Oil Spill Recovery Institute

Advisory Board Meeting Minutes - Friday, November 9, 2001

Location: Clarion Suites Hotel, Anchorage

The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Treasurer R.J. Kopchak who chaired the meeting at the request of Chair John Calder who participated via teleconference.

Advisory Board members present: John Calder (via teleconference), Virginia Adams, Gail Evanoff, Mark Fink, Carol Fries, John Goering, Brad Hahn, R.J. Kopchak, Marilyn Leland, Doug Lentsch, Lee Majors (alternate for Jim McHale), Doug Mutter, and Walter Parker. Ed Thompson joined the meeting about 9:25 a.m. Absent: Capt. Jack Davin and Glenn Ujioka.

Visitors: John Ash, Shari Vaughan, Bob Hicks, Chris Blackburn, Ole Mathisen, and Ken Adams.

Staff: Gary Thomas, Walter Cox and Nancy Bird

Safety Minute: Kopchak noted where the room exits were located and called attention to electrical/telephone cords.

Approval of agenda: Motion by Leland, seconded by Goering, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed.

Approval of minutes: Motion by Leland, seconded by Parker, to approve the minutes of Sept. 12, 2001. Leland noted that project staff M. Bishop and S. Powers were present during a portion of the meeting, and should be listed among visitors listed at the beginning. She also requested a clarification on page 2 regarding Senator Stevens’ attendance at the NPRB meeting. Motion passed.

Background on OSRI – Bird gave a 5-10 minute presentation highlighting the administrative and legislative parameters of OSRI. She said most of the documents referenced are available at the OSRI website which is being updated so that Board members can easily access these materials.

Chairman’s Report – Calder said the Polar Research Board has received 75 nominations for members of the committee to review the OSRI programs. Appointment of the committee is expected by the end of November and this committee’s first meeting is to be scheduled via teleconference in December. Calder said they still are planning for the committee to come to Alaska in February, in conjunction with the OSRI Advisory Board meeting.

Director’s Report – Director Gary Thomas commented on the following issues:

Strategic plan for OSRI – After reviewing this document, Thomas is not planning revisions to it at this time.
Business Plan – Thomas expects to present a draft revised Business Plan to the Board by December 1.
Legislative issues – Much of this work has been delayed because of the focus on terrorism related to the Sept. 11^th incidents. Thomas reported that there is language to extend OSRI’s lifespan in a Congressional bill but it’s uncertain whether this legislation will move forward in this Congressional session. Work on a second legislative request, to increase funds available for the OSRI Arctic and sub-Arctic programs, is proceeding through attempts to develop cooperative ventures with NOAA-Hazmat. The third item on the legislative agenda is to increase funds for the Nowcast/Forecast program and that item is also “on hold” due to the war on terrorism.
Arctic Council - Thomas noted that OSRI has participated in meetings of the Council’s EPPR (Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response) since the early 1990’s. Thomas asked Parker to report on recent visits to Finland and Brussels for oil and gas related meetings. Parker said EPPR last met in Alaska in 1994 and noted they will meet here in the spring of 2002. He’s looking forward to sharing with them the Nowcast/Forecast program developments and promoting more alternatives to mechanical responses only to spill response. The Arctic Council includes representatives from Scandinavia, Russia, Canada and Alaska.
Continuing Education program for the Technology Coordinator – Thomas asked that this item be deferred to the spring meeting.
National Academy of Sciences / Polar Research Board review of the OSRI program – Thomas stated that this review will require additional time by himself and several of the primary OSRI principal investigators; he noted that travel funds are also needed for the principal investigators to attend and make presentations at the February meeting in Anchorage. He requested approval by the Advisory Board of a $50,000 budget for these expenses (line item breakdown: $37,000 for salaries to cover the additional time required by principal investigators and himself; $3,000 for contractual and $10,000 for travel). Thomas suggested these funds be allocated from the OSRI discretionary fund.

Calder recommended that the Board review the Strategic Plan and concur with the Director’s recommendation to leave it as is. He also noted that action is required on the Director’s request for additional funds to prepare for the NAS review.

Kopchak concurred that the Board needs to review/concur with those two items; he also stated he’d like to see a written breakdown/request on the $50,000.

FY02 Work Plan report – by Walter Cox

Cox gave updates on the following projects included in the FY02 Work Plan:

Dispersion Impact Analysis – Cox will give a presentation on this project at the next meeting of the Alaska Response Team on December 6, 2001. In discussion, it was noted that the PWS Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council meets in Anchorage Dec. 6 and 7; Cox will try to set up a presentation there as well.
Status on proposal reviews for four projects: Meteorological monitoring in Prince William Sound; tide data monitoring; drifter buoys and acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) – Eighty percent of the reviews are returned. Cox said a Scientific and Technical Committee meeting is tentatively planned for early January. He expects to bring back the committee’s recommendations to the February OSRI Advisory Board meeting
Atmospheric Modeling proposals - Cox presented a flow chart in his PowerPoint presentation showing the review process for these proposals and said the Board should expect a recommendation from the Scientific and Technical Committee in February.
Radar Ice Detection project – The tower for this equipment is under construction. PWS RCAC is the lead organizer on this collaborative project which also includes several federal agencies and OSRI.
Hinchinbrook Entrance project – would like to partner with RCAC on this.
Fellowships – Capt. John Ash, a graduate fellowship student looking at roadless development, i.e. at Alpine and Badani oil fields, is finishing his field work in Alaska and will return to England later this month. Copies of his final technical report were distributed. Cox noted that two new fellowship positions will be available in the coming year.
Small spill projects – Cox reported that $25,000 remains in this project fund; $15,000 of this fund is tentatively set aside for a Cordova Boat Harbor small skimmer project, leaving a balance of $10,000. After discussion, the Advisory Board by consensus recommends that these funds be returned to the unallocated OSRI fund. It was noted that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has project funds available in this area.
Oil and Ice Think Tank - Cox distributed a copy of the current proposal funded (contract with Dickens) and said he will send it to Calder. He described this project as being a small workshop to “think outside the box” and…
Technology Coordinator’s budget: $87,674 for personnel, including 39% for benefits; $15,000 for travel; $1,000 for supplies; $4,000 for equipment (need a faster computer); Total of $107,684 requested for FY02. In discussion, Leland asked for a breakdown of the OSRI administrative costs. Staff explained that the OSRI administrative budget generally includes two-thirds of Bird’s, Oswalt’s and the bookkeeper’s positions, 1.75 months of the Director’s salary and a pro-rated share of utilities, supplies, etc. Kopchak was very emphatic in stating any budget approval requests must be submitted to the Board as a single sheet action item (i.e., a fiscal note with written explanation/justification). Motion by Mutter, seconded by Hahn to approve the Technology Coordinator’s budget as proposed. Motion passed.

Leland gave a brief report on the peer review video project of PWS Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council which received support from OSRI. The videos are expected to be complete within a month and plans are to distribute them through training sessions in communities throughout the region.

Grant Policy Manual - Amendments

Motion by Leland and seconded by Mutter to approve the Grant Policy Manual (GPM) revisions as modified. Ken Adams commended the Board for taking action to revise their GPM and urged them to keep in mind the integrity of the organization. Motion passed without objection.

The GPM sections as revised are in Sections 3.5 and 4 and are printed below:

3.5 Award Categories

Awards are divided into three size categories, as follows:

Large Awards ($100,000 or greater per year) require approval by the OSRI Advisory

Board. Examples of large awards are:

· Applied technology awards that include proof of concept or alpha testing of new technologies and pilot implementation projects for new applications of technology (beta testing).

· Predictive Ecology awards that develop the physical and biological now-cast/forecasting models and their monitoring programs that support the development of species-specific taxis models for animal populations at risk.

Proposals for Large Awards use Application Schedule L (see Appendix B).

Medium Awards ($25,000 - $100,000 per year) require approval of the OSRI Director and the Scientific and Technical Committee. Program areas include:

· Applied technology

· Predictive ecology

· Public education and outreach

Small Awards (under $25,000 per year) require approval by the OSRI Director. Program areas include:

· Applied technology

· Predictive ecology

· Public education and outreach

Proposals for awards between $25,000 and $100,000 use Application Schedule A.

Proposals for awards less than $25,000 use Application Schedule B.

Proposals for Fellowships or Internships use Application Schedule C.

Application schedules A, B, and C are found in Appendix B.

4.0 Submitting Proposals

4.1 Background

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 Requests for 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 three

Types of award programs:

1. Large - $100,000 and over per year

2. Medium - $25,000-100,000 per year

3. Small - Under $25,000 per year

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 medium awards are made by the OSRI Director and the Scientific and Technical Committee after a peer review process (detailed in Section 4.5).

Decisions for all small awards are made by the OSRI Director after a peer review process.

4.3 Medium and small proposals (under $100,000)

4.3.1 Medium-size proposals requesting less than $100,000 but at least $25,000

Application Schedule A applies for awards of these values.

All proposals must include:

1. Cover letter on organization letterhead

2. Cover sheet

3. Proposal Summary/Abstract (no longer than 1 page)

4. Project Description - Detail objectives/goals, methods, timeline and results or products expected (5-25 pages)

5. Resume or Curriculum Vitae for project directors or principal investigators

6. References cited and/or letters of reference, as appropriate to the project

7. Project Budget

All proposals must be submitted in a 12 point type size.

A total of three copies of the entire proposal must be submitted to OSRI (the original signed copy and two photocopies).

Proposals not consistent with these instructions will be returned without further consideration by OSRI. Proposers may deviate from these instructions only to the extent stated in the Broad Area Announcement to which the proposer is responding.

Any further deviations must be authorized by OSRI in writing.

Decisions for all medium-size awards are made by the OSRI Director after a peer review process (as detailed in the proposal review section 4.5), and review and concurrence by the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Director’s recommendation.

The medium-size proposal application forms are located in Appendix B, Schedule A.

4.3.2 Small proposals requesting less than $25,000

Application Schedule B applies for awards of these values.

All proposals must include:

1. Cover letter on organization letterhead

2. Cover sheet

3. Proposal Summary/Abstract (no longer than 1 page)

4. Project Description - Detail objectives/goals, methods, timeline and results or products expected (1-10 pages)

5. Curriculum Vitae including a one-page biographical sketch for principal investigators and/or project directors.

6. References cited and/or letters of reference, as appropriate to the project

7. Project Budget

All proposals must be submitted in a 12 point type size.

A total of three copies of the entire proposal must be submitted to OSRI (the original signed copy and two photocopies).

Decisions for all small awards are made by the OSRI Director after a peer review process as detailed in the proposal review section 4.5.

The small proposal application forms are located in Appendix B.

4.5 Proposal Review Process

4.5.1 Background

Proposals will be evaluated by at least three individual peer reviewers through a mail review and/or a panel review. Staff of the OSRI and the PWSSC may serve as reviewers, but at least two qualified reviewers not employed by the OSRI or the PWSSC will evaluate each proposal. All large proposals or groups of affiliated proposals with individual or aggregated costs of $25,000 or more, along with peer review comments and the OSRI Director’s recommendation, will be reviewed by the Scientific and Technical Committee. The evaluation criteria differs based on the type of project (applied technology, predictive ecology or education) but generally includes the following:

Need. Does this research and development fill a gap in our technology or understanding? How will it reduce risk of spills or reduce damage from spills?

Benefits. How will filling this gap help improve oil spill prevention and response? Does the technology or understanding have more widespread application than for oil pollution?

Implementation. If this research fills a gap in technology or understanding, when and how will it be implemented by users? Has the user made a commitment to implement the new technology or understanding?

Financial Matching. Matching funds for all projects are strongly encouraged, although not always a requirement. Such funds are considered important criteria when reviewing the proposal. OSRI may award funding contingent upon the proposer finding additional sponsors (a challenge award).

Experience. The project team members should have demonstrated ability to perform the project tasks. Teams must have expertise in the critical technologies needed to implement the research and team members who have standards for high production.

Milestones. Proposals must define a time schedule for major products that can be used to evaluate progress toward completion.

Repayments. Where OSRI funds projects that produce new products for commercial release, a repayment process will be established from revenue, license

fees, or profit derived from the product by a percentage of revenues or income.

Risk Sharing. OSRI seeks teams that will establish internal responsibilities forparticipants to meet milestones. In turn, OSRI will make long-term commitments for funding. Team development must be based upon commitment of all participants to the research goals and proposers are encouraged to develop partnerships with individuals from other organizations and minimize the number of individuals on the team from one organization.

4.5.2 Small proposals (under $25,000) review process

Decisions for small awards are made by the OSRI Director after the review process detailed in Section 4.5.1 is completed. Applicants are notified in writing of the decision and copies of the reviews for their proposal are included upon request.

4.5.3 Medium-size proposals ($25,000-100,000) review process

All medium-size proposals are peer reviewed as detailed in Section 4.5.1 and a recommendation for funding or rejection is made by the OSRI Director. The Director’s recommendation and the peer reviews are then also reviewed by the OSRI Scientific and Technical Committee. If the Committee concurs with the Director’s recommendation, it is implemented. If the Committee does not concur with the Director’s recommendation, the proposal in question is referred to the Advisory Board for action at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

4.5.4 Large proposals ($100,000 or more) review process

All large proposals are peer reviewed and also reviewed by the OSRI Scientific and Technical Committee. Proposals will be graded on team P.I. credentials, benefits or impact of the results or products, likelihood for implementation of the product, costs and financial partnerships proposed, technical and scientificcontribution, and repayment proposals (if applicable). Following the review process, recommendations will be given to the OSRI Director from the Scientific and Technical Committee for each large proposal to:

1) Approve;

2) Reconsider after revision; or

3) Reject.

Those recommended for approval will be forwarded to the Advisory Board for a final decision to award and fund the project. If approved by the Board, the OSRI staff will enter into contract negotiations.

Proposals recommended for reconsideration after revision will be returned to the applicant with copies of the reviews. The applicant may choose to resubmit a revised proposal. Only proposals that are recommended for approval by the Scientific & Technical Committee will be forwarded to the Board for funding.

4.6 Confidentiality

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 or Request for Proposal 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. 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.

4.7 Impartiality

The procedures for evaluating proposals are designed to insure fairness between each applicant for a grant, contract or award. There may be situations where the Prince William Sound Science Center is an applicant, and because of the relationship between the Center and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (where the Center is charged with administering the Institute), the following procedures are adopted.

The OSRI Advisory Board impartially reviews and determines all large grant awards ($100,000 and over). The Advisory Board delegates decisions for medium-size grant awards (from $25,000-$100,000) to the OSRI Director, in conjunction with a concurring review by the Scientific and Technical Committee. If the Director and Committee do not concur on a proposal award or rejection, the decision is deferred to the next scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board.

The Advisory Board delegates decisions for small grant awards (under $25,000) to the OSRI Director. The procedure for determining small grant awards is as follows:

1. All complete proposals received in response to the Broad Area Announcement (BAA) are independently reviewed as detailed in Section 4.5 of the Grant Policy Manual and in the specific BAA.

2. Proposal rankings are based upon the independent reviews.

3. The OSRI Director determines award amounts based on both the proposal rankings and the program budget. There may be zero to several projects awarded in full or in part within each program announced through a BAA.

4. All proposals ranked higher than a proposal submitted by the Prince William Sound Science Center shall be offered an award prior to the Center's proposal(s) being approved for funding support.

5. Material information made available to the Prince William Sound Science Center shall be made available to all other known potential proposers.

Further, when small grant award decisions include the Prince William Sound Science Center, the following procedures will be followed:

1. An "intent to award" notification will be sent to the OSRI Executive Committee within 5 calendar days of the decision by the Director.

2. If an Executive Committee member wishes, he or she may review the award decision (the proposals, independent reviews and any other pertinent information). If desired, a committee member may request a special meeting to challenge the decision, but this request shall be made within 15 calendar days of the "intent to award" notification.

3. If requested, a special meeting will be scheduled within 5 working days of the request and the Executive Committee will issue a written decision within 5 working days following the special meeting determining whether to fund the award in question.

4. All grants challenged in this manner will remain pending until the Executive Committee makes a decision.

The approval or disapproval of awards by the Executive Committee can be appealed by any interested person to the the Advisory Board within 30 days of the Committee's decision. The Advisory Board's decision is final.

4.8 Appeal process

If the applicant(s) believe that the review process erred, they may appeal the decision to the Advisory Board in writing within 60 days of the denial letter. At the next scheduled Advisory Board meeting, the Board will decide to approve or deny the appeal. See Section 11.1 for a detailed description of the appeal process.

_______________________________________________________

Bylaw amendments

Motion by Fries, seconded by Virginia Adams, to adopt Article IV, Section 6 - Alternates as proposed for amendment:

Section 6. Alternates. Appointed members may send an alternate to meetings they are unable to attend, but the alternate will not have full voting privileges. Alternates designated in writing (either via letter or e-mail) by the appointed member for a specific meeting will be seated and may fully participate in discussions but votes may only be cast by the officially appointed representative. This applies to all voting members.

Motion passed.

Motion by Parker, seconded by Leland to adopt Article IV, Section 7 – Resignations and Vacancies with two changes made to the proposed revision:

Section 7. Resignations and Vacancies. Resignations of any Board members shall be made in writing to the Board Chairperson and their agency or appointing organization. OSRI shall seek nominations, as appropriate, to fill vacancies; these appointments will be made to complete the unexpired term of the vacated Board seat. Vacancies of Board members representing state and federal government agencies, the Institute of Marine Science and the Prince William Sound Science Center will be appointed by the agency or organization.

Motion passed.

Discussion regarding the footnote included in Article IV, Section 10 (footnote states: “This allows the Director to make grant awards under $100,000 without involvement from the Board, even if there is a Board member conflict, provided the Board does not supervise or administer the grant.”). Bird was directed to remove this footnote from the bylaws.

Motion by Leland, seconded by Fries to adopt Article VII, Section 2 – Scientific and Technical Committee as proposed for amendment:

Section 2. Scientific and Technical Committee. The Board shall establish a scientific and technical committee, composed of specialists in matters relating to oil spill containment and cleanup technology, Arctic and subarctic marine ecology, and the living resources and socio-economics of Prince William Sound and its adjacent waters. These specialists will come from the University of Alaska, the Institute of Marine Science, the Prince William Sound Science Center and elsewhere in the academic community. The "academic community" includes all individuals identified by the Board, regardless of affiliation, for the expertise they may lend in basic and applied research and development.

(A) Function of the committee: The Scientific and Technical Committee shall provide such advice to the Board through the Director of the Institute including recommendations regarding the conduct and support of research, projects, and studies in accordance with the purposes of this section. The Board shall not request and the Committee shall not provide any advice on damage assessment which is not directly related to Arctic or subarctic oil spills or the effects thereof.

(B) Committee Chairperson: This Committee Chairperson shall be appointed by the Board Chairperson and shall serve a two-year term, or otherwise serve at the pleasure of the Board Chairperson.

(C) Review of proposals: The Scientific and Technical Committee shall review proposals in accordance with the process identified in the OSRI Grant Policy Manual.

Motion passed.

Lentsch pointed out a numbering error in Article VII (Section 4 should be Section 3). Bird will correct this in the final version.

At-large Representative Appointments

Motion by Mutter to reappoint Leland, seconded by Fries. Motion passed. Leland asked that the record show that she did not vote and the Chair concurred in that.

Motion by Mutter, seconded by Lentsch to reappoint McHale.

A brief discussion followed on the third applicant, John French, for the two at-large representative appointments. The question called for on reappointment of McHale. Motion passed.

Officer appointments

Nominations from the floor: Mutter for Vice-Chair, Leland for Secretary, Kopchak for Treasurer.

Motion by Fries, seconded by Fink, to close nominations. Motion passed.

Nominations from the floor for two at-large executive committee members: Ed Thompson and Brad Hahn.

Motion by Fries, seconded by Mutter, to close nominations. Motion passed.

The Executive Committee, therefore, includes:

Chair John Calder

Vice Chair Doug Mutter

Secretary Marilyn Leland

Treasurer RJ Kopchak

At large Brad Hahn

At large Ed Thompson

Action Items still be considered

1) Request for $50,000 to prepare for the program review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) – Kopchak asked to delay action on this item until February, stating he did not wish to proceed without more justification and a fiscal note. It was clarified that the additional funds are requested to prepare materials for the NAS review committee between now and February when the committee will visit. Further discussion. Motion by Parker, seconded by Calder to appropriate $50,000 from the unallocated for materials preparation for the NAS review. Thomas was asked to justify the need for this sum of funds. He stated it would largely be used to extend his time on OSRI salary funding (from the current 1.75 months to 3.75 months); this additional time will allow him to prepare the documents necessary for the review, as well as provide some funds for primary principal investigators. Leland suggested that a lower amount be allocated today and that in February a more specific fiscal note be provided, justifying the amount of time spent. Further discussion. Kopchak reiterated that while he supports the general request, he is very uncomfortable without a fiscal note/justification. Leland reiterated support for a smaller amount now with justification later for additional funds needed. It was suggested that the Executive Committee could meet between now and February. Cox pointed out that the travel for principal investigators from places like Norway and Florida will be fairly expensive but those P.I.s will be critical to have present during the review.

Motion by Kopchak seconded by Mutter to make this appropriation subject to approval of a specific budget by the Executive Committee. Motion passed.

Question on main motion called for (for approval of a $50,000 allocation). Motion passed.

2) Small spill projects– The question of reallocating a portion or all of the $25,000 remaining in this project fund. Mutter suggested that the $10,000 not yet set aside might assist a Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) project focused on Kachemak Bay; this project needs about $10,000 for additional equipment (anchors, boom, chain) to test its use. Mutter suggests this as a pilot project. He said the funds could remain in the current project and the BAA be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to allow an organization to apply for them for the GRS project. Discussion. Motion by Mutter, seconded by Thompson to not reallocate the funds and to reopen the BAA for small spill technolgoies/amending it to include pilot projects related to Geographic Response Strategies. Motion passed.

3) Proposed letter to Secretary of Commerce – Motion by Fries, seconded by Fink, to adopt the letter as proposed. Discussion of the phrase “their Alaskan counterparts”. The intent is to have a meeting of the NOAA representative who deals with the Alaskan program and also a representative or representatives from the Alaska program. Discussion of the purpose of the meeting. Kopchak looks forward to meeting the various individuals; Thompson stated that he understood it was to try to bring together all the various players and work to coordinate research efforts. Mead Treadwell suggested an addition to the next to the last paragraph of this letter: “These groups have, in the past, not naturally come together. We have a NAS review underway and would like to be able to assure them that we are coordinating with others in the State.”

Motion to accept passed, as modified above.

4) Strategic Plan – Kopchak suggested that this appear on the February agenda to begin the process, not for final action, but just to recommend revisions and give staff direction on specific changes. Mutter said we probably don’t want to revise the strategic plan until we see the recommendations from the NAS. Consensus.

Next meeting

The next meeting of the Advisory Board is scheduled February 7 and 8, 2002, in Anchorage. It will be in conjunction with the Alaska Forum on the Environment and Doug Mutter noted that the schedule for the Forum’s workshops will be posted soon on their website (which will be forwarded to Board members). The meeting location will either be at the BP offices or at the Egan Center.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned about 4:50 p.m.

These minutes were reviewed and approved by the Advisory Board on

Marilyn Leland, Secretary