announcements after the Executive Committee
met in December and approved both the BAAs and the
Annual Work Plan.. Bird reviewed minutes and stated that
staff had understood the Board had given interim approval
of the work plan, pending Executive Committee approval of
it which occurred in December. She also noted that
approval of the Business Plan should have been on this
meeting's agenda.
Dietrick said he had not seen the revised Annual Work Plan before today; he is surprised by and uncomfortable with the amount of money slated in the technology side of the work plan for the circulation modeling project. It concerns him that this project will require recurring funds. He said there needs to be a balance of spending by OSRI between technology and science. He also sees important goals for OSRI in (1) coordinating technology R&D within the state, and (2) taking steps to translate the science information into a format that it will be used by those responding to oil spills. There was agreement that the Board approved the first BAA for the circulation modeling project and authorized $100,000 for that within the technology program portion of the budget. The question at hand regards from which portion of the OSRI budget future allocations for this project might come. There was further discussion. Kopchak commented that the long-term funding priorities for the OSRI should be clearly stated in the Business Plan.
|
| Approval of bylaws amendment
MOTION | Motion by Slater to approve the first bylaws
amendment
proposed in the meeting packet. Seconded by Rome. This
amendment adds Section 8 titled "Fudiciary
Responsibilities" to Article IV of the bylaws:
Fiduciary Responsibilities. As the designated
administrator for the Institute, the Center and its Board of
Directors are responsible to maintain accurate accounting of the
Institute's funds and to disperse monies only as approved by the
Institute's Advisory Board. Institute funds shall be maintained in
separate accounts from other Center funds. Annual audits of the
Center's financial records shall be conducted and copies made
available to the Advisory Board.
Discussion. Motion approved unanimously. The second amendment proposed added a section detailing the duties of the Executive Committee to Article VII. Discussion focused on the proposed 20% budget modification item (#4) and what that references: the annual budget, or does it apply to each program area or each line item? The second amendment as proposed read:
"Section 1. Executive Committee. This committee shall
be composed of the Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and
two additional members of the Advisory Board.
|
| MOTION | Motion by Kopchak to amend the proposed
language in Article VII, Section 1 to read ". . . except that
the Executive Committee shall not have authority to . . . (4)
Modify any of the individual program budgets, i.e.,
Technology, Ecology, Education or Administration, by
more than 20 percent." Seconded by Vidrine.
Motion passed.
|
| MOTION | Motion by Kopchak, to adopt Article VII,
Section 1, as amended. Seconded by Mutter. Motion
passed.
|
| Action item | Kopchak requested amendments to Section IV, Section
9 - Conflicts of interest, be prepared for consideration at the
next meeting.
|
| Scientific and Technical Committee report | Committee Chair John Goering reminded the Board
that the committee is delegated to provide advice to the
Board through the Director. Goering reported that
committee members were quite active in reviewing the 13
ecology proposals received. He noted that expertise on the
committee is still needed in the technology area and asked
Dietrick for assistance in finding new members.
Goering expects the committee's work load to increase when proposals are received for the Nowcast/forecast Ocean Circulation system. He expressed some concern about how to keep a project of that level funded without a lot of cooperative funding and asked Thomas to comment on this funding issue. Thomas said he'd like to offer challenge grants: OSRI would agree to fund a portion of the project and challenge the proposer to find the other funding sources through industry, EVOS, NSF and others. The discussion which followed touched on the 20% overhead limit for all proposals. Thomas said he had spoken with an individual from the University of Fairbanks/School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences who indicated they may not submit a proposal because that overhead limit is too low. Goering reminded the Board that previous discussion (at the May 1997 meeting) had indicated that this overhead limit may restrict from whom OSRI receives proposals. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed nowcast/forecast ocean circulation system project. Possible matching funding sources were suggested including the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the EVOS Trustee Council, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) and the RCACs. In further discussion, it was generally agreed that the science planning workshop BAA should be left open indefinitely. Kopchak emphasized that he believes it's critical to hire a technology coordinator soon to manage the work load.
|
| Public Comments | None.
|
| Board member closing comments | Leland asked about the hiring process for the
technology coordinator. Thomas responded that he will
continue advertising and try to establish a pool of candidates
but will wait to hire until the legal issues are resolved.
Adams noted that in the earlier discussion it was indicated
the legal counsel's advice would be brought back to the
Board for review. Moore then asked if the Board is willing
to delegate that authority to the Executive Committee.
Treadwell asked any Board member who objects to hiring a
Technology Coordinator to state that objection now so that
the hiring can proceed quickly after the legal issues are
resolved. No objections were stated.
Leland suggested that thank you letters be sent to Meyers, Linda Allen, and Jim McHale for their assistance with the meeting. Treadwell suggested a letter of congratulations be sent to Senator Stevens' staff assistant, Trevor McCabe, who's getting married in April. Rome tendered his resignation July 1. Moore expressed appreciation and regret that this will be his last meeting. She complimented him for his many years of service to the OSRI Advisory Board. |
| Adjournment | The meeting adjourned at about 4:40 p.m.
|
------------------------------- |
These minutes were reviewed, amended and approved by the Advisory Board on August 12, 1998; the amendments are included in these minutes.
Doug Mutter, Secretary
Prepared by N. Bird
posted 9/24/98 WEBMASTER