Calder suggested the business may require more time than allotted in the revised agenda and asked if anyone has to leave by 12:30 pm. All present indicated they were available for the full day, if necessary. Motion by Leland, seconded by Mutter to accept the revised agenda (with the understanding that the time schedule will be lengthened). Motion passed without objection.

Corrections were noted to the minutes of Feb. 8-9, 2001; on page 1, Supervision of Salvage, SUPSALV; on page 4, Rhonda Arvidson and Lynda Hyce were the representatives present from the PWS RCAC; also, Rhonda Arvidson gave the presentation.

Motion by Leland, seconded by Hahn to approve the minutes of Feb. 8-9, 2001, as corrected.

Motion passed without objection.

Bird stated she would reduce this presentation due to the teleconference nature of the meeting. She highlighted some of the terms of appointment for voting and non-voting members of the Advisory Board, as detailed in the Congressional legislation. She was asked to place the background documents included in the Board members’ 3-ring binder on the OSRI website.

John Calder reported that the contract is executed with the National Academy of Sciences for a program review. A call for nominations for committee members was issued August 24, and as of last week, Chris Elfring had received 40 nominations. The first meeting of this committee will be this fall, probably by teleconference, to review process. The first meeting for the committee in person will be in February 2002 in conjunction with the OSRI Advisory Board. Thomas asked about reviewing the names for possible conflicts of interest. Calder said he will talk with Elfring about this.

Thomas asked Treadwell to summarize legislative efforts by the Prince William Sound Science Center (PWSSC) on behalf of OSRI. Treadwell noted that the PWSSC held a fundraiser in May to which a number of influential guests came. The event was used to target three requests: (1) work with the City of Cordova on funds to retain the Coast Guard ship at its current location; (2) extend the OSRI life, release of the sunset clause (in 2006) and (3) raise money for operation of a nowcast/ forecast center. Discussion ensued with a few questions.

North Pacific  Research Board

Thomas reported on the second meeting of this Board held in Anchorage about two months ago. At the meeting, he distributed excerpts of the GLOBEC science plan that identifies quality of data available as the primary limitation to the advancement of marine ecosystem science. He said this contrasts with the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring (GEM) plan identifying “gaps” in data. Senator Stevens stopped by the meeting and said he expects the Board to determine which of the predictions on what’s happening in Gulf of Alaska is correct. Gary Brass, Arctic Research Commission Executive Director, pointed out that there is a high potential for conflict of interest for the five voting members. Thomas said there are 14 non-voting members who are being dismissed from the decision-marking process whereas non-Board members are working with the five to develop the NPRB as an extension of their agencies. Further discussion on the major interests of the voting members, status of the non-voting members and some questions regarding the amount of funds available for research through this Board.

     Bird was asked to find the amending legislation for NPRB and distribute it to the OSRI Advisory Board.

Partnerships developed since the last meeting

• The University of Alaska is discussing collaborations with the PWSSC / OSRI on the nowcast/forecast program. The University has set aside funds receieved after the BP merger, and they are also working to get Congressional funds in conjunction with the University of Massachusetts.
• A new partnership is in place with the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game for acoustic monitoring of herring in the Kodiak region, similar to what’s been done in Prince William Sound.
• An OSRI grant awardee (Richard Thorne, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, PWSSC) is working with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau on a training course for acoustic monitoring.
• The nowcast/forecast program is gaining more supporters within the Alaska business community. Senior members of the Oceans Commission have taken interest in the nowcast/forecast program

Letter to Secretary of Commerce

Treadwell suggested that OSRI send a request to the new Secretary of Commerce asking that he convene a meeting of the various agencies and Boards working on marine science issues related to Alaska. Discussion ensued on the appropriate process to send this request and general consensus that a Board resolution with a cover letter from Thomas would be most appropriate. Treadwell volunteered to draft a resolution for consideration by the Advisory Board after lunch.

Upcoming
 Presentations

Thomas said he is invited to give a presentation to the BP brown bag lunch Oct. 4 in Anchorage. He’s also scheduled to speak to a fisheries class at the University of Alaska Anchorage October 1. Upcoming professional conferences include: PISCES meeting in Victoria, week of Oct. 5; the International Marine Environmental Modeling seminar in New Orleans in the middle of October where Mark Reed from SINTEF will present on the OSCAR program, I. Bang and C. Mooers will present on the oceanography model,  Shari Vaughan will present on verification of the oceanography model, and Walter Cox will present on the statewide response resource database project (E.A. Renfroe’s software). There are plans to have a dedicated issue of papers from this seminar.

Thomas said he is working on revisions for the OSRI Business and Strategic Plans. He plans to send copies of these to the OSRI Executive Committee for review. Calder said that in preparation for the NAS review a clear list needs to be prepared for the Board and Thomas identifying what is being prepared and who is preparing it.

Walter Cox gave a Power Point presentation through a shared web site. A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. The minutes below reflect only highlights of discussions and do not include all FY02 Work Plan projects. The minutes also reflect the amendments agreed on by consensus for the FY02 Work Plan.

There was lengthy discussion on the PWS Regional Atmospheric Modeling project. Six proposals are currently out for review. General consensus of Board members was to encourage a minimum of three reviews for each proposal. Calder noted that the peer review process will be discussed later in the meeting and suggested final decision on the process for these proposals be deferred until that time. Cox suggested that a special meeting of the Board might be necessary to award this project.

Cox noted that the Technology Coordinator’s Report, page 13, has the wrong text for this project and directed attention to the project synopsis on page 12. In discussion, there were questions about the attendees, when the workshop will be scheduled and what the end product will be. The intent is to gather new information and to build on the work that was begun during the Oil and Ice Workshop sponsored by Alaska Clean Seas just over a year ago. It may be possible to join forces with the EPPR and the Arctic council to have a joint session. Walt Parker said he is working to have the EPPR meeting in Cordova sometime in the next two years. Cox reported that the intent is to get 8-10 experts together and not conduct a major workshop. He believes it should be a focused group of people with specific technical capabilities to bring to the table what is possible today. Calder endorsed the project as described verbally and recommended that Cox and Thomas work on the written description. He asked that additional details be presented to the Board at the February meeting.

Continuing projects: Technology

Projects discussed: (1) PWS Tide Height Data Collection; (2) Meteorological data collection; (3) Nowcast/Forecast Ocean circulation Program: Physical Ocean Modeling; and  (4) MORICE Phase 6.1.

    Cox noted that several proposals received for projects # 1 and 2 above were submitted in conjunction with other proposal solicitations for two ecology projects, namely current validation and an ADCP (acoustic Doppler current profiler) mooring in Hinchinbrook Entrance. All proposals received for these four projects are currently out for peer review. Depending on the outcome of the reviews, Cox anticipates these projects being awarded within a few months. The FY02 work plan includes 15K for maintenance/continuation of these projects (15K for each project). In discussion, the Board requested that the budgets of these intertwined projects be more clearly demonstrated.       

In addition to the correction noted for page 13 (a replacement page is required), other corrections noted include one on page 22: delete the proposals listed on page 22 under #9 and replace them with the same proposals as are listed on page 18.

     On page 23, the FY02 and FY03 budgets both need to be corrected to state 150K for each year.

Technology Coordinator position

Discussion ensued regarding the proposal for an Advanced Training program and the coordinator’s proposed part-time residence at an university.  Thomas stated he has always encouraged Cox to further his education and sees it as beneficial to OSRI. Board members expressed concern about the “payback” from the coordinator should he move to another position after the education is finished. Cox stated that he will agree to remain with OSRI for 3 years following the education and noted that a contract must be executed. Other questions related to the amount of time the coordinator will be away from Cordova and whether a temporary replacement will be hired. Cox intends to continue to do the job, just from another location. He recognizes that he’s committing himself to a 60-80 hour work week. He believes OSRI needs a person who can combine the information technology (IT) with environmental aspects in order to achieve operational status for the nowcast/forecast system. That is the intent of his proposal to seek additional IT education. Calder noted that there would still need to be a Technology Coordinator’s position. Kopchak suggested that a stand-alone proposal be considered by the Board on this issue at the November meeting.

Staff recommendation is to close out this program due to lack of interest. Two RFPs were issued and Cox spoke to every harbormaster in the region. Brad Hahn said ADEC has a similar program and has funded boom for small harbors; he offered to put Cox in touch with other ADEC staff familiar with potential projects. Leland suggested that the outreach might be more effective to the city councils instead of the harbormasters. Mutter stated there seems to be interest among the Board to keep money in this area because it’s a source of chronic pollution; he suggested OSRI partner with some other entities such as ADEC to continue work in this area. Hahn expressed interest and commented that a key will be to keep the contractual agreement relatively simple without a lot of strings attached. He will have ADEC staff (Gary Folley) contact Cox.

The meeting recessed at noon for lunch and reconvened at 12:20 p.m.

Calder recommended that proposals received for this project be combined with the three other inter-related project proposals received (PWS Tide Height Data Collection;,Meteorological data collection, and current validation)and that all of these proposals be reviewed by the Scientific and Technical Committee. Total available in FY01 and FY02 for these four projects is 260K

Principal investigator Mary Anne Bishop gave a brief update on this project (the presentation planned for this meeting will be postponed until the next regular OSRI meeting). Co-P.I. Sean Powers was also present in Cordova. A draft manuscript is complete and will be distributed to all OSRI Board members.

After discussion of the internship and graduate fellowship programs, consensus was to reduce the FY02 Work for Internships to a total of 25K and increase the Graduate Fellowships to 100K.

   Dispersant use     planning

Ed Thompson gave a Power Point presentation on the Proposed Guidelines for the Operation of the OSRI PWS OSCAR Model 2000. A summary of this is attached to these minutes. Discussion focused on identifying a “trusted agent.” Thompson suggested that the National Academy of Sciences would be excellent. He also emphasized that it will be important to ensure that questions asked of the model are within its capabilities.

          A lengthy discussion ensued on the location and format of data available on biological species, from EVOS funded projects and others. Suggestions were made to request the EVOS Trustee Council and Exxon Corporation help fund data management projects that will make available the large databases collected in the course of EVOS Trustee Council funded projects. OSRI could contribute some funding toward this work but the cost is too large for it to do it alone. Calder summarized the discussion as pointing out that this project includes three areas: effects, distribution of biota and the OSCAR model. These are all in progress but will not be completed in FY02. The OSCAR model is at least two years away from being operational; currently missing is the biological data.

         The OSRI staff are directed to prepare a presentation on this project and discussion to the Alaska Regional Response Team (ARRT) with the goal of forming a coalition of partners. The Broad Area Announcement for the FY02 work plan project (totaling $150,000) should be drafted after the presentation to the ARRT.

          Thompson noted that the decision to use dispersants is a trade-off between shoreline impacts and water column impacts. If there is a large gap in the information on shorelines (as was discussed here today), he pointed out that it could be a longer period than 2 years before the OSCAR model is operational for Prince William Sound. In response to a question about the OSCAR model, Cox stated it is operational but that Mark Reed, of SINTEF, is near completion of the FY00 contract with OSRI; Cox suggested that it may be in OSRI’s interests to set aside a portion of the FY02 funds (the $150K) for a contract to continue Reed’s services on the OSCAR model. Thomas stated that there is a large amount of data on the pelagic assemblages in PWS and that there is data available on the benthic assemblages along the shoreline but we don’t know enough about where and what the format is for this data. Thomas suggested contacting Ray Highsmith and Ed Owens regarding a proposal from them to pull together this data.

      Consensus agreement reached that the OSCAR model project is an important one which the Advisory Board wants to continue through the development stages as outlined in the summary document presented by Thompson. Calder suggested that a more concrete plan of action to achieve the goals outlined in that document be prepared for the November Advisory Board meeting. There was agreement that the OSRI Technology Coordinator will have to take the lead in moving this project forward but that a contractor will also be needed to do assessments. Board members liked the idea of organizing a workshop that would involve members of the ARRT, PWS RCAC and other stakeholders. Mutter suggested that the workshop could be used to identify the tasks needed to move forward which will help determine what needs to be requested of a contractor through the BAA or RFP process. The timeline suggested is to have the workshop prior to February and, hopefully, have the BAA/RFP drafted by the February meeting.

      Thomas said he wants to talk to those knowledgeable about the biological data and to Mark Reed; he would then develop a plan and submit it to the Advisory Board, clearly identifying what is and is not available, and identifying what kinds of simulations we want to do and determine what are the priorities for funding projects. Thomas suggested that instead of a “workshop,” a series of strategy meetings be held with the principal individuals involved. Board members responded that they view Thomas’ proposal as addressing the technical level; however, they see a need also for a policy level strategy with presentations similar to Thompson’s being shared with the other stakeholders. Cox, Hahn and Thompson all volunteered to present at the ARRT meeting.

     Calder summarized the follow-up action as follows: Thomas will prepare a project plan focusing on the technical aspects for presentation at the November Board meeting; the three volunteers who offered to present before the ARRT meeting will decide amongst themselves who will present; and Cox will polish Thompson’s presentation to be used for other stakeholder groups, such as PWS RCAC. Hahn suggested that Cox give the presentation to the ARRT, thereby taking away any political ties Hahn and/or Thompson have and also putting OSRI in the limelight. Hahn will distribute the summary to the ARRT members so they have time to digest it prior to Cox’s presentation. Treadwell suggested that, perhaps, an internship grant could help determine the scope of the data recovery effort and who has this data. Fries indicated this task is probably beyond what an intern can accomplish and did offer to lend assistance from her knowledge of these issues.

It was noted that the Alaska Region Response Team (ARRT) meets Nov. 15; Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWS RCAC) meets in early December; and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council will also meet in December.

Treasurer R.J. Kopchak called attention to the draft minutes of Sept. 6, 2001 committee meeting. He said the main issue at that meeting was review of the investment portfolio and a discussion of the Coast Guard’s investments. At the committee meeting, Branch Haymans, of Stanley Morgan Dean Witter, reported that the return on OSRI investments decreased in line with the recent general decrease in the stock market. Kopchak emphasized that our investments protect our equity in our initial investment amount so that OSRI’s principal investment is not at risk. He noted that this is the first quarter the investments have not shown an increase in value.

      Oswalt noted that a copying error resulted in the even pages missing from the July investment report that is included in the packet. She will send everyone those missing pages.

        Oswalt also reported on discussions with Darrel Nealy, at the US Coast Guard. He recommends that OSRI move its funds into a 4-5 year Treasury bond which will increase the interest rate to 4.56%. Currently, the funds are in an overnight Treasury bond and earning 3.56%. Nealy will be giving Oswalt the deposit amount for this year in the next few days and she will adjust the budget accordingly.  In response to a quest ion about locking up too much money, given the increasing amounts budgeted for the FY02 Work Plan, Oswalt said committee and staff have reviewed how much money is needed for cash flow.

       FY01 Third Quarter Report – Oswalt answered a few questions about this report.

       Discussion regarding the proposal and contract for Jane Cheatham  – Treadwell suggested OSRI Board members be sent a copy of this proposal and contract. Leland expressed some concerns; she said there is a lot of good work going on, but the OSRI Board is not involved. Discussion ensued regarding the Copper River Nouveau fundraiser and Board involvement. Kopchak said he was one of the reviewers for this project and said a major goal of the project is for Cheatham to draft easily understood and professional documents that explain the Nowcast/Forecast and other OSRI programs for a variety of audiences.

      Treadwell also explained how the Copper River Nouveau event developed as an annual fundraiser event for the PWS Science Center. He stated that a portion of funds raised in this kind of forum are used by the Science Center to pay for lobbying on behalf of OSRI’s programs. He said the participants were exposed to both PWSSC and OSRI programs and that the exposure benefits OSRI. Leland agreed that it is a wonderful event and encourages more information on it being shared with the OSRI Advisory Board.

FY02 proposed budget

Oswalt pointed out that, based on a 1 million dollar receipt in FY02 (which is conservative), and after the amount required for completion of projects included in the FY02 Work Plan and all previous projects encumbered, a $835,000 balance will remain. Discussion; Oswalt responded to a few questions.

Discussion and adoption

Motion to approve by Leland, seconded by Mutter to approve the FY02 Work Plan as amended.

     Note: The amendments for newly funded projects included in the FY02 Work Plan were summarized by Calder as follows:

1. Regional Atmospheric Modeling proposals will go through review of the Scientific and Technical Committee (S&T Committee) and then be brought to the Advisory Board for approval of award.
2. Dispersion Impact Analysis – The Board approves this and directs Thomas to prepare a development plan; there will also be presentations on this project given to ARRT, the PWS RCAC, and EVOS TC in the coming months.
3. Oil and Ice Think Tank – The Board supports this concept but wants to see more detail about the planning process at the November meeting.
4. PWS Tide Height Data Collection, PWS Metereological Data Collection and the Hinchinbrook ADCP and the current validation programs – Proposals for these projects are to be bundled together and reviewed by the S&T Committee and then to the Board for final award.
5. MORICE Phase 6.1 – Supported as presented.
6. Technology Coordinator – The Board wants to be provided more information at the November meeting about the proposed change in this position.
7. Coupling of OSRI Resource Monitoring and Modeling – Proposals for this project should be reviewed by the S&T Committee.
8. Student Internships was decreased by $25K (to a new total of $25,000).
9. Graduate Fellowships were increased by $25K (to a new total of $100,000).

Motion passed without objection.

A draft letter was distributed by Treadwell. Kopchak suggested a resolution might be more effective and read a draft resolution as follows:

     WHEREAS the Oil Spill Recovery Institute is chaired by a NOAA representative and the Secretary of Commerce appoints this individual as well as other members of this Advisory Board; and,

      WHEREAS the Oil Spill Recovery Institute and other NOAA-sponsored programs and projects are involved in research and programs that address the fisheries and management of marine resources in Alaska; and,

      WHEREAS these programs and agencies include OSRI, EVOS, North Pacific Research Board, North Pacific Marine Institute, OAR, NMFS, Hazmat as well as other important programs; and

      WHEREAS the coordination of efforts by these groups, agencies and programs would complement the mission of NOAA.

     NOW, therefore be it resolved that the Board of Directors of OSRI encourages the Secretary of Commerce to convene a meeting of NOAA’s representatives to these programs and agencies to identify common goals and ways to achieve them; and to build better working relationships to improve and maintain the infrastructure for marine research  in Alaska including facilities, devices, personnel, data collection and modeling and application of the knowledge gained.

Kopchak suggested that the Board determine which format it prefers, a resolution or a letter and if the latter, a letter, that the Director be asked to draft another letter for Board consideration.

      Discussion ensued on the intent of this request for a meeting of all entities involved in science research in Alaska. Fries and Fink said they will need to consult with their commissioners prior to voting on this proposed letter or resolution. Consensus reached to have the Director draft a letter and bring it back to the Board in November; that will give Board members time to discuss this with others. Fries suggested that if it’s time critical, it could be accomplished via e-mail. Treadwell feels it is time critical. Thomas will draft a letter and distribute it.

Calder stated that OSRI received a letter in May 2001 from Evelyn Brown of the University of Alaska Fairbanks complaining about the process by which her proposal was handled. The proposal included three entities and was not funded. In the following year, one of the three parties involved, Jim Churnside of the NOAA remote sensing laboratory in Colorado, signed a cooperative agreement with OSRI. Brown’s proposal was submitted Dec. 31, 1999 and a letter was sent to her in April 2000 stating it was not going to be funded. Her May 2001 letter complains about the process by which the proposal was reviewed.

      Calder said following an Executive Committee meeting in June 2001, he formally requested a letter from Thomas responding to specific questions. Thomas’ response was received last month. In response to a query, it was clarified that Thomas’ letter has only been sent to OSRI Board members and not to Evelyn Brown. Discussion of Executive Committee meeting recommendations/actions in June.

     Calder distributed his recommendation (attached), titled “Findings” and “Recommendation.” Calder states that he finds that the proposals in question were handled according to the GPM; however, he finds the GPM process flawed because it allows the OSRI Director to be the sole reviewer for any project under $100,000 which contradicts the spirit of having an independent peer review. Calder recommends that a letter be sent to Brown notifying her that the complaint has been reviewed, that her proposal’s review was consistent with the GPM process, and that no further action by the OSRI Board will be taken on her complaint. He proposed also stating in the letter that OSRI intends to revise its GPM to make the review process more rigorous.

Calder specifically recommends that the Grant Policy Manual, Section 4.5.1 be revised to require at least three reviews for every proposal received and that two of those reviews be completed by individuals who are not affiliated with the PWSSC; and further, that all proposals over $25,000 be reviewed by the Scientific and Technical Committee.

                Discussion of the specific language proposed to amend GPM, Section 4.5.1; consensus to change “affiliated with” to “employed by”.

                Discussion ensued on the proposed changes in award of contracts over $25,000.  Goering pointed out that the process proposed does not involve the Board, only the Scientific and Technical Committee. The Board’s involvement in proposal reviews and contract awards will remain limited to only those over $100K unless there is disagreement between the Scientific and Technical Committee and the Director on proposals over $25,000 and under $100,000.

Motion by Kopchak, seconded by Fries that OSRI adopt the findings as recommended by Calder regarding the complaint and further amend Section 4.5.1 of the GPM with one change of the word “affiliated with” to “employed by”.

     The motion amends Section 4.5.1 of the GPM to read: 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: (continue with current language in this section).

     In discussion, it was noted that additional changes to the GPM will be needed in other sections which reference Section 4.5.1. Consensus agreement to also add a sentence in the GPM clarifying that the Advisory Board will be consulted when there is disagreement between the Scientific and Technical Committee and the OSRI Director on proposals between $25,000 and $100,000. 

Motion passed without objection.

Grant Awards to PWSSC

Leland asked about the perceived conflict of interest for the OSRI Director to be able to award contracts to PWSSC. Bird pointed to Section 4.7 Impartiality. She stated that she has sent the Executive Committee notices of pending contract awards for new projects, but that she has not sent the Committee notices on the renewal of contract awards as it is not clear whether that is required.

Agreement that the Advisory Board will meet in Anchorage on Friday, Nov. 9. Bird  will locate a meeting room and notify Board members.

The winter/spring meeting is scheduled Thursday and Friday, Feb. 7 and 8, 2002 in Anchorage, in conjunction with the Alaska Forum on the Environment. The National Academy of Sciences committee reviewing OSRI programs will attend the February meeting.