Charge to the Homestake Program Advisory Committee (January 2006)

1) With the information provided at {the February 2006} meeting and with subsequent discussions we request that the PAC develop of a scientific program well suited to the Homestake Early Implementation Program (EIP). We would appreciate at least a first draft of the science program for the EIP by late Spring to assist with the plans to rehabilitate the mine and in time for our CDR submission which is due in June 2006. 

2) The infrastructure at Homestake (underground footprint, access, operations limitations and such) may be a limiting factor in hosting all of the proposed experiments.  From the LOIs and the February meeting we will learn from the proponents their infrastructure and facility requirements.  The Early Implementation Program at Homestake will be limited in scope, but we would like to accommodate as many experimental and educational uses as possible. This meeting will be the beginning of discussions between the SDSTA, the S-2 PIs and the experiment's proponents concerning the infrastructure requirements. The PAC is requested to consider the infrastructure impact as well as the scientific merit when considering the experiments. We have defined 5 guiding criteria, which the LOI proposers have been asked to address. These are listed {below}. 

3) We are simultaneously developing the scientific roadmaps beyond the Early Implementation Program.  We are requesting the PAC to consider and advise us on the longer-term roadmaps for Homestake.  Several of the LOIs, in fact, offer phased approaches to experiments. These may require going deeper in subsequent phases, expanding efforts, etc. The PAC should take into consideration for the EIP program the implications of longer-term implications of the proposals. Again an initial draft of the longer-term roadmap by this summer will assist us in planning the rehabilitation of Homestake and would be helpful in our Conceptual Design Report.

4) There may arise situations where the PAC members are conflicted due to their involvement with particular LOIs. We would suggest that the PAC adopt practices similar to the NSF and other organizations, where the conflicted members recuse themselves from the active discussion and ranking of the particular proposal.  

5) The SDSTA executive director and the Homestake PI(s) will participate ex officio with the PAC to assist in providing information on the facility and on similar issues as appropriate. 

Criteria  for Homestake Letters of Interest 

1) Science Goals: what are the scientific, education, or applications motivations for this proposal?  For scientific proposals, what are the scientific goals for the proposal? If appropriate include as much information on experimental reach and parameter-space to be covered by the proposal. As appropriate if this proposal is part of the phased approach, what are the subsequent steps and how will the experiment evolve in latter phases?  
2) Infrastructure Requirements and Impact on Other Users: Using the check lists, estimate the infrastructure requirements of the proposal.  You may wish to contact the SDSTA in considering space and access requirements. How will your proposal impact other users? Does it need to be isolated from other users? Will special environmental, safety or health factors need special attention or isolation? What are the plans for D&D?
3) Readiness for Deployment - technology: As appropriate describe the state of required technology. Will additional R&D be necessary to advance the proposal to the deployment phase? What are the plans for this R&D? Describe any risks to the proposal due to critical technology developments that are required prior to successfully advancing to the deployment phase. Will this R&D be appropriate at Homestake Lab?
4) Readiness for Deployment - effort and funding: Describe the collaboration or manpower required to deploy this proposal.  Do formal collaborative agreements exist and is there a functioning management plan/program in place? Are these required for this proposal? Who is in the collaboration or on the proposal and what roles do they play and what effort is committed to the program? What is the current status of funding for the proposal?  Are experimental proposals in place with funders? What are the schedules and plans for the development of experimental funding?
5) Environment, Safety and Health: What are the environmental and safety risks for the proposal? How will these be managed and the risks mitigated?  Discussions with Homestake personnel may be warranted to complete this section in completeness.