Science Planning Committee (SPC) Report to USAC July 2009

Role of Science Planning Committee Chartered by the Science Advisory Structure Executive Committee (SASEC) as primary SAS committee for planning the IODP scientific drilling expedition schedule SASEC retains really long-term planning outlook SPC focuses on annual process for review and ranking mature IODP proposals forwarded by SSEP, approximately one year in advance of preparation of IODP Annual Program Plans SPC also recommends annual engineering plan in support of science plan, after advice from EDP All other SAS panels report through SPC, so SPC also synthesizes SAS advice for SASEC + IODP-MI

SSP EPSP SSEP SPC EDP STP IODP SAS SSDB Ext. Review IODP-MI, Sapporo (Proposal database) Proponent OTF Proposal submission (4/1, 10/1) Evaluation and Nurturing Data submission Ranking Scheduling IODP Proposal Process

SPC Proposal Review/Ranking Steps 1. Review mature proposals forwarded by SSEP within past year or remaining from previous rankings. – Typically proposals are reviewed at March SPC meeting; for each, 3 SPC “watchdogs” lead presentation and discussion, with input from chairs of SSEP, SSP, EPSP. 2. Select proposal pool to rank – Usually, nearly all proposals at SPC level are ranked, but exceptions are made (a) at proponent’s request or (b) for other special circumstances. 3. Rank proposals and compile results – Each SPC member ranks N proposals 1 to N on a signed ballot. Rankings are compiled and presented with means and s.d.’s. 4. Select highest ranked proposals to forward to Operations Task Force (OTF) for development of schedule options. – SSEP forwards only strong, mature proposals – Only SPC comparatively ranks proposals. Groupings I, II, and return.

4 Science Planning Committee (SPC) Meeting March 16-19, Miami, Florida plus important aspect of August 2008 Sapporo 1. Proposal Rankings 2. Ancillary Program Letters (APLs) 3. Flexible Expedition Implementation 4. Riser Contingency Planning SPC Meeting

5 1. Proposal Ranking Ranked 28 Proposals 8 new 8 previously sent to OTF 12 residing at SPC - More discussion of proposals in related groups - Asian Monsoon DPG - Hot Spot DPG Tier 2 proposals sent to OTF this year will remain there for 2 years

6 1. Proposal Ranking Rank Proposal # Short Title Mean St. Dev.Tier Full3 Louisville Seamounts (Pac) Full3 South Pacific Gyre Microbiology (Pac) Full2 Santa Barbara B. Climate Change * Full2 New England Shelf Hydrogeology NA* Full3 Bengal Fan (Ind)* Full2 Hawaiian Drowned Reefs * Full6 Northern Arabian Sea Monsoon * Full5 Superfast Spreading Crust A-Full5 Costa Rica Seismogenesis A Full3 East Asia Margin * * Indicates that site survey data needs to be submitted before forwarded to OTF Fairly good disciplinary balance in these top ranked proposals Top 10 Proposals to forwarded to OTF

7 1. Proposal Ranking Rank Proposal # Short Title Mean St. Dev Full2 Izu-Bonin-Mariana Pre-Arc Crust Full So. Alaska Margin 1: Climate-Tect Full Newfoundland Rifted Margin Full2 Newfoundland Sediment Drifts Full2 Cascadia Margin Hydrates Full3 Cretan Margin Full2 Costa Rica Mud Mounds Full3 Izu-Bonin-Mariana Reararc Crust Full4 South Pacific Paleogene Full2 Late Pleistocene Coralgal Banks Full3 Gulf of Mexico Overpressures Full2 Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc Middle Crust Full Costa Rica SeisCORK Full3 Walvis Ridge Hotspot Full6 Atlantis Bank Deep Full2 TAG II Hydrothermal Full4 Malvinas Confluence Full3 Geodynamo

8 1. Proposal Ranking Consensus : The “holding bin” exists for proposals that are designated to be forwarded to OTF, but for which there are insufficient data for SSP) and/or EPSP) …. After SSP and EPSP have confirmed readiness for drilling, the SPC chair can either forward to OTF or retain at SPC. EPSPSSP 549-Full6 Northern Arabian Sea Monsoon xok 552-Full3 Bengal Fan xok 618-Full3 East Asian Margin xok 637-Full2 New England Shelf Hydrogeology x x 705-Full2 Santa Barbara Basin Climate Change x x 716-Full2 Hawaiian Drowned Reefs x x

Tier 1/Tier 2 Designations Tier 1 - Highest priority proposal for an ocean region - Important to complete by Ready for drilling Tier 2 - High priority proposal for an ocean region - Ready for drilling - Resides at OTF for 2 years then re-evaluated by SPC 1. Proposal Ranking

10 Current Tier 1 Proposals Pacific601 Okinawa Trough Deep Biosphere 545 Juan de Fuca Flank Hydrogeology 505 Mariana Convergent Margin 537 CRISP B 636 Louisville Seamounts 662 South Pacific Gyre Microbiology Atlantic677 Mid-Atlantic Microbiology 644 Mediterranean Outflow Indian552 Bengal Fan (724 Gulf of Aden) (595 Indus Fan)

11 Proposal Deactivation SPC Consensus : The SPC may deactivate proposals after three rankings. SPC deactivated 535-Full6 (Atlantis Bank Deep) 584-Full2 (TAG II Hydrothermal) 612-Full3 (Geodynamo) because they have ranked low in the last several evaluations and realistically have little chance of being implemented within the current phase of the IODP which ends in 2013.

12 2. APL’s SASEC Consensus : SASEC encourages the community to continue to submit proposals for drilling… SASEC encourages submission of Ancillary Program Letters (APL’s) for targets of opportunity that may arise as the drilling vessels transit between expeditions. - Difficult to evaluate quickly ( discussions) - Priority decisions in regards to main expedition - Need rapid scheduling of staffing and equipment - 3 day limit Examples of problems with recent APL’s 739-APL Bering Sea Subseafloor Life ( decision, staffing issues) 734-APL Cascadia Accretionary Prism CORK (started with discussion, cost, time issues) 738-APL Nankai Submarine Landslides (CHIKYU operation 10 days)

13 2. APL’s SPC Consensus : The SPC adopts the principle that time be allocated in each IODP platform schedule to accommodate ancillary project letters (APLs) and engineering testing, and forwards this to the Operations Task Force (OTF) and implementing organizations (IOs) for implementation. As a guideline, three days per two-month expedition (i.e., less than 10% of on-site time) should be allocated for these activities. If the OTF determines that there is no appropriate engineering testing or approved APL for a given expedition, the time will transfer to the scientific objectives of the expedition.

14 SPC Consensus : The SPC supports pursuing a more flexible approach to expedition design. More flexible implementation may provide better opportunities to achieve top science objectives while operating under operational realities for the remainder of this program and for renewal. 1. Request that the Implementing Organizations (IOs) provide guidance about expedition flexibility, including ramifications of combining expedition objectives and/or staffing and crew rotation to implement various length expeditions and/or combined science parties and/or short-term port calls for crew and scientist rotation. 2. Request that the Science Steering and Evaluation Panel (SSEP) considers how proposals might include additional information about objectives achieved with respect to the overall proposal objectives with streamlined drilling plans. 3. Flexible Expedition Implementation

15 - Riser drilling at NT3-01 scheduled to start Sep Kuroshio may be unfavorable - Need a contingency 4. Riser Contingency Possible Expeditions 537BCRISP 618Southeast Asia Margin 698IBM (595Indus Fan) CDEX was asked to provide preliminary scoping for these projects

16 4. Riser Contingency SPC Motion : The SPC asks IODP-MI to begin scoping of Proposal 618-Full3 (East Asia Margin) as a contingency for NanTroSEIZE. - China-Vietnam disputed area issues for Continue planning for CRISP - Priority based on science evaluation