N E W S L E T T E R News from the Joint Oceanographic Institutions/U.S. Science Support Program associated with the Ocean Drilling Program • Fall 2002 • Vol. 15, No. 2

SUPPORT FOR U.S. PARTICIPATION IN THEINTEGRATED OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM

The Conference on U.S. Participation inIODP (CUSP), an activity of the U.S. Sci-ence Advisory Committee (USSAC), washeld in June 2002. This report was sub-mitted to the U.S. National Science Foun-dation by the CUSP Steering Committeeand USSAC in November 2002.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The initial science plan Earth, Oceans, and Lifeof the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program(IODP) proposes bold new themes and ini-tiatives that focus on: environmental change,processes, and effects; the deep biosphereand the subseafloor ocean; and solid earthcycles and geodynamics. IODP will have amajor impact on marine-related science overthe next decade. The current internationalOcean Drilling Program (ODP) is already oneof the most successful and pervasive scien-tific activities in the geosciences, and U.S. sci-entists have been leaders in all aspects of theprogram. The leadership and broad participa-tion of U.S. scientists in ODP have enhancedour fundamental knowledge in the geo-sciences. IODP holds even greater promise.

We emphasize from the outset that an essen-tial component of U.S. success in scientificocean drilling has been the consistent andflexible financial support directly from theNational Science Foundation (NSF) andthrough the U.S. Science Support Program

(USSSP). Given the broad participation andimpact of scientific ocean drilling on the U.S.geosciences community, the U.S. Science Ad-visory Committee (USSAC) seeks to ensure thatU.S. scientists are adequately supported toparticipate in the new IODP and to enable theU.S. science community to take full advantageof the many scientific opportunities envi-sioned for IODP.

In this context, the CUSP report, based on theConference on U.S. Participation in IODP(CUSP) and on follow-on discussion and ac-tivities (e.g., web-based questionnaire), ad-dresses the support needs of U.S. scientiststo fully participate in the international IODP.The report describes the indispensable ele-ments of support for U.S. scientists to be ad-ministered by the NSF and defines the char-acteristics and structure of the anticipated suc-cessor to the current USSSP, which has sup-ported U.S. participation in the ODP.

We discuss the goals of providing support,summarize the programmatic and organiza-tional changes, both international and national,that impact U.S. participation in IODP, and thensummarize views of the U.S. scientific com-munity and USSAC on a number of activitiesand issues concerning the support requiredat NSF and in a USSSP-successor program. Weconclude with a series of specific recommen-dations. These recommendations focus on thepolicy and principles of participation and sup-port, rather than on the details of implemen-tation and budgets. The recommendations

identify new, emerging, and ongoing activi-ties that need to be supported by NSF and aUSSSP-successor program. The ocean-drillingcommunity, responding to the online ques-tionnaire, has expressed strong support for theCUSP recommendations.

U.S. support for participation in IODP shouldengage the broadest possible range of U.S.scientists, enabling them to participate com-pletely and successfully in all aspects of theinternational program. We should continue toensure that all aspects of support foster high-quality, peer-reviewed science, producingcomprehensive data sets that address scien-tific goals and objectives of fundamental im-portance and providing a visible and coher-ent scientific legacy.

Warren PrellPeggy Delaney

Co-Chairs, CUSPFor the Members of the CUSP Steering Com-mittee and the 2002-2003 USSAC

INSIDEAnnouncements ................................................ 14

Drill Bits: The Skinny on ODP .............................. 16

Reflectance Spectroscopy ................................ 18

Intern Participates in Gas Hydrate Survey .......... 20

Going Digital ...................................................... 22

Fellowship Profile: Michelle Shearer ................... 24

Letter from the Chair ......................................... 25

NSF Report ........................................................ 26

USSAC Members ................................................ 27

JOIful Word Game ............................................. 28

2 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

SCIENTIFIC OCEAN DRILLING INTHE 21ST CENTURY: THE IODP

AND U.S. PARTICIPATION

The current international Ocean Drilling Pro-gram (ODP) is one of the most successful andpervasive scientific activities in the geo-sciences. The ODP’s scientific themes rangefrom the composition of the mantle and dy-namics of the lithosphere to fluid transportthrough the oceanic crust to geochemical andenvironmental history recorded in marine sedi-ments. U.S. scientists have been leaders in allaspects of ODP and their broad participationin ODP has enhanced our fundamental knowl-edge in the geosciences. Quantitative infor-mation1 about U.S. scientists’ participation inODP and the relationship to NSF fundingdocument part of this impact. Of the nearly600 U.S. scientists receiving NSF Marine Ge-ology and Geophysics (NSF/MG&G) fundingfrom 1988-2002, ~30% have participated inan ODP expedition at least once. U.S. scien-tists have filled >1200 shipboard berths forODP Legs 100-201, with >650 individual U.S.scientists having been shipboard scientists atleast once during that time. Of these >650,nearly three out of ten have received NSF/MG&G funding at least once during the 1988-2002 interval. U.S. graduate students andpostdoctoral scientists have had significantparticipation as integrated members of theinternational ODP science parties, represent-ing ~25% of total U.S. berths. Over 1,000 in-dividual U.S. scientists have had a total of

nearly 5,000 sample requests filled since pro-gram inception. A critical element in the U.S.success has been the consistent and flexiblefinancial support from NSF and USSSP.

The U.S. Science Advisory Committee(USSAC) consists of volunteer scientists whoadvise Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI)on the operation of the U.S. Science SupportProgram (USSSP) associated with ODP. USSSP,which is funded by the NSF Ocean DrillingProgram2 (NSF/ODP) through a cooperativeagreement with JOI, directly supports U.S.participation in ODP. NSF/ODP also providesfunding for highly ranked, unsolicited propos-als generally in support of activities affiliatedwith scientific ocean drilling including regionalgeological and geophysical studies and drillsite characterization. USSSP supports the par-ticipation of U.S. scientists in drilling expedi-tions, and includes travel to expeditions, sal-ary support for expedition participation, andrelatively modest post-expedition funding3

targeted at fulfilling immediate science obli-gations4. Although most of the budget is fo-cused on these direct participation activities,USSSP also sustains a broad range of affiliatedactivities that enable wide and successful U.S.participation in ODP (Table 1).

Compelling scientific objectives continue torequire ocean drilling as a means of acquiringsamples of sediments, rock, biota, and fluidsfrom beneath the seafloor, of deploying in-

struments for down hole measurements inboreholes, and of conducting sub-seafloorexperiments and establishing observatories toaddress questions of fundamental significancein the geosciences. The needs for continuedscientific ocean drilling and for a multi-platform approach within an internationalframework have been recognized explicitlyin a number of U.S. and international planningdocuments over the past decade, culminat-ing in planning for the Integrated Ocean Drill-ing Program (IODP). The scientific and organi-zational framework for IODP’s first decade isdescribed in its Initial Science Plan (ISP): Earth,Oceans and Life: Scientific Investigations ofthe Earth System Using Multiple Drilling Plat-forms and New Technology (see www.iodp.org). U.S. leadership in this program beginswith U.S. provision of a principal drilling ves-sel for the program, a continuous coring, non-riser drilling vessel, supported by multi-yearU.S. funding contributions to IODP’s annual,international operating costs. U.S. scientificachievement in the international IODP, alsodepends on strong national programs to sup-port the participation of U.S. scientists, build-ing on the successes of past support and ad-dressing newly identified needs defined bythe new era of scientific ocean drilling. Thisreport addresses scientific support needs forU.S. scientists for future scientific ocean drill-ing, identifying areas to continue and areas tomodify or improve, along with new types ofsupport needed.

1 We compiled information on NSF/MG&G awards from 1988-2002, inclusive, from the NSF Fastlane Database. There have been 1,711 grants to 589 unique principal investigators (PIs) in

that time interval, totaling $311M. Of the 589 unique NSF/MG&G recipients, 181 (or 31%) have been a member of an ODP scientific party at least once for Legs 100-201 inclusive (1985-

2002). NSF/MG&G awards to these PIs from 1988-2002 total $114M, although not necessarily on ODP-related science, representing 37% of total NSF/MG&G funding over that time

interval. A review of JOI/USSSP and ODP/TAMU databases identified 1,204 U.S. shipboard berths total, including U.S. ODP Staff Scientists and U.S. Borehole Research Group (BRG)

Logging Scientists, for Legs 100-201 inclusive. At the time of sailing, ~209 berths were identified as being filled by graduate students and ~92 by post-doctoral fellows or postdoctoral

research scientists, representing ~25% of total U.S. berths. There were 659 unique U.S. participants filling these berths for Legs 100-201, with the majority sailing only once. Comparison

of the NSF/MG&G and list of U.S. shipboard scientists indicated that ~27% of U.S. shipboard scientists (181/659) received NSF/MG&G funding in the 1988-2002 time interval. ODP/

TAMU records document 4,957 total sample requests from U.S. scientists from program inception through August 2002, from 1,101 individual scientists (i.e., some scientists had more

than one sample request during that interval).

2 In the Marine Geosciences Section of the Ocean Sciences Division at NSF, “Ocean Drilling Program” is the name of the NSF program that supports unsolicited proposals related to

scientific ocean drilling, primarily for investigations of potential drilling regions, especially by means of regional geological and geophysical field studies; the feasibility and initial

development of down hole instruments and techniques; and down hole geophysical and geochemical experiments. To distinguish this from the international Ocean Drilling Program

referred to as ODP, this will be identified as NSF/ODP. The statistics given in Footnote 1 do not include scientists uniquely supported by NSF/ODP. Many scientists contribute to site

characterization efforts related to scientific ocean drilling, but do not necessarily participate as shipboard scientists in drilling expeditions.

3 For example, for twenty recent ODP legs (Legs 175-194), the average USSSP post-cruise science award to individual PIs was $22,461, with a range of award size from $5,027 to $47,607.

This average excludes awards to multiple PIs submitting proposals with single, combined budgets.

4 The obligation of any U.S. scientist as an invited participant on an ODP cruise, in addition to fulfilling shipboard responsibilities to the scientific objectives of the cruise, is to use samples

or data from the leg s/he participated in to conduct post cruise research and to publish associated results in (a) a peer-reviewed scientific journal or book that publishes in English or

(b) the Scientific Results volume (data report or paper) by specified times after cruise completion. We anticipate similar obligations in IODP.

3Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

TABLE 1. USSSP YEAR 18: MARCH 1, 2002 TO FEBRUARY 28, 2003

Activity*

Scientist SupportIncludes travel to/from vessel, salary for expedition time, initial post-expedition science grantsfor science party members (shipboard participants and designated shore-based scientists)

Program AdministrationIncludes support for USSAC travel, USSAC Chair’s office, ODP Science Operator’s costs foradministering elements of scientist support, JOI office

Planning ActivitiesIncludes support for workshops, travel for U.S. participants in JOIDES Advisory Structure (ODP) andinterim Science Advisory Structure (iSAS) for IODP, JOIDES Panel Chair support

Educational and Outreach ActivitiesIncludes Schlanger Ocean Drilling Fellowship Program, JOI/USSAC Ocean Geoscience Distinguished

Lecturer Series, curriculum enrichment activities

Site Development ActivitiesIncludes site augmentation activities, data syntheses, and mini-workshops

ODP EnhancementsIncludes results symposia

* Special Engineering Development is a program element in the USSSP Program Plan, but there has been no funding in this item since the wireline reentry

system activity concluded in USSSP Year 14.

data sets that document core/sample, log-ging, and geophysical measurements as-sociated with specific sites, geographicregions, and thematic areas, along withother relevant measurements;

• Support efforts of U.S. scientists to de-velop regional, thematic, and other syn-theses of ODP and IODP data and results;

• Support and leverage efforts of U.S.scientists in publication, education, andoutreach; and

• Support participation and leadership ofU.S. scientists in national and internationalscientific ocean drilling advisory structures.

To help achieve these goals, USSSP providesa flexible funding mechanism that canrespond rapidly to evolving program needs(such as rapid staffing of multiple ex-peditions), to a variety of small and non-tra-ditional requests, while retaining a high levelof community involvement and review.

PROGRAMMATIC ANDORGANIZATIONAL CHANGESTHAT IMPACT U.S. SCIENTIST

PARTICIPATION IN IODP

IODP will deploy multiple drilling platforms.Operation modes, staffing needs, and the verynature of participation will vary among the riserdrilling vessel (the Japanese-funded vesselChikyu), the continuous coring, non-riser drill-ing vessel (the U.S.-funded vessel replacingthe JOIDES Resolution), and mission-specificplatforms (see Joint European Ocean DrillingInitiative [JEODI], www.jeodi.org). The U.S.programs must accommodate the increasedscope and complexity of the IODP and thegreater level and range of participation by U.S.scientists in field programs associated withthese multiple platforms. Preparing maturedrilling proposals for multiple platforms re-quires timely and adequate funding for re-gional site characterization studies. Oversightand management of U.S. participation in theIODP will be more complex and will requireadditional resources.

GOALS IN PROVIDING SUPPORTFOR U.S. PARTICIPATION

IN IODP

U.S. support for participation in IODP shouldengage the broadest possible range of U.S.scientists, enabling them to participate fullyand successfully in all aspects of theinternational program. We should continue toensure that all aspects of scientific oceandrilling science support foster high-quality,peer-reviewed science, producing comp-rehensive data sets that address scientificgoals and objectives of fundamentalimportance and providing a visible andcoherent scientific legacy. To that end, the totalU.S. program must accomplish the following:

• Support efforts of U.S. scientists to plan,initiate, and formulate drilling proposals,to participate across the full range of IODPactivities, and to meet their obligations asinternational IODP participants;

• Support efforts of U.S. scientists to pro-duce and contribute to comprehensive

Percent of TotalYr 18 Budget

($6.4 M)

65%

23%

8%

3%

<1%

<1%

4 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

ODP/IODP drilling proposals are receivingincreased levels of peer review by thescientific advisory structure and by ex-ternal evaluators.IODP, like ODP, is fundamentally a proposal-driven program, with drilling proposalsevaluated within the context of its overall sci-ence plan. Given the level of internationalpanel and external peer review of drilling pro-posals and the scope of the proposed sci-ence goals and objectives, approved drillingprograms are scientific/thematic programplans that have been given high priority bythe international ocean drilling community. Inthis context, U.S. funding agencies should rec-ognize the high-priority science objectives ofthese drilling programs and support highlyranked U.S. proposals that address the inter-national program’s scientific goals.

Multi-leg proposals from organized sci-entific groups/programs and complexdrilling programs (CDPs) are becomingmore common.U.S. scientists, as individuals and as groupsof proponents, must be able to competesuccessfully with other national anddisciplinary group drilling proposals. They willneed funds for site characterization anddevelopment to be successful in preparingmature drilling proposals for the internationalscience advisory structure. As larger and moreorganized programs emerge, such as ComplexDrilling Programs (CDPs), which anticipate theuse of multiple platforms and multiple legs,the U.S. must encourage broad, community-based participation in these long-term efforts

and active participation in all stages of pro-posal preparation.

U.S. partnership in IODP will likely be33%, versus >50% in ODP.The fully operational IODP will have an annual,international operating budget of approx-imately $160 M, three times that of ODP, withan estimated annual U.S. contribution to theinternational program operating costsestimated to be ~$50 M, primarily foroperation of the non-riser drilling vessel. Therelative proportion of U.S. participation inexpedition parties, as co-chief scientists, andin the advisory structure, will decrease in thetransition from ODP to IODP. The absolutenumber of U.S. participants, however, willlikely increase because of the opportunitiesafforded by the multiple platforms of IODP.This reduction in the proportion of U.S.participation of each science party will haveimplications for staffing of IODP projects(expeditions). For example, selection of U.S.participants should no longer be used to“balance” or “buffer” the disciplinary needsof scientific parties. U.S. scientific communityoversight and coordination of scientific staffingissues will be needed to insure the effectiveparticipation of U.S. scientists in IODP. The U.S.national committee may need to review U.S.participant applications and provide adviceto the international program on U.S. staffing.The ODP publication policy has changedsubstantially, with electronic publications andwith publication in the external literature forscientific results.

Assuming that similar policies will be adoptedby IODP, the goal is to have all scientists pub-lish their post-cruise science results in theopen literature, rather than in scientific resultsvolumes published by a program entity.Currently, the support associated with U.S.ODP scientist shipboard participation isinadequate, in most cases, to meet fully thelabor needs and analytical demands associ-ated with publication in leading national andinternational journals, the obligation incurredby the participant. If appropriate support isnot provided, scientists will likely meet theirobligations by publishing gray literature (e.g.,data reports in program-published journals),rather than scientific papers in respected jour-nals. Although publication of post-cruise datareports addresses the goal of ensuring com-plete and accessible data sets, it does notaddress the larger issue of scientific account-ability and visibility for U.S. participation.

Educational and outreach requirementsof the program will increase in IODP.Although USSSP has undertaken modest andtargeted educational efforts, these areas, inboth the national and international programsfor ODP, have not been developed as widelyas many view appropriate. These are expect-ed to be priority activities of the internationalprogram. Effective approaches will differ bynational context, and the U.S. support pro-grams need to address these in partnershipwith the international program and with othernational sources of support for education andoutreach.

NSF has created a new Marine Geo-sciences Section that unites the previ-ously separate Ocean Drilling Programand the Marine Geology and GeophysicsProgram as co-equal partners.This reorganization, with Bruce Malfait as therecently named section head, places NSF/ODPwithin a research section (rather than infacilities) and should establish a funding baseto support IODP-related science at levels moreappropriate to the science proposed.

TABLE 2. CUSP STEERING COMMITTEE

Member

Warren PrellCUSP Co-Chair (current USSAC Chair)

Margaret DelaneyCUSP Co-chair (former USSAC Chair)

Nathan BangsBob DuncanEarl DoyleTerry Quinn

Institution

Brown University

University of California, Santa Cruz

The University of Texas at AustinOregon State UniversityIndustry ConsultantUniversity of South Florida

5Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

NSF anticipates outsourcing of someparts of the U.S. program for scientistsupport in IODP.Entities similar to USSSP and USSAC will beintegral parts of the U.S. IODP support effort,complementing support programs housed atNSF Marine Geosciences. We anticipate thatNSF will fund these entities through an agree-ment with a management organization similarto JOI.

CUSP: CHARGE TO USSAC,WORKSHOP STRUCTURE,

AND REPORT PREPARATIONAND FORMAT

In response to these programmatic andorganizational changes, USSAC has beenconsidering the elements of support that willbe required at NSF and in a USSSP-successorprogram for U.S. participation in IODP. In adialog with NSF, we defined the charge forthis task as follows:

• Formulate the characteristics, elements,and tasks of the entire U.S. program re-quired to foster and sustain the full rangeof research and educational activitiesneeded for successful U.S. participationin IODP.

• Identify and describe the optimal struc-ture and resources for this program as wellas the key entities, their connections, andtheir respective sets of authority, respon-sibility, and accountability.

To carry out this charge and to augment theongoing USSAC discussions, we held an openinvitation, community-based workshop June11-14, 2002 in Washington, D.C. The steeringcommittee for this workshop consisted of thecurrent and incoming USSAC chairs and fourother members, including two scientificcommunity members who are not currentUSSAC members (Table 2). Workshopattendees provided a brief statement ofinterest with respect to U.S. support needsfor IODP participation. As backgroundmaterial, workshop attendees were providedwith copies of various documents or web links

to them. At the meeting, we also discussedthe timelines and transitions in drilling pro-grams and U.S. support programs from ODPto IODP (Table 3).

Workshop attendees were also provided witha CUSP Philosophy Statement document onSupport for U.S. Participation in IODP, that pro-vides much of the introductory content andoverall structure of this report. In particular, thisdocument posed a series of questions aboutU.S. support activities in various areas, askingfor responses indicating the relative priorityof each activity, whether the activity shouldbe managed at NSF or in a USSSP-successorprogram, defining the required level of reviewfor that activity, and asking how proactiveUSSAC should be in that activity.

The workshop opened with an eveningsession summarizing the background andgoals, with presentations from USSAC, NSF,and JOI. During the workshop, we dividedthe >60 participants (50 workshop attendees,15 liaisons/guests/observers) into four groupsfor focused discussions of U.S. support needsin these areas over the course of two days,with each discussion followed by plenarysessions reporting on the discussions in theindividual groups. In addition, a “seismicneeds breakout group” met in the evening ofthe first full day, reporting on the final day. Onthe final day, we also discussed the prelimi-nary overall outcomes of these discussionsand mechanisms to solicit broader commu-nity input on our recommendations. Out-comes from these discussion groups and ple-nary sessions were used to draft this report,which was discussed in preliminary form atthe July 2002 USSAC meeting and sub-sequently reviewed in complete draft form bythe CUSP Steering Committee members andby USSAC members during August 2002. Therevised version presented here has beencirculated to CUSP attendees and posted tothe web for community comment viaresponse to a questionnaire based on the re-port. The responses to the questionnaire havebeen summarized, and they are available atwww.joiscience.org/USSSP/iodp/cusp.html.

Drilling operations

end 9/30/03

Wind-up activities

continue through

2007 (U.S. NSF

Funding)

Program initiates

10/1/03

Mission-specific

platform drilling

may begin in 10/

03-9/04 time

window

Non-riser vessel

operation begins

~10/04-3/05 time

window

Riser vessel Chikyuin international

operation ~10/07

Budget decreases

in Yr 19, beginning

3/03, to reflect

shorter drilling

operation year*

Annual budgets

from 3/04 to

program end are

minimal, solely

close-out activities

Continues in

reduced form

through 2/06

Goal: 3/04 start,

spin-up activities

from ODP/USSSP

and initiate new

activities as

needed by

platform

operations

* Budget for Yr 19 will include planning, education, site development, scientist support and other activities.

TABLE 3. TIMELINES AND TRANSITIONS: ODP TO IODPU.S. Support Programs

ODP IODP NSF/ODP USSSP

Continues through-

out, focus of

activities will

evolve

Successor

Drilling Programs

USSSP

6 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

The CUSP workshop and this report dividedthe anticipated IODP activities into five broadcategories reflecting the cascade of activitiesassociated with proposing, planning, imple-menting, and publishing the field results andmost immediate scientific achievements of adrilling program. In each of these categories,we identify activities and issues that need tobe evaluated and prioritized in light of theircontribution to effective U.S. participation inIODP. In general, these activities should beapplicable to all IODP drilling platforms. Thecategories are:• Program Development and Pre-Platform

Activities,• Platform Participation Activities,• Post-Expedition Activities,• Publication of IODP Results, and• Education and Outreach Activities.

In the following, we identify a variety ofplanning, operational, and research activitiesand issues facing U.S. scientists and offer rec-ommendations to address the anticipatedneed in IODP. We use USSSP in the recom-mendations to mean the USSSP-successorprogram, USSAC to mean the successor toUSSAC, and NSF to mean the equivalent ofexisting NSF programs (e.g., NSF/ODP or NSF/MG&G). Where appropriate, we identify therelative priorities of these activities, the levelof review required, and the degree to whichthe U.S. national committee should be pro-active in addressing that activity/issue. Wecharacterize whether views at CUSP andamong USSAC members were relativelyunanimous on the recommendation or moremixed, and summarize the range of opinionson topics for which broad consensus wasnot reached.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CUSPRECOMMENDATIONS

USSSP has been a critical and successfulcomponent of U.S. participation in the ODP.USSSP has enabled and assisted U.S. scientistsin planning, implementing, and pursuing ODP-related research on a wide variety of topics.NSF/ODP has been critical, providing support

for site characterization efforts needed to for-mulate drilling proposals and to interpret theirresults. The NSF/MG&G community of scien-tists has greatly benefited from the supportavailable from USSSP and NSF/ODP. TheseCUSP/USSAC recommendations provide com-munity guidance on the issues/activities thatneed to be addressed in the USSSP-succes-sor program and recommend principles andpolicy to NSF Marine Geosciences for its con-tinued support of U.S. scientific ocean drill-ing. This report is not an implementation planthat seeks to define specific levels of activityand funding. Rather, it is a community state-ment on the need to support various activi-ties by U.S. scientists in the IODP and for flex-ibility to address the evolving and more com-plex activities in the IODP.

Mechanisms for providing IODP support:NSF and USSSPThe CUSP recommendations reflect twomechanisms for providing support to U.S.scientists in IODP: direct NSF support andindirect NSF support through USSSP. Fromnearly 20 years of experience, the U.S. scien-tific community has recognized the value andeffectiveness of this two-component systemto support U.S. participation in the interna-tional ODP. The first component is direct sup-port from NSF for certain activities, such asregional geophysical studies that are neces-sary to plan drilling campaigns, and large-scaleresources for post-drilling scientific research.The second component is indirect support,in the form of a focused and long-term sup-port program that is managed by an entityexternal to the NSF. Specifically, the U.S. Sci-ence Support Program (USSSP) affiliated withthe Ocean Drilling Program managed by JOI.through a cooperative agreement with the NSF.

Why should the NSF outsource a supportprogram to a corporation, such as JOI, Inc.?In brief, JOI/USSSP has a structure andgovernance that enables cohesive programmanagement in a rapid and flexible manner,yet remaining under the auspices of NSF andresponsive to community advice. A supportprogram for ODP and IODP must manage manyaspects of participation in a timely manner

relative to cruise participation, ranging fromtravel logistics, personnel support, planningactivities, educational activities, publication,and communication, to “back-office” activi-ties such as subcontracting, purchasing, finan-cial oversight, and audit compliance. Many ofthese activities are administrative and logisticalin nature and often require rapid responses.Additionally, many of these actions, on an in-dividual basis, involve small amounts of funds,often smaller than the standard NSF grant. Assuch, we think that JOI/USSSP support, ratherthan direct NSF support, is better suited tomanage these aspects of IODP. Also, JOI/USSSP works with flexible proposal deadlinesnecessitated by the ongoing nature of the re-search expeditions, can respond rapidly tofunding requests, both solicited and unsolic-ited, and is flexible in its response mecha-nisms. All these characteristics make JOI/USSSP an efficient, flexible and appropriatemechanism for supporting many of the op-erational aspects of U.S. participation in IODP.

Although much of the success of large-scaleinternational scientific research programs, likethe ODP and IODP, is based upon long-termplanning, equal importance should be givento the flexibility and agility with which asupport program is managed. As programplans evolve into operations, flexibility isneeded in order to take advantage of rapidlychanging conditions, altered staffing plans,and evolving opportunities. In this partnership,the support program activities managed byJOI complement the direct support managedby the NSF. We recommend continuation ofthis two-component system in the IODP. Thisprogram, which will likely be significantly morecomplex than ODP, given the multiple-platform approach, and will continue torequire a balance between long-term planningand support from the NSF, and rapid, flexibleresponse from a USSSP.

We offer a series of specific recommend-ations, summarized below, about the total U.S.support program for IODP, including thoseelements to be housed at NSF and those in aUSSSP-successor program. Some rec-ommendations reflect widespread, nearly

7Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

unanimous agreement and therefore reflectgroup consensus. Other recommendationsrepresent topics on which a much broaderrange of opinions were expressed, and therecommendations are not necessarily unani-mously supported. The discussion presentedin the text of the report with each recommen-dation therefore summarizes the range ofviews expressed as context.

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ANDPRE-PLATFORM ACTIVITIES

Activity/Issue: How should USSSP use work-shops to initiate and facilitate a range of intel-lectual activities related to scientific planning?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 1. USSSPshould increase its support of U.S. workshopsto help foster the planning required for inno-vative drilling-related themes and approaches.Workshops should enhance the scientific vi-tality of the IODP, help maintain the flow ofhigh-quality U.S. drilling proposals to the IODP,and encourage broad participation of the U.S.scientific community in all phases of scien-tific ocean drilling.

Workshops are viewed as a cost-effectivemechanism to address a number of planningissues in IODP. They can be used to definenew thematic areas and to fill out details inalready identified drilling objectives. They canserve as venues for initiating complex drillingcampaigns (see Recommendation 2). Thecomplexity of multiple drilling platforms andmultiple leg drilling programs will requiremore community coordination and interactionto fully exploit these opportunities. In thiscontext, workshops might be used asproposal planning groups. USSSP supportshould allow U.S. scientists to be assertive inproposing new topics and in planning drillingobjectives. In general, workshops should becommunity-based planning activities open tobroad U.S. national participation. They shouldbe open to international participation (withother sources of funding required for theinternational participants) and, in some cases,should be jointly funded by IODP. The flex-

ibility of USSSP and its ability to quickly re-spond to small proposals makes it an idealmechanism to fund workshops and to pro-mote broad participation by the U.S. scien-tific community.

Activity/Issue: The long-term nature and com-plexity of some IODP programs will requirenew approaches and new funding mecha-nisms to provide the continuous scientificplanning, technological development, andmonitoring of scientific progress.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 2. USSSPshould develop mechanisms for planning andmonitoring U.S. scientific community interestsin multi-year, multi-platform, and multi-legprograms. For example, this could includesupport for small teams of U.S. scientistsfocused on the scientific, technological, andengineering aspects of complex drillingprograms to promote community-based plan-ning activities.

The anticipation of large-scale or complexdrilling programs that will use multipleplatforms, multiple legs, and other activitiesover a number of years will require newmanagement tools for the planning, imple-mentation, monitoring, and evaluation of theseprograms. One possibility is the creation ofsmall, long-term planning/monitoring groupsto follow a program from its planning throughits implementation and publication. Suchgroups would not duplicate or replace IODPadvisory groups, but would provide a mecha-nism for U.S. interests to be developed andnurtured. Such a long-term commitment andthe level of effort likely involved will requiresome salary support and travel funds and ad-ministrative support for a small number (per-haps two to four) of U.S. principal investiga-tors. USSSP should be responsive to the U.S.community in identifying the programs that re-quire such support and in enabling severallong-term planning groups. Planning activitiesmay often need to be initiated well in advanceof anticipated drilling to develop proposalssufficiently mature to be highly ranked andscheduled by the IODP. USSSP’s efficient man-agement of such small-scale but long-term ef-

forts make it an appropriate support mecha-nism to support these planning and monitor-ing activities.

Activity/Issue: How should USSSP use work-shops to initiate and facilitate a range of intel-lectual activities related to IODP scientific as-sessment, synthesis and legacy development?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 3. USSSPshould increase its support of efforts to assessand synthesize drilling results by U.S. scien-tists, and to promote interaction with scien-tists from allied disciplines. This could includethematic symposia on drilling-related topicsthat produce peer-reviewed publications.

Documentation of the legacy of scientificocean drilling is key for assessing progress andaccountability, for defining the impact of sci-entific ocean drilling results on the broadergeosciences, and for defining new activities.Support should be made available for U.S.scientists to initiate and participate in activi-ties focused on synthesis and evaluation ofIODP results. These efforts should be open tothe broad U.S. scientific community, andshould include international collaborationwhenever possible (although other sources offunding will be required for international par-ticipants). Interaction with allied U.S. scientistsfrom affiliated disciplines will ensure that sci-entific results from ocean drilling can appro-priately impact multidisciplinary work, and thatmultidisciplinary approaches can be more ef-fectively melded into future program planning.The ability of USSSP to quickly review propos-als and to assist with the administrative andlogistical aspects makes it an ideal mechanismto support synthesis activities.

Activity/Issue: The requirements for site char-acterization, including syntheses and variouslevels of geophysical surveys, for multiple drill-ing platforms in IODP will be more compre-hensive and expensive overall.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 4. NSF/ODPshould continue to support regional geologi-cal and geophysical characterization and sur-

8 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

vey proposals for potential drilling regions. TheU.S. funding needs for regional site develop-ment and characterization are anticipated tobe greater in the multiple-platform IODP thanin the ODP. Early and appropriate support ofthese regional studies is critical to the prepa-ration of competitive drilling proposals.

Site characterization will need significant ad-ditional resources in NSF/ODP, USSSP, andIODP, and new approaches are needed es-pecially in support of geophysical site char-acterization for riser drilling. Although site-specific safety studies for identified drillingsites are an IODP responsibility, scientific char-acterization of potential drill sites is the re-sponsibility of individual national programs,and is a key component in bringing a drillingproposal to scientific maturity. The needs forscientific site characterization will besignificantly greater in IODP, given multipleplatforms operating in a broad range of envi-ronments that were previously inaccessible toscientific ocean drilling in ODP (e.g., deeppassive margins, Arctic Ocean, shallow epeiricseas, deep convergent margins). Full stand-alone regional surveys should be administeredby NSF/ODP, as in the current structure. Giventhe increase in site characterization effort re-quired, the U.S. community needs to betterlink initial, maturing, and mature scientific drill-ing proposals with site characterization effortsto adequately identify the scientific issues atproposed drilling sites and to best integratedrilling results with geophysical surveys. Timelyand appropriate support of these activities isnecessary to best define drilling targets andinterpret their scientific results. Given the sizeand long lead time of these ship-basedstudies, direct NSF support is the mostappropriate funding mechanism.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 5. USSSPshould continue to support small to moderatesize proposals from U.S. scientists for drill sitedevelopment efforts including those linked tomaturing drilling proposals and thereforerequiring relatively rapid response. USSSPfunding needs for these efforts are anticipatedto be larger in the IODP than in the ODP.

USSSP is viewed as an efficient mechanism tosupport small to moderate studies that aug-ment identification or characterization of spe-cific drilling targets. The cutoff for “small tomoderate” varied somewhat in discussion, butthese programs would have total budgetstypically <$100,000 and often <$50,000. Of-ten, these proposals will be responding tospecific questions from the science advisorystructure, especially with regard to site sur-vey/pollution prevention and safety require-ments. USSSP provides the flexibility to fundproposals with short timelines and thereforerequiring flexibility in submission deadlines.USSSP can also support small to moderateproposals by U.S. scientists that address spe-cial experiments related to ocean drilling (e.g.,tools, sampling, monitoring). The existingUSSSP categories for site augmentation efforts,distinct from the full-scale regional studiessupported by NSF/ODP, are viewed as appro-priate starting points for this USSSP activity inIODP. This aspect of the USSSP program needsto have flexibility and responsiveness, as theseproposals are often specific to particular chal-lenges of specific regions and sites and awider range of U.S. activities related to IODPmay require support. The U.S. needs in thiscategory, as in the regional site characteriza-tion efforts funded by NSF/ODP, are antici-pated to be larger in the IODP.

Activity/Issue: What role should USSSP playin the development of new technology andin the application/modification of existingtechnology in support of IODP drilling objec-tives, regardless of platform?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 6. USSSPshould support small conceptual or “seed”money proposals from U.S. investigators todevelop or adapt new technology forscientific ocean drilling. USSAC should workwith IODP advisory panels to identifytechnology needs in the service of drillingobjectives where U.S. support could beappropriately focused. The NSF MarineGeosciences Section should be a source offunding for major technology developmentrelated to scientific ocean drilling.

USSSP is not viewed as the prime resourcefor technology development issues in theIODP. Recognizing that technology develop-ment for IODP is not solely a national issue,USSSP can provide “seed” money to initiatenew technological developments by U.S. sci-entists for IODP. Major technology develop-ment proposals are more appropriate for theNSF Marine Geosciences Section or IODP.

Activity/Issue: The complexity of planningand implementing the IODP (multiple plat-forms, multiple operators, and U.S. participa-tion ~one-third of total) will require greatercoordination between the U.S. drilling com-munity and the IODP planning, advisory, andmanagement structures.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 7. TheUSSAC-successor should operate as the U.S.national committee for ocean drilling-relatedactivities (National Committee for Ocean Drill-ing, NCOD). NCOD activities should includecoordination of scientific staffing nominationsfor drilling legs and science advisory panels,mentoring U.S. drilling proposals, and initiat-ing opportunities for U.S. scientists to partici-pate in IODP.

Given the more complex IODP, the increasedtotal, but lower relative, participation of U.S.scientists, and the expanded education andoutreach activities, the USSAC-successor(NCOD) will need to take a more active partin the initiation, support, and oversight of U.S.participation in the IODP. NCOD will need tofoster communications between U.S.members of international advisory panels andthe U.S. national committee. NCOD will needto be more active in tracking and mentoringU.S. proposals within the advisory structure.Many CUSP participants thought the NCODshould have a strong role in coordinating andprioritizing the U.S. nominations for scientificstaffing for drilling expeditions, but somethought that the NCOD should have no suchrole and that the platform operators and co-chief scientists should be free to choose anyU.S. scientist applicants as expedition mem-bers. The final science party selections willalways lie with the platform operators, but the

9Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

U.S. should put forward the strongest andmost appropriate slate of U.S. scientists foreach expedition. CUSP participants favoringa role by the NCOD in U.S. scientific staffingalso noted that increased resources at the JOI-successor would be necessary to helpmanage this process

Activity/Issue: How should USSSP supportthe participation of U.S. scientists in nationaland international advisory structures relatedto the IODP, including as chairs of panels andcommittees?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 8. USSSPshould compensate U.S. scientists chairing ad-visory panels and committees through appro-priate salary or honorariums, and should pro-vide appropriate administrative support fundsto chairs.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 9. USSSPshould support the travel needs for U.S.scientists to participate in meetings of thenational and international science advisorystructures for IODP.

As the planning, advising, and monitoring ofIODP activities becomes more complex andtime consuming, U.S. scientists are beingasked to volunteer substantial amounts of timeas panel chairs and as participants of standingand ad hoc national and internationalcommittees. In many cases, the amount of timecauses hardships for both hard and softmoney scientists. In some cases, appropriateindividuals decline to serve as chairs becauseof the significant uncompensated timecommitment. The issue of compensation forpanel/committee chairs was raised at the CUSPworkshop by a number of participants whonoted the increasing time commitment ofaccepting a national or international leadershiprole in IODP. In the interest of having the bestand most appropriate U.S. scientists serve aschairs in the national and international advi-sory structures, some salary support or hono-rarium was thought critical by many partici-pants. Administrative support funds will al-low chairs to accomplish required tasks andresponsibilities (e.g., preparing meeting min-

utes, communicating with members and otherbodies, photocopying, mailing, etc.) Thetravel should be funded for U.S. scientiststo participate in national and international ad-visory bodies affiliated with IODP. USSSP’s ef-ficient management of small projects and itslogistical support make it the appropriate sup-port mechanism for these advisory activities.

PLATFORM PARTICIPATIONACTIVITIES

Activity/Issue: In IODP, which will have mul-tiple platforms and drilling scenarios, what willconstitute participation in the science party?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 10. Platformparticipation in IODP should be defined ason-site (platform or onshore) activities byscientists for the initial documentation ofcores, samples, and boreholes resulting incontributions to an Initial Reports-like volume.The definition of participation must be flex-ible to account for the different times, extents,and nature of activities conducted on differ-ent IODP platforms.

Staffing models for riser drilling campaigns andmission-specific platform expeditions areunclear relative to the more familiar continuouscoring, non-riser vessel expeditions of ODP.The operational definition of participation inthe scientific party will need to be flexible sothat the U.S. support program can adapt tothe different drilling modes. However, theconcept of participation in the scientific partymust imply significant shipboard or equivalentshore-based activity that results in acontribution to the initial documentation andreport of the expedition. For purposes ofparticipation-based support, these activitieswould be distinguished from shore-basedparty members who merely work on post-expedition samples. The intent is to define arange of participation that reflects expeditionand post-expedition responsibilities. Thesedefinitions of participation are similar to re-cent interim Scientific Measurements Panel(iSCiMP) resolutions which considered theShipboard Party to be “All scientists selected

by IODP to produce initial, openly shared dataassociated with the project.” The AuxiliaryParty was considered to be “All other scien-tists selected by IODP that receive samples ordata within the moratorium period.”

Activity/Issue: What level of USSSP salary sup-port should U.S. scientific party members re-ceive for expedition participation?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 11. USSSPsalary support for U.S. scientific party mem-bers in IODP drilling expeditions should re-flect their platform-related responsibilities andtime commitments to the expeditions. Greaterpre- and post-expedition responsibilitiesshould be reflected in greater salary supportand a range of salary support may exist withina scientific party. As a general rule, the mini-mum support package for a U.S. scientificparty member should reflect time on the drill-ing platform (including travel to and from theplatform) plus an increment to meet pre- andpost-expedition responsibilities related tocharacterization and description of drillingresults for an Initial Results-type volume.

Definitions of appropriate salary support for aU.S. scientist participating in an IODP drillingexpedition varied significantly. Consensus wasclearly reached that salary support for timespent on the drilling platforms (or in equivalentdrilling-related expedition activities formission-specific platforms with limited on-platform capabilities) was required, includingfor time traveling to/from platforms. U.S.scientific party members may also spend timein pre-expedition activities (e.g., training forshipboard responsibilities) and in post-expedition activities (e.g., archiving data,refining composite sections, editing of InitialResults-type volumes, sampling parties) thatare directly related to their shipboardresponsibilities and to fully characterizing anddocumenting the materials recovered. Awider range of opinion was expressed abouthow much salary support, in addition to ex-pedition time, was required for this compo-nent. Models include support for time-on-platform plus 50% (e.g., a total of 3 monthsfor a two-month expedition) to time-on-plat-

10 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

lated plans and activities. USSSP is not the ap-propriate source for funding data collectionand long-term maintenance of these seafloorfacilities. Several participants suggested thatJOI might propose an USSSP-like structure thatcould efficiently manage both short-term andlong-term support for seafloor observatoriesand facilities. USSAC encourages JOI todevelop a proposal for a program for themanagement of seafloor observatories thatcould be submitted to the NSF or otherappropriate agencies. The establishment andoperation of seafloor observatories will entailsignificant equipment, implementation andoperational funds that will generally have longlead times. Direct NSF funding for these largerprojects with some coordination by USSSP isthought to be the appropriate balance ofsupport activities.

POST-EXPEDITION ACTIVITIES

Activity/Issue: The level of post-expeditionscience support is considered inadequate tocomplete the obligation of a peer-reviewedpublication or to accomplish the scienceobjectives of the program. Further, the similarsize of many post-expedition awards and highfunding rate are perceived to be at odds withextensive peer review of these post-expedition proposals.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 14. USSSPshould develop a tiered system for postexpedition science support for U.S. scientists,with the goal of providing appropriate,adequate, and timely funding to promotehigh-quality research related to expeditionobjectives. Flexibility in how funding isallocated is needed in all tiers of USSSPsupport.

The issue of post-expedition science supportis probably the most contentious and widelydebated topic, and recommendations 14 and15 both deal with this issue. Almost all scien-tists indicate that the level of participation-based support currently available is not ad-equate to bring the science to the level of apeer-reviewed contribution, the obligation

form plus 100% (e.g., a total of four months).Flexibility will be required in these definitionsto accommodate the different expeditiondefinitions for different drilling platforms. Forexample, for mission-specific platform drill-ing, some were recommendations to definea minimum time increment (e.g., two weeks)for these programs even if drilling time is onlya few days.

The wider range of opinion on this issue par-tially reflected perceptions that current mod-els of support for U.S. scientists were, at leastat times, inadequate to meet expedition ob-ligations. This issue also had interplay withdiscussions about the funding of scientificresearch carried out after the expedition tomeet the obligations of participation (seeRecommendation 14). Clearly, USSSP needsto integrate the issues of participation-basedsalary support and the salary support availablefrom post-expedition science grants. Thisrecommendation, however, deals exclusivelywith support for expedition participation. Ingeneral, participants wanted the level of sal-ary support to reflect the actual time commit-ments and responsibilities of the scientificparty participants for expedition participation,with the recognition that these may varyamong scientific party members in IODP andacross different IODP platforms. A number ofparticipants noted that the current salary lev-els for expeditions may not be enough foruniversity academics to “buy out” teachingtime for one term and thus limit their expedi-tion participation to summers or sabbaticals.We anticipate that 60 to 100 U.S. scientists willparticipate in IODP each year and that theirroles will be diverse and that many will beselected on relatively short time scales. Hence,the USSSP mechanism is very appropriate forthe logistics and support for this critical ele-ment of U.S. participation.

Activity/Issue: What level of USSSP salary sup-port should U.S. co-chief scientists receive forexpedition participation?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 12. USSSPsalary support for expedition participation forU.S. co-chief scientists should reflect the level

of effort and responsibilities for the planning,implementation, research coordination, andsynthesis and publication of IODP expeditionresults over the multi-year time span of com-mitment to the expedition.

A number of past ODP co-chief scientistsindicated that the co-chief responsibilitieswere long-term and the current salary supportmodel did not reflect the effort required toplan the drilling legs, edit the Initial Resultsvolume, coordinate and edit the ScientificResults volume, and complete the requiredand desired synthesis papers. Although someparticipants felt no increase was needed overthe present funding level (i.e., time on plat-form +200%, typically six months of supportfor a two-month non-riser leg), some thoughtthat increased support was appropriate. Somenoted that soft-money participants were at adisadvantage because they spent so muchunfunded time on the pre- and post-expedition activities. IODP may have a longerpre-cruise planning cycle, with an earliercommitment by the co-chief scientists. Somesuggested phased salary support over severalyears would address the long-termcommitment by co-chief scientists.

Activity/Issue: What role should USSSP playin the long-term support, routine maintenanceand data collection from seafloor observato-ries that are associated with scientific drilling?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 13. USSSPshould support small proposals from U.S.scientists to coordinate appropriate seafloorobservatories with IODP drilling plans.Implementation and long-term operationaland maintenance support for these facilitiesshould come from NSF or other agencies.

Seafloor observatories are recognized as animportant new initiative in ocean and earthsciences. The planning and implementationof these observatories may involve ocean drill-ing and face many of the same needs for rapidresponses and flexible timelines as site aug-mentation activities. In this context, USSSPshould consider small proposals to coordi-nate seafloor observatories with drilling-re-

11Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

incurred to the international program by a U.S.participant, or to address the scientific ob-jectives of each cruise in a timely manner. Theyalso note a significant time delay (usually a yearor more after the expedition) before funds canbe obtained through the normal NSF proposalroute. The financial resources are required ina timely manner to meet the scientific expec-tations of competitive, peer-reviewed, high-quality science. The losses to U.S. science asa consequence include reduced number/quality of peer-reviewed articles published ina timely fashion on scientific ocean drillingresults and a limited ability to synthesize andintegrate drilling-related results. In addition,insufficiently funded research must then besubsidized by other, unrelated programs. Thisis in stark contrast to some non-U.S. scientistswho arrive at the drilling platform with researchfunds in hand, and are thus in stronger nego-tiating positions when sample allocation dis-cussions occur on drilling platforms.

To address the problems of level and timingof post expedition support, almost all CUSPparticipants suggested some variation of amulti-tiered support system. The first tier ofpost-expedition support would be fundingavailable to essentially all expeditionparticipants submitting reasonable proposals.The next tier or tiers would have larger awards,based on proposals from U.S. scientistseligible to receive samples or data in expe-dition moratoria intervals, and would requiresignificantly greater review. Consensus wasclear that adequate, appropriate, and timelypost-cruise research support was needed toallow U.S. IODP science to flourish. However,a considerable range of opinions was ex-pressed about what should constitute the dif-ferent tiers and the distinction between USSSPand NSF funding, although both types of fund-ing are clearly required. The discussion of thelevel of post-expedition support was oftenmixed with discussion of the level of salarysupport for participants discussed in Recom-mendation 11, although we have attemptedto separate them clearly here. Discussions as-sumed that IODP expedition participantswould incur post-cruise research obligationssimilar to those in ODP, and that there would

be moratoria in which only expedition par-ticipants would be eligible to receive IODPdata/samples. Definitions of these protectedtime windows will be more complex for thefull range of IODP drilling platforms.

The first tier of USSSP research supportreceived relatively unanimous endorsement.This was defined as participation-based re-search support to allow U.S. scientists to meettheir post-cruise research obligations to theexpedition. The possible definitions of obli-gation ranged from a data report to a fullypeer-reviewed journal contribution. Sugges-tions for the average size of these awardsranged from $20K to $40K, with most partici-pants wanting a more competitive processthat resulted in a wider range of award sizeswithin a scientific party and from expeditionto expedition. Opinions on the review pro-cess for these post-expedition participationUSSSP awards ranged from essentially inter-nal review (JOI program manager, U.S. co-chief scientist or other lead U.S. scientist, andUSSAC) to full peer review of the package ofproposals or of individual proposals. Thoseparticipants suggesting internal review onlymostly considered this level of funding as partof the expedition package that is intended tomeet the obligations incurred by participation,and noted that the drilling program and itsobjectives had already undergone extensiveexternal review. In addition, some tied this tomore extensive national screening and reviewof expedition applicants by the NCOD. Manyparticipants preferred larger post-expeditionresearch awards than at present, noting thatcurrent typical awards of $22K are not ad-equate in all fields to produce a peer-re-viewed paper. All agreed that there shouldbe as few restrictions as possible on howfunds can be budgeted. USSSP is the bestmechanism for this support due to its abilityto rapidly respond to proposals once the ex-pedition is complete and the relatively smallamount of individual funds (below the aver-age NSF/MG&G grant).

The proposal for a second tier of USSSP post-expedition support was more controversial.This tier seeks to provide larger amounts of

funding on a timely basis for a more limitednumber of U.S. scientists who are activelypursuing the scientific objectives of the ex-pedition on a sustained basis. Many partici-pants suggested that these proposals wouldreceive full peer review, much like NSF pro-posals, with more competition for these funds,with perhaps only one to three of these pro-posals funded per expedition. These wouldcompete for USSSP funds that were dedicatedto the objectives of IODP, and this fundingwould be timelier relative to expedition par-ticipation than possible for NSF funding. In thiscontext, some participants suggested thatUSSSP should allocate different amounts ofpost-expedition research funds depending onthe complexity and level of U.S. participation.Definition of the size of these second tier pro-posals ranged, with some participants think-ing that any proposal larger than $50K shouldbe handled at NSF, and others anticipating aUSSSP “Tier Two” award size range up to$100K.

An alternative solution to larger post-expedition research funding in USSSP Tier Twois to request that the NSF Marine GeosciencesSection adopt a rolling submission basis andmore timely review for post-expedition oreven pre-expedition proposals. This wouldhelp address the problem of receiving fundsfor post-expedition research in a timelymanner relative to drilling. This suggestionanticipates NSF Marine Geosciences funds thatare broadly allocated to the scienceobjectives of IODP expeditions and that areavailable for competition immediately aftereach expedition. This concept is still Tier Twofunding on a timely basis and is separate fromthe more general objective-based IODPresearch discussed in Recommendation 15.

Activity/Issue: Many U.S. scientists perceivethat ODP/IODP-related proposals submittedto NSF/MG&G do not receive a balanced re-view that takes into account the degree of re-view and prioritization inherent in the JOIDESreview of the science, at least in some areasof the field. Also, the perception that NSF/MG&G funds are biased toward “hot” topicsis thought to decrease the funds available for

12 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

many ODP/IODP-based proposals. Finally, asignificant increase in funds is needed to ac-commodate the increase in proposals relatedto the expansion of U.S. scientific interests inthe IODP.

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 15. Signifi-cant post-expedition science support for U.S.scientists beyond the tiered USSSP structureshould be funded by NSF, primarily throughthe Marine Geosciences Section. The budgetanticipated for IODP-related science shouldbe significantly increased to adequately andappropriately fund the expanded levels ofparticipation, the wider scope of science, theincreased analytical demands, and the morecomplex science programs planned for IODP.

As program-based proposals have broadergoals and higher funding needs, the U.S. IODPfunding structure needs to insure that highlyranked science is being adequately andappropriately funded across the broadestsweep of disciplines. With the expansion inthe scope of IODP and multiple drillingplatforms, the funding levels need todrastically increase if U.S. scientists are to fullyparticipate in the science of IODP, rather injust the drilling expeditions. Proposals forprogram-based research should be directlyfunded through the NSF Marine GeosciencesSection. As proposal objectives and fundinglevels increase, the U.S. IODP communityrecognizes the need for competitiveproposals with full peer review andcommunity involvement. In this context,proposals that reflect the science objectivesof successful ODP/IODP reviewed drillingproposals should be considered as part of acommunity accepted program plan (similarto RIDGE or MARGINS program plans). Severalparticipants suggested a scientific oceandrilling related panel to provide aknowledgeable resource for advice to NSF onscientific ocean drilling related proposals.

PUBLICATION OF IODP RESULTS

Activity/Issue: What publication mode for theInitial Reports and Scientific Results volumesare most useful to researchers, students, andlegacy issues?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 16. The Ini-tial Reports volume is highly valued by the U.S.scientific community, and IODP Initial Reportsshould be published electronically and in tra-ditional print media. The Scientific Resultsvolumes should be electronic compilationsof all papers published on a particular expe-dition, including those published in the ex-ternal literature.

Publication policy is probably the secondmost debated issue in ODP/IODP. Many sci-entists thought that publication of both tradi-tional print form and electronic versions of theInitial Reports volumes would be beneficialto many activities in both research and teach-ing. Suggestions were made for an electronicIODP journal that would publish all IODP-re-lated papers or a virtual Scientific Results vol-ume that would collect or link to all publishedIODP-related papers and data reports.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACHACTIVITIES

Activity/Issue: What role should USSAC/USSSP play in developing and producing edu-cational materials for K-12, undergraduate, andgeneral outreach audiences?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 17. USSAC/USSSP should increase its efforts to initiate andfoster educational activities and shouldpartner with educational agencies andresearchers to conduct the detaileddevelopment and production of educationalmaterials.

Many CUSP participants think the current levelof USSSP activity in the fields of education andoutreach is inadequate and should be in-creased in the new IODP. However, partici-

pants also indicated that education activitiesshould occur via partnerships with appropri-ate educational researchers and agencies toleverage the small “seed” money grants theUSSSP could provide. CUSP strongly sup-ported USSAC’s role in identifying educationalopportunities and initiating educational ma-terials based on the ODP/IODP operations andresults. Several discussion groups noted thatone or more specialists in education/outreachwould be needed at the JOI-successor todevelop contacts with educational research-ers and agencies, generate educational andoutreach products based on IODP results, andseek funding for educational efforts. Addi-tional suggestions were that USSAC shouldhave a standing committee on education, andthat a workshop on ODP/IODP-related edu-cation and outreach should be supported byUSSSP.

Activity/Issue: What should be the level ofSchlanger fellowships for ODP/IODP graduatestudent support in IODP?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 18. USSSPshould continue support for the Schlangerfellowships during the ODP/IODP transitionand should, in the IODP, at least double thenumber of fellowships currently awarded byUSSSP for the ODP.

CUSP discussions strongly supported theSchlanger Fellowships as a successful andcost-effective outreach and development ofthe next generation of IODP researchers.Suggestions were made to both increase thenumber of fellows each year and to lengthenthe tenure to two years. Some participants feltthat the fellowship program should bemodeled after the NSF or NASA fellowshipprograms and that both external review andUSSAC review were needed. Otherparticipants asked that the goals andobjectives of the fellowship program beclarified for the community. Is it to recognizeexcellent ODP/IODP-related science, to recruitnew ODP/IODP researchers, or as generalscientific ocean drilling outreach?

13Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

Activity/Issue: What should be the level ofeffort in the USSSP-funded U.S. DistinguishedLecturer Series in the IODP?

CUSP/USSAC Recommendation 19. USSSPshould continue support for the U.S.Distinguished Lecturer Series during the ODP/IODP transition and in the IODP.

CUSP participants thought that the U.S. Dis-tinguished Lecturer program was a cost-effec-tive mechanism for getting the ODP/IODPmessage out to parts of the broader academiccommunity. Participants also felt that this pro-gram was important during the transition be-tween ODP and IODP, regardless of whethernew drilling platforms are yet in operation, sothat the levels of interest in the new programwould not lag behind the needs of IODP.

CUSP QUESTIONNAIRE

A 26-question survey was developed from theCUSP report and the recommendationstherein. The survey first solicits demographicinformation, and then seeks opinions on theCUSP report and recommendations. The finalquestion solicited text responses (versus mul-tiple choice) regarding any other pertinentcomments about ODP, USSSP, or the CUSPdocument. The questionnaire was distributedelectronically in the following manner.

1. On October 11 and 21, email messageswere sent from JOI, on behalf of the CUSP co-chairs, to two large groups of people. The firstincludes scientists intimately involved with theODP and USSSP, such as: (a) U.S. members ofJOIDES and iSAS panels, committees, andgroups; (b) USSAC members; (c) participantsin the CUSP workshop; and (d) members andalternates of the JOI Board of Governors. Thesecond includes over 1600 individuals on theJOI/ODP electronic listserver, most of whomare located in the U.S.

2. The listserver messages directed the recipi-ents to a JOI web site (www.joiscience.org/USSSP/iodp/cusp.html) that contained the

CUSP report, background materials, and a briefdescription of the CUSP initiative. The JOI website directed respondents toward the onlinesurvey, which was hosted on a website man-aged by SurveyLogix. This survey was active,or “live,” in the sense that respondents couldanswer questions, and data were collected,for a three-week period ending October 31.

3. The survey was also announced directly onthe JOI website (www.joiscience.org).

Demographic profile of respondentsThe first seven questions in the survey focusedon demographic information. The survey in-dicated that over 95% of the 149 respondentswere affiliated with a U.S.-based organization.Most (80%) were very familiar with the ODPand, in each of the following cases, over 50%of the respondents had: (a) used ODPsamples and/or data; (b) been a proponenton a JOIDES drilling proposal; (c) served ona JOIDES advisory panel; and (d) been amember of an ODP scientific party. With re-gard to shipboard experience, the respon-dents showed a wide range, spanning from32% with no prior experience, to 33% havingsailed more than twice. The remaining thirdhad sailed once or twice. Regarding experi-ence with USSSP, in each of the followingcases, over 50% of the respondents: (a) areincluded on the JOI/ODP electronic listserver;(b) had used a USSSP educational product(e.g., CD-ROM); (c) are included on the JOI/USSAC Newsletter mailing list; (d) have par-ticipated in a USSSP-sponsored planningworkshop; and (e) attended a talk given by aJOI/USSAC Distinguished Lecturer. In short,survey respondents are scientists closely af-filiated with the ODP and USSSP. Neverthe-less, based on text comments, a few respon-dents were not familiar with the ODP and arenot professionally associated with marinegeology and geophysics.

Opinions expressed on the CUSP reportThe survey next presented the 19 CUSP rec-ommendations and provided respondentsfive choices (Agree Strongly, Agree, NeitherAgree nor Disagree, Disagree, and Disagree

Strongly) to express their opinion. The surveyresults reveal strong support for each of theCUSP recommendations. The percentage ofrespondents that “agree” and “agree strongly”with each recommendation ranges from 71%to 97%; in other words, the U.S. ocean-drill-ing community strongly supports the CUSPrecommendations. Details are available atwww.joiscience.org/USSSP/iodp/cusp.html.

The 26 text responses provide a revealingcross-section of supplemental opinion. Thesecomments are provided, unedited (except foranonymity) and unabridged, at www.joi-science.org/USSSP/iodp/cusp.html. Some ar-gue for greater resources, others for the sameamount as is currently available. Some of therespondents expressed a view or mentality ofabundance, in that they perceive that greaterresources for IODP will not come at the ex-pense of other activities in the NSF OceanSciences Division. Others were less sanguine;believing that expansion of one scientific en-deavor requires contraction in another. Othercomments were contributed on the topics of:(a) the scope of responsibilities for the newU.S. National Committee; (b) publications(e.g., electronic vs. paper); (c) educational ac-tivities; and, among others (d) the two-tieredsystem of post-cruise funding.

SUMMARY

The sum of these recommendations and theresponse to the questionnaire conveys thesense of the U.S. ocean drilling community onthe importance of various participation issuesand support activities to the full participationof U.S. scientists in the IODP. Theserecommendations are intended to serve as thebasis for more specific program plans, for thestructure of the USSSP-successor program,and for implementation plans that will definethe specific levels of effort and support forthe various activities.

14 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

A N N O U N A N N O U N Interplay of Collisional Tectonics

and Late Cenozoic Glacial Climatein Alaska and the Northeastern

Pacific Ocean

A Workshop Sponsored by:OI/USSSP and Continental Dynamics/NSF

April/May, 2003Date TBDAustin, TX

Purpose:To develop a science plan to study the links between tecton-ics, orogenic processes, glacial landscape modification, andcontinental margin sedimentation in southeast Alaska and thenortheastern Pacific Ocean. The workshop will focus on theinterplay of late Neogene collisional tectonics and climate inthe Gulf of Alaska’s mini-orogen. Here sediment transport fromthe nearly closed mountain range to the ocean allows for tec-tonic, climatic, geodynamic, and surficial processes to be stud-ied in a natural setting nearly devoid of human impact.

Goal:A comprehensive terrestrial and marine science plan to fostersynergistic collaboration between the continental dynamics andocean drilling communities in this exciting natural laboratory .

Participation:Scientists representing the fields of tectonics and geodynamicmodeling, terrestrial and marine observational geophysics, GPS-based geodesy, glaciology, marine geology and glaciomarinesedimentation, micropaleontology, palynology, paleomag-netics, paleoclimatology and paleoceanography are encour-aged to apply.

To apply, contact John Jaeger, University of Florida(jaeger@geology.ufl.edu) or Sean Gulick, University of Texas,Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences(sean@ig.utexas.edu). Greatest consideration will be given tothose who express interest before March 1, 2003

Limited JOI/USSSP support is available toU.S. participants.

OCEAN GEOSCIENCE LECTURES

2003-2004 LecturersRuth Blake, Yale University

Steve Clemens, Brown UniversityFred Frey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mitch Lyle, Boise State UniversityJulia Morgan, Rice University

Paul Wallace, University of Oregon

The JOI/USSAC Distinguished Lecturer Series brings the resultsof ODP research to students at the undergraduate and gradu-ate levels, and to the earth science community in general. JOI/USSSP is pleased to announce its list of lecturers for the 2003-2004 season. JOI will soon begin accepting applications fromU.S. colleges, universities, and nonprofit organizations to hosttalks given by the speakers listed below in the upcoming the2003-04 season. The lecture topics and applications are avail-able online at www.joiscience.org/USSSP/DLS/DLS.htm or fromJOI (For more information contact Margo Cortes, phone: 202-232-3900 x224, email: mcortes@joiscience.org). Applicationdeadline: April 4, 2003.

OCEAN GEOSCIENCE LECTURES

JOI WELCOMES TWO NEW CORPORATE MEMBERS:

THE JOINT OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTIONS:

JOI WELCOMES TWO NEW CORPORATE MEMBERS:University of South Florida (September 2002)The Pennsylvania State University (September 2002)

THE JOINT OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTIONS:Florida State University (2001)

Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (1976)

Oregon State University, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (1976)

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Institute of Marine and Coastal Studies (1998)

Stanford University (2001)

Texas A&M University, College of Geosciences (1976)

University of California, Santa Cruz (1999)

University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1976)

University of Florida (1999)

University of Hawaii, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (1976)

University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (1976)

University of Michigan, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (1999)

University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography (1976)

University of Texas, Institute for Geophysics (1980)

University of Washington, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences (1976)

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (1976)

15Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

C E M E N T SC E M E N T SWANTED:IODP Science Proposals

The Integrated Ocean Drilling Programneeds you!

Pre-proposals are encouraged.

For details, visit:www.isas-office.jpwww.isas-office.jpwww.isas-office.jpwww.isas-office.jpwww.isas-office.jp

Next deadline: April 1, 2003

JOI/USSAC is seeking outstanding graduatestudents to conduct research compatible with

ODP. Research may be directed toward theobjectives of a specific leg or to broader themes.The award is up to $23k per year to be used for

stipend, tuition, benefits, research costs, andincidental travel.

Next fellowship application deadlines:April 15, 2003

November 15, 2003For information: www.joiscience.org/USSSP/

fellowship/fellowship.html

SCHLANGER OCEANDRILLING FELLOWSHIP

U.S. SHIPBOARD SCIENCE PARTICIPANTS

Leg 203: Eq. Pac. ION SiteU.S. Co-Chief: John Orcutt, Scripps InstTAMU Staff Scientist: Thomas DaviesRichard Carlson, Texas A&M UnivRalph Moberly, Univ of Hawaii, ManoaXixi Zhao, Univ of CA, Santa Cruz

Leg 204: N.E. Pacific Gas HydratesU.S. Co-Chief: Anne M. Tréhu, Oregon State UnivStaff Scientist: Frank R. Rack, JOILDEO Logging Staff Scientist: David S. GoldbergLDEO Logging Staff Scientist: Gilles GuèrinNathan Bangs, Univ of TX, AustinWalter Borowski, Eastern Kentucky UnivGeorge Claypool, ConsultantTimothy Collett, USGS, DenverMark Delwiche, INEELGerald Dickens, Rice UnivJoel Johnson, Oregon State UnivPhilip Long, PNNL, Battelle FoundationAlexei Milkov, Texas A&M UnivMelanie Holland, Univ of ArizonaMarta Torres, Oregon State UnivJill Weinberger, Scripps

Leg 205: Costa Rica MarginsU.S. Co-Chief: Julie Morris, Washington UnivTAMU Staff Scientist: Adam KlausDawn Cardace, Washington UnivPeter Clift, WHOIMiriam Kastner, Scripps InstDemian Saffer, Univ of WyomingCara Santelli, WHOIElizabeth Screaton, Univ of FloridaEvan Solomon, Scripps Inst

Leg 206: Fast Spreading CrustU.S. Co-Chief: Douglas Wilson, UC, Santa BarbaraTAMU Staff Scientist: Gary ActonJeffrey Alt, Univ of MichiganKari Cooper, CA Institute of TechShijun Jiang, Florida State UnivMarcie Jo Kerneklian, Univ of UtahThorvaldur Thordarson, Univ of Hawaii, ManoaChrista Ziegler, Boston Univ

16 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

DRILL BITS

THE SKINNY ON ODP

RIDGE 2000Ridge 2000 is a new research initiative spon-sored by NSF to understand Earth’s spread-ing ridge system, from its inception in themantle to its manifestations in the biosphereand water column. Although its overall goalshave been defined, there are exciting oppor-tunities for investigators to plan program de-tails during Ridge 2000’s anticipated 12-yearrun. The Science Plan aims for a comprehen-sive understanding of the relationships be-tween the geological processes of platespreading and the seafloor/subsurface ecosys-tems that mid-ocean ridges support. A whole-system approach encompassing a range ofdisciplines and techniques will be used.

There are many potential links between Ridge2000 and the Ocean Drilling Program. For ex-ample, drilling may be the only way to ex-plore the subsurface biosphere in the spread-ing center environment. These links provideexcellent opportunities for the ODP and Ridge2000 communities to merge their efforts to-ward understanding ridge processes.

To join the Ridge 2000 mailing list, call theRidge office at 814-865-RIDG or visit thewebsite at: www.ridge2000.bio.psu.edu/

WORKSHOP FUNDS IN ACTIONJOI/USSSP funds will support a planning work-shop on drilling Indian Ocean fan systems thatPeter Clift and Peter Molnar are co-conveningduring the first half of 2003. This workshop islikely to be held in Woods Hole. JOI/USSSPfunds will also be used to support the par-ticipation of six U.S. scientists in a European-hosted workshop titled, “Preparing for Scien-tific Ocean Drilling in the Arctic: The Site Sur-vey Challenge.” This workshop, which will beheld in Copenhagen on January 13-14, 2003,is being organized by Jan Backman, WillfriedJokat, Yngve Kristoffersen, Jörn Thiede andNaja Mikkelsen as part of the Joint EuropeanOcean Drilling Initiative (JEODI).

NEW FACES AT JOI/USSSPJOI/USSSP welcomes two new staff membersto JOI’s Washington, DC office: Margo Cortes,Program Associate, and Robert “Bob” Burger,Assistant USSSP Program Director. Margo re-cently came to JOI from the hydrogeologicalconsulting world and Bob arrived from a doc-toral program at The University of Texas inAustin. Margo (mcortes@joiscience.org) is theperson to contact if you have questions aboutthe Distinguished Lecturer Series and Bob(bburger@joiscience.org) is one to contact ifyou have questions about post-cruise sciencesupport. JOI/USSSP also wishes BrechtDonoghue, Margo’s predecessor, well ingraduate school at Johns Hopkins University.

stracts, conference proceedings, maps, etc.This database is a product of the GeoRef In-formation System, housed on the AmericanGeological Institute server, and is updatedweekly from entries to the GeoRef database.

This database operates on Macintosh, PC-compatible, and UNIX based systems and canbe viewed using an Internet browser such asNetscape or Internet Explorer. To conduct adatabase search, you may choose individualfields, multiple fields, or all fields at once. Fieldcategories are: title, author, affiliation, volumetitle, volume author, source, year of publica-tion, research program, and key words. Theresults of your search can be displayed in oneof three formats: table, full record or briefrecord. The database format includes a down-load feature that imports the information fromthe database diretly into EndNote, a biblio-graphic software program. The data may alsobe downloaded into other bibliographic pro-grams, or citations may be copied from thescreen and pasted into word processing orspreadsheet programs. For more information,read the user guide on the database website.

THE DATABASE AWAITS YOUThe online DSDP and ODP Citation Databaseis at your disposal. To access it, visit www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/cite/index.html.This database contains over 18,000 citationsrelated to the Deep Sea Drilling Project andthe Ocean Drilling Program, research spanningfrom 1969 until the present. Approximately40% of these citations are from publicationsproduced by the drilling programs (e.g., DSDPInitial Reports and ODP Proceedings series),and 60% are from serial publications, ab-

program and strategy to accompany IODP. Theworkshop will identify the products, activi-ties, and opportunities that educators needwhich can be uniquely contributed by a fu-ture scientific ocean drilling program. Othertopics will include identifying what educa-tional communities can most benefit fromIODP and how scientific drilling can benefitfrom greater involvement with the educationalcommunity at large.The workshop will alsoexplore implementation strategies. Onceplans are finalized, a full workshop announce-ment will be distributed via the JOI/USSSPlistserver. For more information or to expressinterest in this effort, contact Andrea Johnson(ajohnson@joiscience.org)

EDUCATION WORKSHOPIn response to discussion at the Conferenceon U.S. Participation in IODP (CUSP, see page12), USSAC established an Education Steer-ing Committee co-chaired by USSAC mem-bers, Al Hine and Ellen Thomas. The steeringcommittee, represents a range of expertise in-cluding both education professionals andscientists. The other members include: SusanHaynes (VIMS), Sara Hickox (URI), SusanHumphris (WHOI), Ellen Prager (StormCenterCommunications), Sarah Schoedinger (CORE),and Sharon Walker (USM). The committee,along with several guests and liaisons, met inWashington, DC on November 12 to beginplanning for a full education workshop to beheld during spring 2003. The purpose of theworkshop will be to obtain recommendationsfor developing an effective U.S. educational

Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2 17

CORRECTION!The projected science operating costs (SOCs)for the IODP’s non-riser drilling vessel wereincorrectly listed in Table 1 on page 3 of theSummer 2002 JOI/USSAC Newsletter. A cor-rected version of this issue of the newsletteris available as a pdf file on the JOI website(www.joiscience.org). The correct non-riserSOC numbers per U.S. fiscal year follow: $5M(2004), $15.5M (2005), $15.5M (2006),$15.5M (2007), and $18M (2008).

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVESLEG REGION CO-CHIEFS PORT DATE

DEPARTURE

OPERATIONS SCHEDULE FOR ODP LEGS 205-210For more information: www.oceandrilling.org/Cruises/Cruises.html

Test fluid flow and subduction flux models, and understand the processes associated with theseismogenic zone and workings of the subduction factory.

Penetrate a complete upper crustal section to gabbro in 15 Ma oceanic crust on a superfast spreadingridge in the eastern Pacific Ocean (the first of a proposed two-leg program).

Recover cores from a transect of sites to study extinctions linked to massive perturbations of theglobal carbon cycle and extreme changes in Earth’s climate in the Cretaceous and Paleogene.

Obtain high-resolution cores for reconstructing paleoceanographic characteristics of South Atlanticdeep and surface waters during prominent episodes of early Cenozoic extreme climate change.

Sample the upper mantle in a magma-starved area of a slow spreading ridge and characterize mantledeformation patterns, residual peridotite composition, melt migration and hydrothermal alteration.

Obtain a stratigraphic sequence (to basement) to study cross-rift asymmetries between conjugatenon-volcanic margins along the Newfoundland-Iberian transect.

205 Costa Rica Morris San Diego 9/02Villinger

206 Fast Spread Crust Teagle Balboa 11/02Wilson

207 Demerara Rise Erbacher Barbados 1/02Mosher

208 Walvis Ridge Kroon Rio de Janeiro 3/02Zachos

209 MAR Peridotite Kelemen Rio de Janeiro 5/02Kikawa

210 Newfoundland Marg Sibuet Bermuda 7/02Tucholke

IN MEMORIUM: MAHLON BALLFollowing a rich career, including an active rolein JOIDES, Mahlon Ball passed away at age 71on October 4, 2002. Mahlon served on nu-merous JOIDES panels over 35 years, but inrecent years, he dedicated himself to the Pol-lution Prevention and Saftety Panel (PPSP), ofwhich he was a long-time Chair. After obtain-ing a B.S. (Geological Engineering), M.S. (Ge-ology) and a Ph.D. (Geophysics) from theUniversity of Kansas, Mahlon spent his pro-fessional career with Shell Oil Company, theUniversity of Miami, and the U.S. GeologicalSurvey. Marilyn, Mahlon’s wife of 50 years,passed away in September 2002. We aredeeply saddened by this loss and offer ourcondolences to the Ball family.

INDUSTRY BROCHURE AVAILABLEAn important IODP goal is to incorporate theexpertise of industry scientists and engineersin developing ideas and techniques for solv-ing earth science problems. In turn, throughits sampling and research efforts, IODP resultsmay be used to enhance industry’s under-standing of resource potential, hazards, andreservoir characteristics in deep water areas.To encourage industry involvement in IODP,the Industrial Liaison Working Group, co-chaired by John Armentrout and Kate Moran,has developed the brochure, Opportunitiesfor Scientific and Industry Cooperation in theIntegrated Ocean Drilling Program. Access thebrochure at www.iodp.org or request cop-ies by contacting: info@joiscience.org.

ISAS WEBSITEFor the latest scoop on IODP’s interim ScienceAdvisory Structure, visit: www.isas-office.jp.You’ll also find membership, meeting minutes,and information on submitting proposals.

18 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

C

SITE AUGMENTATION

Color is a clue to a rock’s composition, and asthe geosciences become more quantitative,even this simple observation is being reducedto numbers. The experimental technique isstraightforward, nonintrusive, and nondestruc-tive: illuminate a rock surface, record the spec-trum of reflected light, and extract any spec-tral responses that are sensitive to mineralogy.Reflectance spectroscopy can be used on thearchive halves of cores, and measurementstake only seconds. These advantages make thetechnique particularly attractive for core in-tervals that are depleted (e.g., many basalts)and for climate proxies which require thou-sands of high-resolution measurements.

Most ODP applications of reflectance spec-troscopy have concentrated on the visiblelight wavelengths (~430-960 nm). Alan Mixwas the first to develop and use a prototypesplit-core analysis track (SCAT) on Leg 138 forautomated core scanning (Mix et al., 1992,1995). A revised SCAT, with an improved sig-nal-to-noise ratio and wider frequency band(250-950 nm vs. earlier 455-945 nm) was usedfor Legs 154 and 162 (Harris et al., 1997; Ortizet al., 1999). The demonstration of quantita-

tive mineral determination from visible lightspectroscopy (Balsam and Deaton, 1991;Deaton and Balsam, 1991; Balsam and Deaton,1996) set the foundation for routine shipboardcore scanning with the Minolta spectropho-tometer (400-700 nm) on Leg 155 and subse-quent legs (Schneider et al., 1995; Balsam etal., 1997). This technique has been most suc-cessful for estimating carbonate content.

For visible wavelengths, wet or dry cores canbe analyzed with minimal sample preparation:slight surface scraping or covering with plas-tic wrap. In contrast, infrared spectroscopy(often ~2600 to 20,000 nm), which is capableof much more precise and versatile mineraldetermination, requires time-intensive samplepreparation such as polishing or forming sedi-ment into pellets (Herbert et al., 1992).

To capitalize on the advantages of visable andinfrared spectroscopy, we have been explor-ing a middleground—visible and near-infra-red spectroscopy (VNIS) —using wavelengthsof 350-2500 nm, similar to that of remote sens-ing spectroscopy. This frequency band ex-tends beyond the visible range that responds

mostly to electronic processes and encom-passes the near-infrared which responds tonormal modes of characteristic vibrations ofOH bonds (Clark et al., 1990; Clark, 1995).Water, Mg-OH, Al-OH, and Fe-OH absorptionbands are useful in identifying minerals. Un-fortunately, the spectral signature of pore wa-ter in the near-infrared dominates many spec-tral features of mineralogical origin. Therefore,samples should be dried prior to analysis.

For dried cores, no sample preparation is nec-essary; measurements simply involve placingthe light probe, with its internal fiberoptic de-tector, directly on the split core surface. Wehave used this technique to determine claymineralogy of the mid-Tertiary CIROS-1 corefrom Antarctica (Vanden Berg and Jarrard,2001), as well as for analysis of ODP basalts.Before measuring Leg 199 sediments and cali-bration standards, we dried them in a 105°Coven and crushed them into powder. Pow-dered samples are not necessary, as VNIS alsoworks well on cut or irregular surfaces.

When used for mining exploration or airbornegeophysics, VNIS analysis is usually confinedto identifying the presence of spectrally sig-nificant minerals. Determining quantitativemineral concentrations is possible, if charac-teristic absorption features can be calibratedby a suite of local ground-truth measurements(e.g., X-ray diffraction). The first step in ana-lyzing the ground-truth calibration spectra isto identify about a dozen potentially usefulspectral features (e.g., depth of the 1930-nmwater trough, Figure 1). Next, spectral re-sponse is calibrated by either matrix inversionor simple multiple regression. These ap-proaches are likely to work for rocks with twoto four spectrally significant minerals; however,they may not succeed in rocks with more com-plex mineralogies.

The additional spectral information found inthe expanded near-infrared region greatly im-proves identification of paleoclimatically sig-

BROADER-BAND REFLECTANCE SPECTROSCOPY

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Ref

lect

ance

Wavelength (nm)

Nannofossil ooze

Radiolarian ooze

Smectite

Illite

Bandwidth previously studied

watertrough

OHcalcitetrough

Figure 1: Reflectance spectra from four climatically sensitive minerals found in the equatorial Pacific. Differences in the various

peaks and troughs (e.g., the water trough located at ~1930 nm) are used to calculate mineral concentrations. Previous studies

on marine sediment involved only the bandwidth in the high-lighted area. The additional spectral information found in the

expanded near-infrared region greatly improves identification of minerals with paleoclimatic interest.

contributed by Richard Jarrard and Michael Vanden Berg

19Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

nificant minerals. For instance, in the equato-rial Pacific region, four of these minerals—opal, calcite, smectite, and illite—are detect-able with VNIS (Figure 1). On board Leg 199,the Paleogene equatorial Pacific transect, VNISprovided preliminary percentages of thesefour minerals for ~1000 samples (Vanden Bergand Jarrard, in press). Previously, only calcitecould be measured on-board by other meth-ods. Figure 2 illustrates the accuracy of theVNIS technique used for equatorial Pacificsediments. Post-cruise analyses refined themineral percentages and used their detaileddowncore variations to calibrate the conver-sion of MST records (GRAPE density, magneticsusceptibility, and Minolta color) to evenhigher-resolution mineralogy.

VNIS also produces responses in basalts. Thevolumetrically dominant minerals in the basaltsshown in Figure 3 are pyroxene and plagio-clase, but plagioclase is spectrally featurelessand therefore undetectable by VNIS. Thedominant spectral signature in these freshbasalts is from the pyroxene mineral pigeo-nite. Smectites, with an OH absorption band

Figure 3: VNIS spectra from basalts. Top: Fresh basalts exhibit

pyroxene peak and trough. Center: Crack fill is mostly smectite,

with strong water and OH absorptions, and weak basalt py-

roxene; altered whole rock has intermediate signature of

smectite and fresh-rock pyroxene. Bottom: Celadonite is dis-

tinguished from smectite by peak at 560 nm and trough/peak

at 2400 nm.Figure 2: Cross-plots comparing VNIS predicted mineralogy with ground-truth mineralogy.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

R= 0.971

VN

IS p

redi

cted

min

eral

%

Calcite

0

20

40

60

0 20 40 60

R= 0.970

Opal

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

R= 0.9511

VN

IS p

redi

cted

min

eral

%

Ground-truth mineral %

Smectite

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

R= 0.991

Ground-truth mineral %

Illite

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

celadonites in basalts

Wavelength (nm)

sharp peak@ 560 nm

broad saddle

watertrough

Ref

lect

ance

trou

ghpe

ak

0.08

0.12

0.16 smectites in basalts

pyroxenepeak

crack fill

whole rock

pyroxenetrough

pyroxenepeak

Ref

lect

ance

wat

er

OH

OH

0.10

0.20

0.30 fresh basaltspyroxene

peak

pyroxenetrough

Ref

lect

ance

at 1400 nm and a strong water absorptionband at 1930 nm, are spectrally distinct froma second major alteration mineral, celadonite,as well as from pyroxene.

We have just begun to apply VNIS to investi-gate alteration in basalts. Alteration of driedphysical properties samples from ODP Hole801C was estimated with VNIS, then used todetect how alteration impacts geophysicalproperties (Jarrard et al., in press). The non-destructive VNIS measurements can be under-taken on archive-half cores rather than on driedcore plugs, thereby determining total struc-tural water (H

2O- + H

2O+) rather than just H

2O+.

The core surface must be dry enough to avoidconfusing pore and structural water; DSDP andODP basalts satisfy this need. Feasibility stud-ies of determining basalt hydration via directVNIS measurement on archive-half cores arepromising, but require further tests.

Because of these results, we recommend thatreflectance spectroscopy—both VNIS for dis-crete measurements and SCAT or Minolta forcore scanning— be a routinely available ship-

board tool for IODP. In the meantime, poten-tial visitors to the University of Utah shouldknow that VNIS measurements are so fast thatour instrument usually sits idle.

THE AUTHORSRichard Jarrard and Michael Vanden Berg arein the Department of Geology and Geophys-ics at the University of Utah.

REFERENCESBalsam, W. et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 155, 193-215, 1997.

Balsam, W. and B. Deaton, Rev. Aquatic Sci., 4, 411-417, 1991.

Balsam, W. and B. Deaton, Marine Geology, 134, 31-55, 1996.

Clark, R. In Ahrens, T.J. (ed), Reflectance Spectra, in Rock Phys-

ics and Phase Relations: A Handbook of Physical Constants,

AGU, Washington, DC, 178-188, 1995.

Clark, R.N. et al., 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 12653-12680, 1990.

Deaton, B. and W. Balsam, J. Sed. Pet., 61, 628-632, 1991.

Harris, S. et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 154, 331-345, 1997.

Herbert, T. et al., Geochim. Cosmo. Acta, 56, 1759-1763, 1992.

Jarrard, R. et al., J. Geophys. Res., in press.

Mix, A. et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 138, 413-428, 1995.

Mix, A. et al., Proc. ODP, Init. Repts, 138, 67-78, 1992.

Ortiz, J. et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Results, 162, 259-264, 1999.

Schneider, R. et al., Proc. ODP, Init. Repts., 155, 697-700, 1995.

Vanden Berg, M. and R. Jarrard, EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys.U., 82 (47), Fall Meet. Suppl., abstract PP51A-0543, 2001.

Vanden Berg, M. and R. Jarrard, Proc. ODP, Init. Repts., 199,

in press.

20 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

W

JOI/USSSP INTERNS

THE JOI OF SAILING: SURVEYING THE GULF OF MEXICOFOR GAS HYDRATE DRILL SITES

contributed by Jennifer Anziano

When I became a JOI/USSSP Intern in Wash-ington, DC last July, I had very limited knowl-edge of JOI and ODP. I spent the first fewweeks trying to remember what all the differ-ent acronyms meant, and more importantly,how they all work together. In addition, I wascurious about what exactly went on duringone of those mysterious two-month ODPcruises. Fortunately, JOI is one of those spe-cial organizations that aims to benefit the lowlyinterns at least as much as the interns benefitthe organization. In my case, that meant look-ing for the opportunity to send me on a re-search cruise. To me, this meant going on anadventure.

My opportunity to go to sea on a researchcruise came recently, thanks to Carolyn Ruppel,a geophysics professor at the Georgia Insti-tute of Technology. Funding for this cruisecame from the Ocean Drilling Program in theDivision of Ocean Sciences at NSF. The cruisewas both a site survey for future scientific hy-drates drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as well asan adjunct to the Life in Extreme Environmentsproject. While I was enthusiastic about theopportunity, I was also very nervous. What amI going to do on a research cruise? Since Iwent to school at Macalester College in St.Paul, Minnesota, the closest I came to doingocean research was visiting the localwastewater treatment plant for a class fieldtrip. I was not sure how I was going to con-tribute to the science on the cruise. However,Carolyn and others reassured me that every-thing would fall into place.

My voyage began in Gulfport, Mississippi. Imet up with Carolyn and a few others inAtlanta, and we took a small plane down toGulfport. When we arrived, we went directlyto the port where the R/V Seward Johnson, aUniversity-National Oceanographic LaboratorySystem (UNOLS) vessel out of Harbor Branch

Oceanographic Institution, was docked andready to welcome us. As soon as we wereaboard the ship, we began unpacking theequipment. As the other members of thegroup arrived, I soon realized that this was notthe typical science party as there were sev-eral scientists who had not sailed before. Manyof us spent our first night speculating aboutour next two weeks aboard the ship. The nextday, the ship steamed to our first site, BushHill-Green Canyon 185. During this time,Carolyn held a science meeting to explainwhat would happen during the next coupleweeks. The purpose of the cruise was to ex-amine the distribution of free gas and gas hy-drate and to understand how this distributionrelates to energy, fluid, and gas flux variations.The science plan included imaging flow path-ways with a towed seismic instrument, con-ducting high-resolution heat flow surveys, andacquiring both gravity and piston cores at sev-eral potential drilling sites. This all soundedvery exciting, yet I still felt unsure about ex-actly what my role would be.

When we began coring at our first site, myduties began to take shape. Aside from mydaily two-hour watch, I took the job of beingthe core recorder. When a core came on deck,I took note of the length, whether hydrate wasvisible with JOI’s infrared camera (the samecamera that was used on ODP Leg 204), theplan for sectioning the core, and who receivedeach section of the core. In addition, I helpedBill Gilhooly and Grace Castellini (graduatestudents of Steve Macko from the Universityof Virginia and Jerry Dickens from Rice Univer-sity, respectively) in the chemistry lab. Theirprojects involved squeezing subsections ofthe core and analyzing the pore water for theconcentration and isotopic composition ofvarious chemical species.

Even when we were not coring, my days werejam-packed. Whether it was enjoying one ofthe magnificent dinners prepared by Bobbyand Tom (the ship’s chefs), getting to knowthe other scientists, catching up with formerJOI intern Micah Nicolo (now a graduate stu-dent at Rice University), looking at the waterand wishing I were swimming, or gazing atthe stars and pretending I knew what I waslooking at, there was always something to do.Every day felt like an adventure, and I con-stantly wondered what would happen next.Will the next core be better than the last? Howmany cores are we really going to recover to-day, the two that we planned, or will therereally be six? Will the heat flow be successfultonight? What will happen next?

Unfortunately, due to mechanical problems onthe ship, we had to return to port a few daysearlier than scheduled. While we were out atsea, it seemed that we had been (and wouldbe) there forever, but now we were actuallygoing home. Nobody was quite ready for thisadventure to end. My shipmates and I beganreflecting on the events of the previous week

JOI/USSSP Intern Jennifer Anziano caps a core on a research

cruise aboard the R/V Seward Johnson.

21Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

and a half. There was an overwhelming opin-ion that the cruise was a success. While noteveryone received the amount or quality ofdata they originally hoped for, everyone hada great time retrieving the data. Suddenly, Irealized that I would really miss this ship, thecrew, and my fellow science party, for I ex-perienced many great, new things. I learnedabout gas hydrates and their current impor-tance in the ocean sciences. I saw Jerry setfire to methane captured within the core. I wasamazed at the number of oil rigs scatteredthroughout the Gulf and impressed by howmuch oil exists in the Gulf. I learned about andsaw my first waterspout. I spent time withChris, the second mate, learning about thenavigational equipment on the ship. I evenlearned a handful of new acronyms, like “DP”(dynamic positioning), to add to my vocabu-lary. With all these great experiences, howcould I not miss everything and everyone?When we arrived back at port, we all said

goodbye as long-time best friends. It is amaz-ing how close quarters for ten days can bringa group of people together.

Now I am back at JOI, and glad to be at workand walking on land again. I am grateful formy experience and thank Carolyn Ruppel, JohnFarrell, and Andrea Johnson for the oppor-tunity. Not only did it give me the chance tosee first-hand what life is like aboard a researchvessel, but also I received some excellent

advice and encouragement about my futurein the geological sciences. I now fully under-stand the importance of an organization likeJOI. While being close to the research againwas very exciting, it has strengthened my de-sire to choose a path of helping scientistspursue their own research dreams. This re-search cruise was a great adventure—I know Iwill often look back at it and say to myself, “Iwish I were still on that boat.”

Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI) is seeking qualified U.S. applicants for a one-year internship, beginning summer2003, at the JOI Office in Washington, DC. The JOI/US Science Support Program (USSSP) Internship Program’s goal is tointroduce recent science graduates to science program management. This internship is ideally for spring 2003 graduatesseeking experience with a scientific non-profit organization before continuing their education. Interns will work full-time,dedicating half of their effort to special projects and the remainder to other tasks in support of USSSP. For the term appoint-ment, the intern will be a salaried JOI employee with full benefits. Specific start and end dates will be negotiated. Inter-ested applicants should submit a cover letter, resume, and the names of three references to the JOI Office by March 14,2003. Interviews with finalists will be scheduled in late March/early April, and a decision will be made by mid-April.

JOI manages worldwide cooperative research programs, including the scientific Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and USSSP.For more information about JOI and the science programs it manages, please visit www.joiscience.org. Please directquestions and/or applications to: Margo Cortes (mcortes@joiscience.org), Joint Oceanographic Institutions, 1755 Massa-chusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036.

WANTEDWANTEDJOI/USSSP INTERNSJOI/USSSP INTERNS

Micah Nicolo, former JOI/USSSP Intern, and Jennifer Anziano aboard the R/V Seward Johnson.

22 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

B

SITE AUGMENTATION

Before scheduling, the most significant task fora scientific drilling program is to gather a com-prehensive set of site survey data adequateto locate drill sites and to determine any pollu-tion/safety hazards. Survey data are importantboth to guide and to interpret drilling, butthese data are rarely available at sea in a digi-tal format during ODP drilling legs. Becauseof this, it is a challenge to compare the surveydata with information acquired during theODP leg. An important goal for the next phaseof scientific drilling is to integrate drilling withprevious geophysical surveys by developingeffective means to send digital data to sea.

Transmitting digital information to the drillshipis primarily a challenge of data transfer andsoftware integration so that geological andgeophysical data sets can be easily and effi-ciently stored, retrieved, and displayed. Onepossible solution is to use seismic interpreta-tion software developed for oil exploration.Through a JOI/USSSP site survey augmentationaward I was given the chance to explore thistechnology, as well as to bring seismic inter-

pretations I had made on shore to the ship forLeg 199 (Lyle et al., in press).

For this purpose, we investigated the use ofthe Schlumberger-GeoQuest GeoFrame soft-ware which was kindly donated to Boise StateUniversity as part of the Schlumberger Univer-sity Software Program. We used this softwarebecause it was being supported by the Bore-hole Research Group at both LDEO and onthe JOIDES Resolution. It also has the capa-bility of displaying logging data with the seis-mic reflection profiles once a velocity-depthprofile has been established.

BACKGROUNDODP Leg 199 was designed to drill the firstsystematic survey of the early Eocene equa-torial region in the Pacific. The 56 Ma equatoris now probably located at about 12˚N in theregion of Leg 199 drilling (Figure 1). The pri-mary objectives of the leg were to study theevolution of the equatorial Pacific current andwind system as the Earth went from maximumCenozoic warmth to initial Antarctic glacia-

tions. The drilling pro-gram was mostly atransect along 56-57 Macrust, old enough to cap-ture the Paleocene/Eocene boundary (P/E) inthe basal, more carbon-ate-rich sediments. TheLeg 199 transect extendsfrom early Eocene paleo-latitudes of ~11˚N to ~5˚Sto encompass a relativelythick early Eocene sedi-ment section perhaps 8˚Nof the paleoequator. Onedrill site (Site 1218) wasdrilled on 40 Ma crust tocollect a near-equatorialsediment sequence fromthe middle Eocenethrough late Eocene inorder to investigate the

transition in global climate from the Eocene“greenhouse” to the Oligocene “icehouse.”

The Pacific Plate has drifted northwardsthrough Cenozoic time, transporting Paleo-gene biogenic sediments deposited underthe high productivity equatorial belt into azone of extremely slow sediment (red clay)accumulation. The thin Neogene cover of redclay in the area meant that much of the Paleo-gene sediment section could be recoveredby advanced piston coring (APC) and ex-tended core barrel (XCB) methods.

SITE SURVEYThe site survey for Leg 199 drilling, cruiseEW9709 (R/V Maurice Ewing, 12/97 to 1/98),collected digital seismic reflection data pri-marily using a single 80 cubic inch water gunand a 4-channel streamer. At each proposeddrill site (Figure 1), we surveyed grids of seis-mic lines at a ship speed of about 7 knots.These grid surveys were used to locate indi-vidual drillsites for Leg 199. We recorded dataduring the grid surveys at 0.5 ms sample rateusing a Geometrics engineering seismograph.We also digitally recorded the 3.5 kHzsubbottom profiler on another Geometricsseismograph. During transits between sites,we recorded seismic reflection data in orderto reconstruct the history of the equatorialsediment bulge, to be constrained by Leg 199drilling. We recorded transit data underwayat 10 knots using the Digicon data acquisitionsystem on the Ewing. All the data were pro-cessed in a standard manner by normalmoveout corrections, stacking, bandpass fil-tering, spectral whitening, and migration.

DEVELOPING A DIGITAL PACKAGEBecause we were interested in developing atransect of equatorial sedimentation andpaleoceanography, we wanted to tie togetherdrilling and seismic reflection data to developa regional picture of sedimentation withgroundtruth from Leg 199 drilling. To achievethis goal, we needed to compare drilling to

GOING DIGITAL: SITE SURVEYS AND DRILLING ON LEG 199contributed by Mitchell Lyle

Figure 1: Track of the Leg 199 site survey cruise (EW9709).

23Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

Decimal Latitude (¡N)

2-w

ay T

rave

l Tim

e

5700 ms

6500 ms

6300 ms

6100 ms

5900 ms

0.53129¡N 0.59956¡ 0.66873¡ 0.73739¡ 0.80673¡ 0.87551¡N

Modern Equatorial Region

8.4544¡N 8.6307¡N6500 ms

7300 ms

7100 ms

6900 ms

6700 ms

Decimal Latitude (¡N)

2-w

ay T

rave

l Tim

e

8.4984¡ 8.5473¡ 8.5865¡

Mayer et al(1985) Neogene horizons

Orange (~21Ma) P5 (~26 Ma)P4 (~30 Ma)

P3 (~33 Ma)

P2 (~46 Ma)

basalt (~55 Ma)

the seismic data for the Paleogene sedimentswe would recover (Figure 2). Mayer et al.(1985) already constructed a seismic stratig-raphy for the Neogene equatorial Pacific. Thestratigraphic horizons they identified are timestratigraphic, and at least some have beenshown to be continuous over more than athousand kilometers (Bloomer et al., 1995).After the survey cruise, we could identify Pa-leogene seismic horizons that appearedchronostratigraphic (Moore et al., 2002). Wewanted to transmit these interpretations to thedrillship for comparison to drilling results.

The first tasks were to install the GeoFramepackage, which proved formidable, and tomake certain the data were properly navi-gated, consistently processed, and archivedin an accessible manner. GeoFrame installa-tion is not straightforward because it links toan Oracle database which must also be run-ning correctly. It took several months of con-sultation with GeoQuest to get the softwareworking properly. Checking and archiving theseismic data were tedious but not particu-larly difficult. Once GeoFrame was workingcorrectly, building interpretations was not dif-ficult. The biggest difficulty in the interpreta-tion was the relatively large fault offsets foundon ca. 56 Ma crust when compared to thesite surveys on ca. 40 Ma crust (Lyle et al., inpress). The thin sediment column, caused bya shallow Eocene carbonate compensationdepth (low deposition when compared tothe Neogene), was also more difficult to im-age than Neogene sediments. Nevertheless,

the sites were interpreted and each of the sitedata packages backed up. Once saved, thedata packages were easily mobile. We sentdata to the Borehole Research Group electron-ically to ensure that we could communicatethese data packages to another institution andto test the compatibility of GeoFrame softwareversions available on the ship with the versionsthat we had installed. The data were openedwith no difficulty.

AT SEAThe availability of the digital data and the seis-mic interpretation software was importantduring Leg 199 because it allowed the ship-board scientists to better compare drillingwith our seismic interpretation. Later in the legwe were able to predict lithology with someconfidence because of the large spatial scaleof typical pelagic sedimentation. In otherwords, it was a good bet that we would en-counter similar sequences at adjacentdrillsites. We failed at near-real-time compari-son of downhole logs with the seismic reflec-tion record, however, because of the poorquality of the velocity logs on the holes thatwe logged. Nevertheless, the availability of thedata in a portable digital package has allowedme to send the data to the institutions thathave taken the lead in developing the syntheticseismograms and velocity-depth profiles, sothat they can continue to develop the sedi-ment-seismic comparison.

My experience with handling these “digital sitesurveys” suggests that we, as a community, are

on the threshold of being able to conduct thisanalysis routinely. If we do, we will better inte-grate all of the data we have available about adrillsite. In the case of 3D data sets that maybe needed for riser drilling in IODP, such a ca-pability will probably prove essential. Scien-tific drilling will gain by better integration ofthe site survey data with the actual drilling, andby having data in a routine format that can betransported and exchanged much more effi-ciently than paper records. If the digital sitesurvey concept is carried forward from thebeginning of the proposal process for theIODP phase of ocean drilling, we can mini-mize many of the problems I experienced.There are downsides—the software used isproprietary and expensive, and there is a largelearning curve for using it effectively. Formatsare proprietary and there is a risk that must beassessed of investing in an “orphan” format thatmay disappear in a decade. We, however,have faced similar risks in a conversion to otherdigital products and should be able to evalu-ate the challenges effectively.

THE AUTHORMitchell Lyle is at Boise State University. Pleasecontact Mitch (mlyle@cgiss.boisestate.edu) toobtain a better version of the seismic line inFigure 2.

REFERENCESBloomer, S. et al., Proc. ODP, Sci. Res., 138, 537-553, 1995.

Lyle, M. et al., Proc. ODP, Init. Repts., 199, 2002 (in press).

Mayer, L.A. et al., Initial Repts. DSDP, 85, 947-970, 1985.

Moore, T.C. et al., Paleoceanography, 10.1029/2000PA000566,

2002.

Figure 2b: Paleogene equatorial sediments (North of Site 1219).

Figure 2a: Neogene equatorial sediments.

24 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

N

FELLOWSHIP PROFILE

QUATERNARY CARIBBEAN SEA CARBONATE RECORDS

Figure 1: Carbonate content, percent aragonite, and benthic

δ18O at ODP Hole 1000A.

Michelle ShearerPh.D. Institution:Rice University

Faculty Advisor:André Droxler

Numerous studies have examined variationsin carbonate preservation and dissolution inpelagic sediments at water depths (WD)greater than 2500, but few have done so atintermediate depths (500-2500 m). I havedeveloped high-resolution paleocean-ographic records from Quaternary sedimentsrecovered during ODP Leg 165 in the Carib-bean Sea to determine long-term variationsin carbonate sediment preservation and to in-vestigate the relationships between preserva-tion and intermediate water depth circulation.The Caribbean basin affords a unique oppor-tunity to investigate these relationships be-cause it plays an important role in globalocean circulation and because western At-lantic waters filling the basin are intermediatein origin, restricted by a maximum sill depthof 1800 m.

Do these carbonate preservation records con-tain any long-term cyclical patterns? Bassinot,et al. (1994) and Yasuda, et al. (1993) pro-posed an oscillation in deep Quaternary car-bonate preservation in the Indian and Pacificoceans with a periodicity of 425-550 kyr. Themechanism(s) for such an oscillation remainconjectural. My records from ODP Sites 999and 1000 will reveal if a similar pattern occursin the Caribbean.

Site 999 (2800 m WD) is located on the KogiRise, an isolated bathymetric high 1000 mabove the floor of the Colombian Basin, anenclosed basin below the maximum Carib-bean sill depth. While Site 999 is located be-low intermediate water depths, the watersbathing the site originate from Western Atlan-tic intermediate waters at the 1800 m Carib-bean sill depth. The Quaternary at Hole 999Acorresponds to a 55 m-thick hemipelagic se-quence of nannofossil and foraminiferal clay-rich sediment with an average sedimentationrate of 3.3 cm/kyr. Site 1000 (930 m WD) islocated in Pedro Channel on the NorthernNicaragua Rise. The Quaternary at Hole 1000Acorresponds to a 60 m-thick periplatform se-

quence of micritic ooze with foraminifers,pteropods, and nannofossils with an averagesedimentation rate of 3.6 cm/kyr. Many coresrecovered from the Caribbean prior to Leg 165do not contain the entire Quaternary se-quence, or are disturbed by turbidites, or havesedimentation rates too low for high-resolu-tion analysis. The Quaternary sequences atHoles 999A and 1000A are undisturbed andcontinuous. My 10 cm-sample spacing resultsin a ~3000-year time interval between con-secutive samples at both sites.

A continuous, high-resolution chronostrati-graphy has been established by δ18O stableisotope analysis of the benthic foraminiferCibicidoides wuellerstorfi. Benthic δ13C stableisotopes provide a history of intermediatewater flux. I have used a multi-proxy approachto minimize local effects in carbonate preser-vation. Using a combination of sedimentologi-cal and geochemical methods, I have con-structed high-resolution records of percentcoarse fraction and percent bulk carbonate(Sites 999 and 1000) and carbonate mineral-ogy (Site 1000). Foraminifer (Site 999) andpteropod fragmentation (Site 1000) recordsare nearly complete. These dissolution indi-ces are being statistically combined into aComposite Dissolution Index (CDI) and I willassess the periodicity of carbonate preserva-tion change by power-spectral and cross-spectral analysis.

The bulk sediment carbonate content andpercent aragonite at Hole 1000A (shown withthe δ18O in Figure 1) clearly show the transi-tion from 40-kyr cycles to the modern 100-kyrcycles. Glacial/interglacial cycles are evidentin both records. During interglacial stages, thecarbonate maxima are consistently 87-90%.However, the lower values during glacialstages are more variable due to fluctuationsin dilution by non-carbonate sedimentation.The glacial values in the aragonite record, inparticular, suggest a longer-term cyclicity.

These paleoceanographic records vastly ex-pand the available data for carbonate preser-vation at intermediate water depths. Their highresolution greatly facilitates our ongoing inves-tigation of the relationships among carbonatepreservation, changes in North Atlantic DeepWater production, Antarctic Intermediate Wa-ter flux, transfers of carbonate from neritic topelagic reservoirs, and global climate change.

REFERENCESBassinot, F. C., et al., Paleoceanography, 9, 579-600, 1994.

Yasuda, et al., Proc. ODP, Scientific Res., 130, 491-508, 1993.

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

50 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Age (kyr)

Ben

thic

δ18

O (

)

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Car

bona

te (

%)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ara

goni

te (

%)

100 kyr cycles 40 kyr cycles

Long-term cyclicity?

maxima

maxima

25Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

A

LETTER FROM THE CHAIR

“MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES”

Although often meant as a curse, this phraseencapsulates the crux of the transition fromODP to IODP. The U.S. ocean-drilling commu-nity will certainly experience “interestingtimes” over the next few years. U.S. participa-tion in the IODP will mean a number ofchanges in how our community plans andmanages new science initiatives, participatesin multi-platform expeditions, and publishesIODP science. USSAC has considered a var-iety of transition issues and will continue toaddress U.S. interests and participation inIODP for the foreseeable future. As the newUSSAC Chair, I wish to thank outgoing ChairPeggy Delaney for her leadership, dedicationand organization in leading USSAC into a moreactive role in advising JOI and in helping toplan the ODP-IODP transition.

The evolving IODP structure has many impli-cations for the planning and participation ofU.S. scientists. IODP will be a new playingfield! We must take these changes into accountas we structure the U.S. support program forIODP. Although summarized in the report fromthe Conference on U.S. Participation (CUSP)in IODP, a few important changes include:• IODP will deploy multiple drilling plat-

forms (riser, non-riser, mission specific).• Multi-year, multi-leg, and multi-platform

proposals (i.e., complex drilling programs)will become more common.

• U.S. partnership in IODP and therefore rep-resentation in the Science Advisory Struc-ture will likely decrease from over half inODP to about one third in IODP.

• Educational and outreach activities will bemore prominent in IODP.

These and other changes demand that we re-examine how the U.S. support program isstructured and evaluate if the activities it sup-ports will prepare U.S. scientists to exploit thenew opportunities in the IODP. USSAC initi-ated CUSP to address the current and futureneeds of the U.S. ocean-drilling community.The CUSP report (see page 1) and recommen-

dations are intended to give community-based advice to JOI and NSF on how the U.S.science support should be structured for theIODP. The CUSP workshop and USSAC recom-mendations address the full range of activi-ties associated with planning and managingnew drilling programs, participating in drill-ing expeditions, supporting post-expeditionscience, and educational/outreach activities.I urge you to read the CUSP report and sendcomments to JOI (info@joiscience.org). Wethank the 150 participants in our online surveyfor providing community feedback. The re-sponses were incorporated into the final CUSPreport to the NSF.

The CUSP report also has implications forUSSAC as a community-based advisory body.In general, the more complex organization andmanagement of IODP (i.e., multiple platformoperators, a central management organization,expanded advisory structure) means that theUSSAC-successor will have to provide morecontinuous coordination and oversight ofIODP activities and must become more pro-active in reflecting and representing the inter-ests of the U.S. ocean drilling community toJOI and to the Science Advisory Structure(SAS) of the IODP. In short, USSAC will haveto act more as a U.S. national committee thanit has in the past. For example, USSAC cur-rently nominates U.S. members to the JOIDESand interim Science Advisory Structure (iSAS)panels and committees. In JOIDES, the U.S.scientists constituted over half of the panelsso that the absence of one or even two mem-bers did not change the balance of the panel.However, in the iSAS and SAS, the absenceof U.S. members will strongly affect panelbalance. USSAC anticipates the need to com-municate more effectively with U.S. panelmembers and to provide alternate memberswhere absences or conflict-of-interests wouldimpact the U.S. panel participation. Anotherexample is that in IODP, like ODP, the platformoperators will have the final choice on scien-tific crew selection. Thus the U.S. may need a

body to coordinate applications and “horsetrade” on behalf of the U.S. community. Theseare but a few of the possible changes that theUSSAC-successor may face in the IODP.

IODP planning is already upon us. During thispast year, a wide variety of workshops havebeen completed, scheduled, or proposed.• CUSP (6/02)• Cretaceous Climate & Ocean Dynamics

(7/02)• NantroSEIZE: Drilling & Instrumenting the

Nankai Trough Seismogenic Zone (7/02)• Deep Biosphere Mini-Workshop (9/02)• Continent-Ocean Interactions within the

East Asian Marginal Seas, Chapman Con-ference (11/02)

• Southeast Asian Epeiric Seas DrillingProject Mini-Workshop (11/02)

• Costa Rica Drilling Workshop (12/02)• Support for U.S. participation in the Euro-

pean (JEODI) workshop “Scientific OceanDrilling in the Arctic: The Site Survey Chal-lenge, January 13-14, 2003”

• IODP GeoSCAN. Geophysical Site Char-acterization and Needs (Spring/03)

• USSAC Education Workshop (2003)• Workshop for planning drilling of the In-

dian Ocean Fan Systems (2003)• Interplay of Collisional Tectonics & Late

Cenozoic Glacial Climate in Alaska & theNortheastern Pacific Ocean (Spring/03)

In closing, the transition from ODP to IODP willbe an exciting time in the marine geosciences.All of us, especially JOI and USSAC, will needto adapt to the changing playing field andadjust our activities and structure to enablethe U.S. ocean-drilling community to take fulladvantage of the opportunities in the IODP.

Sincerely,

Warren PrellChair, USSAC

26 JOI/USSAC Newsletter

A

NSF REPORT

As of this writing, NSF is operating under acontinuing resolution awaiting passage of thefederal budget. Both the Senate and Houseappropriation sub-committees have recom-mended significant increases for fiscal 2003and suggested the possibility of doubling theNSF budget over the next five years. However,we may not know the final NSF 2003 budgetfor several months.

Elsewhere in this issue the new Chair ofUSSAC, Warren Prell, discusses the significantchanges that will affect the U.S. scientificocean drilling community’s participation inplanning and managing IODP. As we transi-tion to a more ambitious, multi-platform drill-ing program, I agree with Warren that therewill be many changes, new challenges, andgreater opportunity for participation in IODP.It is also important to emphasize the need forgreater involvement by an expanded scien-tific drilling community. There is a strong needto collaborate with major initiatives in the earthsciences such as MARGINS, ICDP, RIDGE, etc.Warren’s article points out several ways to takeadvantage of these opportunities through thevarious planning activities, future workshops,and by serving on IODP advisory panels.

All of this planning is predicated on goodscience being proposed that advances thegoals defined in the IODP Initial Science PlanEarth Oceans, and Life. In order to start a vig-orous drilling program as the various drillingplatforms come on line, IODP will need a suite

of highly ranked, mature drilling proposals thatare ready for drilling. Although ‘riser’ drillingmay seem to be a long ways off, the increasedplanning and preparation needed for “riser”drilling requires that we start now.

NSF recognizes this and strongly encouragesproposals towards that end. NSF providesfunding for drilling-related research performedby U.S. scientists. Activities include investi-gations of potential drilling regions, especiallyby means of regional geophysical field stud-ies; the feasibility and initial development ofdownhole instruments and techniques; anddownhole geophysical and geochemical ex-periments. In addition, NSF will consider pro-posals for studies that lead to a long-rangedefinition of future drilling objectives on allplatforms to be supported by IODP. To beconsidered for support, proposed projectsshould be clearly relevant to the drilling plansof the international drilling community andfocus on pre-drilling or drilling-concurrentactivities. Post-cruise studies should generallybe submitted through other appropriate NSFprograms in the areas of ocean and earth sci-ences and polar programs.

The Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) providesguidance for the preparation and submissionof proposals to NSF. The latest edition is avail-able at www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg. Ef-fective October 1, 2002, NSF will return with-out review, proposals that do not separatelyaddress both of the following merit review

criteria within the Project Summary: “What isthe intellectual merit of the proposed activ-ity?” and “What are the broader impacts ofthe proposed activity?” It is believed that thesechanges to NSF’s proposal preparation andprocessing guidelines, will more clearly articu-late the importance of broader impacts toNSF-funded projects. Examples illustratingactivities likely to demonstrate broader im-pacts are available electronically at www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf

On a separate note, we welcome both Dr.Jamie Allan and Ms. Ann Noonan who haverecently joined the ODP staff at NSF: Jamie asa new program director and Ann as a pro-gram assistant. Ann comes to the program withnumerous years of service with the federalgovernment and experience as a managementspecialist. Jamie, who comes to the programfrom Appalachian State University is not newto NSF or to ODP, having served at one time asan ODP staff scientist at Texas A&M Universityand also as an NSF rotator several years ago.The program is very fortunate to have peoplewith the experience and background of thesetwo individuals.

contributed by J. Paul Dauphin, Program Director, NSF/ODP

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM NSF

“THE ART OF PROGRESS IS TO PRESERVE ORDER AMID CHANGEAND TO PRESERVE CHANGE AMID ORDER.”

- ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD

27Fall 2002, Vol. 15, No. 2

THE U.S. SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEMBERS LIAISONS

N E W S L E T T E R

Executive Editor: John FarrellManaging Editor: Andrea JohnsonAssistant Editor: Jennifer Anziano

The JOI/USSAC Newsletter is issued threetimes a year by Joint Oceanographic Insti-tutions (JOI) and is available free ofcharge. JOI manages the internationalOcean Drilling Program (ODP) and the U.S.Science Support Program (USSSP) whichsupports US participation in ODP. Fundingfor JOI/USSSP is provided through a coop-erative agreement with the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF).

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, orrecommendations expressed in this publi-cation do not necessarily reflect the viewsof NSF or JOI. To subscribe, contact:JOI/USSAC Newsletter, JOI, 1755 Massa-chusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washing-ton, DC 20036-2102 USA; phone: 202-232-3900; email: info@joiscience.org.For more information about USSSP, visit:www.joiscience.org.

Nathan Bangs (term ends 9/30/04)Institute for GeophysicsThe University of Texas at Austin4412 Spicewood Springs Road, Bldg 600Austin, TX 78759-8500phone: (512) 471-0424; fax: (512) 471-8844nathan@utig.ig.utexas.edu

Barbara Bekins* (term ends 9/30/03)U.S. Geological SurveyMailstop 496345 Middlefield RoadMenlo Park, CA 94025phone: (650) 329-4691; fax: (650) 329-5590babekins@usgs.gov

Dave Christie (term ends 9/30/05)College of OceanographyOregon State UniversityOceanography Admin Bldg 104Corvallis, OR 97331-5503phone: (541) 737-5205; fax: (541) 737-2064dchristie@oce.orst.edu

Peter deMenocal (term ends 9/30/03)Lamont-Doherty Earth ObservatoryColumbia UniversityPalisades, NY 10964phone: (845) 365-8483; fax: (845) 365-2312peter@ldeo.columbia.edu

Earl Doyle (term ends 9/30/04)13811 Placid Woods CourtSugar Land, TX 77478-2658phone: (281) 494-1037; fax: (281) 242-8774ehdoyle@alltel.net

Gabe Filippelli (term ends 9/30/05)Department of GeologyIndiana University - Purdue University723 W. Michigan StreetIndianapolis, IN 46202-5132phone: (317) 274-3795; fax: (317) 274-7966gfilippe@iupui.edu

Jeffrey Gee* (term ends 9/30/03)Geosciences Research Division-0220Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of CaliforniaLaJolla, CA 92093-0220phone: (858) 534-4707; fax: (858) 534-0784jsgee@ucsd.edu

Albert Hine* (term ends 9/30/04)College of Marine ScienceUniversity of South FloridaSt. Petersburg, FL 33701phone: (727) 553-1161; fax: (727) 553-1189hine@seas.marine.usf.edu

Mark Leckie (term ends 9/30/05)Department of GeosciencesUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst611 N. Pleasant StreetAmherst, MA 01003phone: (413) 545-1948; fax: (413) 545-1200mleckie@eclogite.geo.umass.edu

John Mahoney (term ends 9/30/05)School of Ocean and Earth Science and TechnologyUniversity of Hawaii2525 Correa RoadHonolulu, HI 96822phone: (808) 956-8705jmahoney@soest.hawaii.edu

Greg Mountain (term ends 9/30/05)Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyDepartment of Geological SciencesWright Geological Laboratory610 Taylor RoadPiscataway, NJ 08854-8066phone: (732) 445-0817gmtn@rci.rutgers.edu

Warren Prell, Chair* (term ends 9/30/03)Department of Geological SciencesBrown University324 Brook Street, Box 1846Providence, RI 02912phone: (401) 863-3221; fax: (401) 863-2058warren_prell@brown.edu

Carolyn Ruppel (term ends 9/30/03)School of Earth and Atmospheric SciencesGeorgia Institute of Technology221 Bobby Dodd WayAtlanta, GA 30332-0340phone: (404) 894-0231; fax: (404) 894-5638cdr@piedmont.eas.gatech.edu

Ellen Thomas (term ends 9/30/04)Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesWesleyan University265 Church StreetMiddletown, CT 06459-0139phone: (860) 685-2238; fax: (860) 685-3651ethomas@wesleyan.edu

Jill Whitman (term ends 9/30/05)Department of Geological SciencesPacific Lutheran UniversityTacoma, WA 98447phone: (253) 535-8720whitmaj@plu.edu

Membership term is three years.*USSAC Executive Committee

J. Paul DauphinProgram Director, ODPNational Science Foundation4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 725Arlington, VA 22230phone: (703) 292-8581; fax: (703) 292-9085jdauphin@nsf.gov

Thomas DaviesManager, Science ServicesOcean Drilling Program, Texas A&M University1000 Discovery DriveCollege Station, TX 77845-9547phone: (979) 862-2283; fax: (979) 845-0876davies@odpemail.tamu.edu

John FarrellProgram Director, JOI/USSSPJoint Oceanographic Institutions1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20036-2102phone: (202) 232-3900 x211; fax: (202) 462-8754jfarrell@joiscience.org

USSAC MEMBERSHIP

N E W S L E T T E R

Joint Oceanographic Institutions1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20036-2102 USA

INSTRUCTIONS:First, fill in the blanks in Section A. Then, read the story in Section B, replacing the numberedblanks with the corresponding words. Be creative.

JOI’S NEW GAME: FISHING FOR WORDS

SECTION A1. Place2. Mode of transportation3. Past-tense verb4. Geologic feature5. Chemical element6. Rock type7. Number8. Adjective9. Adjective10. Plural noun11. Adverb12. Adjective13. Greeting14. Famous person15. Emotion16. Adjective17. Verb18. Plural beverage19. Place

We hope you enjoy thisnew word game. If youwish to contribute any fu-ture stories or ideas forother word games, pleaseemail them to:Jennifer Anzianojanziano@joiscience.org

SECTION B

“A TRIP TO AGU”

At the ____(1)____ airport I was getting onthe ____(2)____ when I almost ____(3)____my luggage. I am heading to AGU in San Fran-cisco, the city by the ____(4)____, to give atalk on ____(5)____ Concentrations within theOligocene _____(6)_____ from ODP Leg____(7)____. Of course, my first stop is the____(8)____ ODP booth. I want to get a handon one of those ____(9)____ new JOI ____(10)____. I also want to ____(11)____ readthe JOI/USSAC Newsletter, check out the____(12)____ODP-related abstracts and say____ (13)___to the JOI employees, especially____(14)_____. I hope my talk goes well, sinceI feel ____(15)____ talking in front of largegroups. My advisor says to picture them____(16)____. After that I will ____ (17)____to the ODP Town Meeting to enjoy a few ____(18)____ before I walk back to ____(19)____.