The joint meeting of the Science Steering and Evaluation Panels (SSEP)
convened on the 22 of May by the panel chairs Ted Moore (ESSEP) and John
Tarduno (ISSEP). Panel introductions included the introduction of
the Performance Evaluation Panel (PEC) Chair Dr. Nori Nasu. Tom Loutit and
Dan Karig of the PEC would join the panel meeting later. Logistical matters
were presented by our Host Debbie Kelly, before beginning the official
meeting reports. Due to the extremely heavy load of proposals we asked our
reporting guests to keep the reports as brief as possible and to provide
either written reports or reports ported to a web site. We also saved part
of the reports till the end of the meeting.

JOIDES Office report

Jeff Schuffert and Warner Bruckman  reported from the JOIDES Office. At the
March SCICOM meeting the Long-term Observatory PPC presented their final
report, which was accepted by SCICOM. The  remaining PPGs were thanked for
their helping to promote the increase in proposal submissions and other
activities under the purview of their individual group. They were asked
finish up their efforts and submit their final reports within the year. At
the request of the SSEPs, SCICOM voted to establish two new PPGs - the
Hydrology PPG and the Arctic PPG. The mandates of these two PPGs were
presented and the SSEPs were requested to submit at list of potential
members.

The creation of a new sub-committee of SCICOM - the IODP Planning Sub-
Committee (IPSC) was announced. This committee will oversee the preparation
for, and transition to, the post-2003 drilling program. Ted Moore is its
Chair and committee members are Jamie Austin, Ako Taira, Jimmy Kinoshita,
Detrick Eickelberg, Jorn Thiede, and Hans-Christian Larsen.

The SSEP Chairs asked that the JOIDES office be more strict in the imposing
the existing guidelines for proposal lengths and proposal submission
deadlines. Eventual electronic submission of proposals and proposal
figures may eventually reduce this problem, but we still foresee the need
for some degree of effort by the chairs to xerox and mail at least parts of
some proposals. We also need to speed the process of having TAMU check
proponents drilling and logging time estimates. This particularly critical
if the SSEPs are expected to evaluate leg lengths (mentioned also by Kate
Moran in her report from JOI).

JOI Report

Kate Moran reported from the JOI office. She re-emphasized efforts
to schedule leg lengths in order accomplish the high priority science
rather than be restricted to a fixed leg length of 56 days. The questions
arose as to how the SSEPs could have input to this process. Clearly the
SSEPs require both: 1) site prioritization be the proponents and 2)
estimated drilling, coring and logging times verified by TAMU for each of
the high priority sites. This is no small task and would probably only be
addressed for those proposals which had undergone mail review and perhaps
only those proposals ranked highly by SCICOM.

Kate reported on the continued interest and participation of industry in
the Manus Basin sites, and on the participation of a microbiological team
on ODP Leg 185 (now at sea). We are continuing to make progress on gas
hydrate sampling technology with the Pressure Coring System and with the
HYACE system. Work on fabricating and testing the Advanced CORK system is
also continuing at TAMU. A drill-in test will be carried out on ODP 190 leg
in preparation for subsequent deployment on the follow-up leg.

Proposals for alternate platform drilling (shallow water, coral reef, and
Arctic drilling) are now in the system and will follow the normal review
procedure.

The US members of the SSEPs should consider nominating candidates to USSAC
for replacing members on SCICOM and the SSEPs who are rotating off these
panels after their normal three years of service.

NSF Report

Bruce Malfait presented a very brief report from NSF. US NSF now provides
65% of the ODP funding. Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan are also
full members of the program. France has a two thirds membership; The PacRim
consortium has an 11/12 membership; and the European Science Consortium has
a 97% membership. For FY 2000 NSF is planning to provide funds for 63% of
ODP, assuming that there are seven partners in addition to NSF. NSF is
planning the JOIDES Resolution will have some less than full use in FY
2003. IPSC is charged with planning the detailed transition between ODP and
the post-2003 program.

Following the NSF report the SSEPs remained in joint session and began to
review those proposals which had gone out for mail review and that were of
interest to both SSEPs. These included

Fluid flow/convergent margin proposals:

478 Full3 Nankai East
505 Full2 Marianas Seamounts
517 Full  Nankai West (ACORKS)

Climate and Tectonics proposals:

521 Full4 Indus Fan

Gas Hydrate proposals:

355 Full7 Peru Margin
546 Full  Hydrate Ridge (Oregon)
553 Full  Cascadia Margin

The SSEPs then split into separate groups for further discussions:
 
 
 

*********************************************************************
**********************************************************************

ESSEP Separate Meeting (For ISSEP, see separate section below)
 

The ESSEP discussed two Antarctic proposals that had already been sent to
SCICOM for ranking but for which new data had been provided:

482 Add Wilkes Land. The promised new data in this area was, unfortunately
not yet available because of mechanical problems with the ship scheduled to
acquire the data. The panel awaits these new data before making a
definitive re-evaluation, but is concerned that there appears to have been
a shift in priority away from the rise sites, particularly that site which
would target the oldest mapped sequence boundary in the rise sediments. It
was unclear whether this was because of reinterpretations of the seismic
data or a conscious shift in priority from rise to shelf holes. The ESSEP
feels that it is important to target the older sequences on the rise as the
highest priority, if at all possible.

489- Add Ross Sea
The Ross Sea addendum contained an interpretation of the seismic data in
the region of the proposed sites along with isopach thickness maps of these
sequences. These interpretations permitted the formulation of a hypothesis
concerning the timing of the buildup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which
can be tested by the proposed drilling program. The panel considers this a
significant, positive addition to the overall science plan of the proposed
program, and is encouraged by the increased probability of being able to
date the development of this important step in the history of the
Antarctica ice sheets. Our only criticism of the work is that their naming
of the sequence boundaries and associated sequences is very confusing and
totally non-standard. If they must number them, then at least give the
sequences the same number as their upper bounding unconformity.

We received updates on two other proposals:
514-Add Timing ? Amplitude Olig/Mioc Sea Lev. Maldives. The panel looked at
and discussed the additional data supplied by the proponents and look
forward to a more complete mapping of the target sequences as requested by
our review of this proposal in November 1998.

516 Add CORKS in 504B 896A off axis hydrology. The panel appreciate being
informed that the proponents have obtained other funds to address the
problems outlined in this pre-proposal.
 

ESSEP then discussed the remaining proposals that were to be grouped at
this meeting and passed on to SCICOM at their August meeting:

477-Full2 Okhotsk and Bering Seas Plio-Pleist History
503 Full2 Cenoz. Galc. Hist, E. Antr IS, Mesoz Weddell B.
510-Full3 Coral Sea: Sea Level Magn. on Marion Plateau
523-Full  Motion of Hawaiian Hotspot-Emperor Seamt
534 Full  Warm Cret Paleog, Shatsky Depth Trans
549-Full  Monsoon Var OMZ in N. Arabian Sea

Following extensive discussions of these proposals along with those that we
had previously discussed with ISSEP, were grouped by secret ballot. This
was taken to be a "straw" vote and the results from this initial vote were
discussed before taking the final vote.

The results of the final grouping are listed below (X= consensus vote; V=
even split vote):

 
          highest I  impt II      ISSEP prim III  Rewrite IV  

355-Full7             X
477-Full2     X
478 Full3(A)  X (front)
          (B)         X (Tokai)
503 Full2     V       V
505-Full2     X
510-Full3     X
517 Full      V       V
521 Full4             V                             V
523-Full                             X
534 Full      V       V
546-Full      X
549-Full      X
553-Full              X
 

After the final grouping of the proposals ESSEP considered the new and
rewritten full proposals to determine which were ready to be sent out for
mail review. The results of these deliberations are shown below. Some of
the final decisions made concerning whether or not to seek a rewrite prior
to the 1 October deadline were made in conjunction with ISSEP.

PROPOSAL                                                      ACTION

513 Full2 The Scott Plat.-Indian Ocean Water Mass Hist.       rewrite
519-Full2 Last Deglacial sea-level rise, Tahiti               MAIL REV
520 Full Cont. Crust Form. in W. Pac. Kyushu-Palau            (ISSEP)
532 Full Cross Sec Ocean Crust/ Up Mant. Kane Megaml 533 Full (ISSEP)
537 Full2 Subduct Interface, Costa Rica Conv Mar              rewrite (w/ISSEP)
539-Full Blake Rdg Gas Hydrates                               rewrite (w/ISSEP)
541-Full S. Westerlies in Chilean Fjord Sediments (=536)      rewrite
544-Full Costa Rica and Nicaragua Subduc Zone                 rewrite (w/ISSEP)
545-Full Hydrology, Crustal Scale Properties                  rewrite (W/ISSEP)
552-Full Drilling in the Bengal Fan                           rewrite (w/ISSEP)
554-Full Gas Hydrates in Petrol Basin, G of Mex               rewrite (w/ISSEP)
555-Full Backstop hydrol deform mech, Crete                   rewrite (w/ISSEP)
559-Full  Early Cenozoic Climates, Walvis Ridge               MAIL REV
560-Full Return to Site 1108, Low Angle Fault                 (ISSEP)
561-Full Carribean LIP                                        (ISSEP)
562-Full Paleog/Cret Depth trans Newfoundlnd Ridge            rewrite
566-Full Occur, Amt, Orig. Gas hydrate Nankai Trough          rewrite (w/ISSEP)
 

The ESSEP then discussed the pre-proposals and recommended the following
actions:

PROPOSAL                                             ACTION
 

556-Pre Brazil-Falkland Confluence, Paleocn          Full Prop req
557-Pre Norwegian Margin Gas Hydrate                 Full Prop req
563-Pre Climate Tectonics, Eur-American Gateway      resubmit with co-PI
564-Pre Global Sea Level, New Jersey Margin          Full Prop req
565-Pre Cool-water carb GAB fluid flow, Sea level    Full Prop req

The ESSEP then discussed the one APL received:

 ANCILLARY PROGRAM LETTERS
APL 9   CO2 sequestration in deep sea basalts

Although the ESSEP thought this was an interesting technical idea, we could
see potential technical problems with the briefly proposed work that were
not addressed in the letter. We also believe that this proposal is
primarily technical in nature and that it might more appropriately be
funded by DOE rather than NSF/ODP.

Hydrate proposals "in the mill"
As an aid to the SSEPs chairs in distinguishing the relative support
received for the many gas hydrate proposals that were in the system now,
the SSEPs were asked to answer the following questions (by secret ballot)
regarding all the full and pre-proposals that we have discussed at this
meeting:

355 Full7 Peru Margin
546 Full  Hydrate Ridge (Oregon)
553 Full  Cascadia Margin
539-Full  Blake Rdg Gas Hydrates
554-Full  Gas Hydrates in Petrol Basin, G of Mex
557-Pre   Norwegian Margin Gas Hydrate
566-Full  Occur, Amt, Orig. Gas hydrate Nankai Trough

1. If you were only able to drill one of the above 7 full and pre-proposals
before the end of ODP in 2003, which one of the above proposals would
contribute the most to the planning of the post 2003 program?

ESSEP consensus answer: 546

Why?: Well conceived/written proposal with a wealth of background
and ancillary data with monitoring component in a relatively simple active
margin setting.

2. If you were only able to drill two of the above 7 full and pre-proposals
before the end of ODP in 2003, which two of the above proposals would
contribute the most to the planning of the post 2003 program?

ESSEP consensus answer: 546 and 554 (but more scatter in the choice of the
second proposed drilling program, with 355, 539, and 553 receiving 2 - 3
votes each)

 Why: (same as above) plus: very different hydrate type/environment.
 

****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
 

ISSEP Separate Meeting
 

REVIEW OF NEW AND REVISED PROPOSALS:

ISSEP reviewed the following proposals and other proponent
communications in Seattle:

Proposal   Key Words            Lead Proponent

451 Add3   Tonga                Tappin
512 Full   Core Complexes       Blackman
516 Add3   CORKS, Costa Rica    Davis
519 Full2  Tahiti Sea level     Camoin
520 Full3  Kyushu-Palau         Ohara
531 Pre2   Core Complexes       Snow
532 Full   Kane Megamullion     Tucholke
533 Full   Arctic               Backman
537 Full2  Protoseismic zone    von Huene
539 Full   Blake hydrates       Holbrook
544 Full   Costa Rica subduct.  Silver
545 Full   Juan de Fuca hydro.  Fisher
551 Pre2   Hess Deep Plutonic   Gillis
552 Full   Beng. Fan            France-Lanord
554 Full   Hydrates G. Mexico   Kennicutt
555 Full   Crete collision      Kopf
557 Pre    Hydrates Norway      Andreassen
558 Pre    Tsunami Iberia       Zitellini
559 Full   Walvis Extreme Cl.   Zachos
560 Full   Return 1108          Taylor
561 Full   Caribbean LIP        Duncan
562 Full   J anomaly climate    Norris
563 Pre    Euramerica gateway   Smolka
564 Pre    New Jersey sea level Miller
565 Pre    Australia bight      Feary
566 Full   Hydrates Nankai      Asi
ALP9       CO2 in basalt        Goldberg

Of these, two proposals (520 and 560) were selected for external review.
For all other proposals, revisions were requested. The Chair noted that
this decision does not necessary delay any given proposal; proposals
selected for external review can be considered by SCICOM during August
2000 at the earliest. By asking for revisions, the panel hopes to have
the best possible proposals go on for external review after our Fall (Nov.)
meeting.

A joint ISSEP-ESSEP review will be composed for the following proposals:

537 Full2  Protoseismic zone
539 Full   Blake hydrates
544 Full   Costa Rica subduct.
545 Full   Juan de Fuca hydro.
552 Full   Beng. Fan
554 Full   Hydrates G. Mexico
555 Full   Crete collision
557 Pre    Hydrates Norway
566 Full   Hydrates Nankai

ISSEP GROUPINGS
 

ISSEP grouped the externally reviewed proposals (group I, highest priority
for meeting ISSEP goals in ODP Long Range Panel; group II, high priority;
group III, primarily of interest to ESSEP but has some important ISSEP
objectives; IV, revision/additional information required; V, declined).

ISSEP     Proposal#     Proposal Title

I-II     478-Full4      (Part A) Eastern Nankai Subd. Proc.
IV       478-Full4      (Part B) Eastern Nankai Subd. Proc.
I        505-Full3      Mariana Geochem. Mass Balance
IV       517-Full       Nankai Trough CORKs
IV       521-Full4      Indus Fan Indian Monsoon
I        523-Full       Hawaiian Hotspot-Emperor Seamnts.
I        525-Full       Drilling Mantle Peridotite
III      534-Full       Extreme Warmth/Shatsky Rise
I-II     535-Full2      Deep-Slow Spreading Ridge

II*      355-Full7      Gas Hydrates on Conv. Margins
I*       546-Full       Drilling Hydrates on Hydrate Ridge
I*       553-Full       Gas Hydr. on the Cascadia Margin

*Grouped by ISSEP using criteria different from those of the other
proposals.

ISSEP recognizes that proposals 355, 546 and 553 principally address
a subject that is not within the ISSEP mandate. However, the panels
(ISSEP and ESSEP) have jointly reviewed these proposals, utilizing
the full range of expertise represented on the panels. ISSEP
grouped these proposals with regard to their importance in
addressing gas hydrate issues, in the spirit that additional
input would be useful in future decisions.
 
However, ISSEP wishes to emphasize that because different criteria were
used, the ISSEP groupings of the gas hydrate proposals should not
be interpreted as an opinion on the relative merits of these proposals
relative to other proposals addressing themes in the ISSEP mandate.

The panel also discussed the Tonga (451) proposal and reaffirmed its prior
placement in Group I.
 

GAS HYDRATE ADVICE TO SCICOM FROM ISSEP

As an aid to the SSEPs chairs in distinguishing the relative support
received for the many gas hydrate proposals that were in the system now,
the SSEPs were asked to answer the following questions (by secret ballot)
regarding all the full and pre-proposals that we have discussed at this
meeting:

355 Full7 Peru Margin
546 Full  Hydrate Ridge (Oregon)
553 Full  Cascadia Margin
539-Full  Blake Rdg Gas Hydrates
554-Full  Gas Hydrates in Petrol Basin, G of Mex
557-Pre   Norwegian Margin Gas Hydrate
566-Full  Occur, Amt, Orig. Gas hydrate Nankai Trough

1. If you were only able to drill one of the above 7 full and pre-proposals
before the end of ODP in 2003, which one of the above proposals would
contribute the most to the planning of the post 2003 program?

ISSEP consensus answer: 539

Why?: The best potential to address dynamics and have implications for
global processes because of prior work and its simple setting.

2. If you were only able to drill two of the above 7 full and pre-proposals
before the end of ODP in 2003, which two of the above proposals would
contribute the most to the planning of the post 2003 program?

ISSEP consensus answer: 539 and 546 (with more variation)

Why: Proposal 546 is viewed as the best overall proposal in a different
(active margin) environment that could be coupled with an effort to
understand hydrates in a simple setting.
 

*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
 

Joint Meeting

Following the discussion and grouping of submitted proposals and
pre-proposals, The two SSEPs meet together again to hear brief reports from
TAMU and from the Logging Group.

TAMU Report

The report from TAMU focused on the up-coming visit of the JOIDES
Resolution to the yards and the work to be accomplished that impacts
science operations. These additions and alterations include 1) the redesign
of the core lab layout; 2) relocation of the microbiology containerized
lab; and the building of the new microbiology and log analysis laboratories
on the top of the present lab stack. other improvements to be accomplished
during the yard visit will include a new sonar dome, improved station
keeping ability, fume hood replacement, and replacement of the fantail
winch.

Logging Report

New tools that the Logging Group is evaluating include Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester (MDT) that take in situ pore fluid samples. This could be
used in conjunction with logging while drilling, but needs to be developed
for the narrow pipe used by ODP. Another tool, presently only available in
the larger diameter configuration, is the CMR tool that measures porosity
independent of lithology.

The meeting closed with thanks to our host, Debbie Kelly, and an admonition
to the panel members to get the reviews of the proposals written before
they leave.