APPENDIX 1

Background and Organization of the Project

Scientists have argued for years that development of facilities deep underground is essential to answer compelling scientific questions in a broad cross section of science, ranging from particle and nuclear physics and astrophysics to subsurface geosciences, engineering and biology.

In March 2004 the National Science Foundation (NSF) put a new process in place for the development of a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL). The Solicitation 1 (S1)–the first step in the NSF-guided process–called for a community-wide, site-independent study to establish a cross-disciplinary scientific roadmap for such a facility and to identify the generic infrastructure requirements against which the capabilities of potential sites (see Appendix 3) would be measured.

The initial driver for such initiative had come from the physics community (nuclear physics, particle physics, and astrophysics), but it was quickly recognized that a facility deep underground could be equally beneficial to other sciences, as well as the engineering community. At the initiative of Bernard Sadoulet, director of INPAC1, community-wide support was discovered for writing a single, site-independent document that would represent a spectrum of view-points, map the scientific and engineering program, and provide broadly accepted criteria for site and experiment selection. A proposal for the study was submitted to NSF in September 2004 and was approved in January 2005.

Organization

The DUSEL process has been multidisciplinary from the start and involves four directorates at NSF (Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Geosciences, Biological Sciences, and Engineering). The key challenge for the S1 project, therefore, had been to present a fair and unbiased science case acceptable to all the competing sites and scientific fields but not watered down to the lowest common denominator. In view of that challenge an organizational framework was developed and a rigorous procedure was established (outlined below).

1. The six principal investigators, scientists with widely recognized science credentials across the relevant disciplines and from a broad institutional and geographical background, were responsible for the study, in particular its scientific quality. To preserve the objectivity and fairness of the study, none of the six investigators was in any way involved in or connected with the competing sites (see Appendix 2).

2. Four workshops were organized–Berkeley, CA, in August 2004; Blacksburg, VA, in November 2004 (earth sciences and biology– oriented); Boulder, CO, January 2005; and Minneapolis, MN, in July 2005. The workshops built on the considerable work done at the NUSEL2 and NeSS3 meetings and the recommendations that came after them.

3. Fourteen working groups were formed led by scientists or engineers, recognized specialists in their field (see Appendix 2). Twelve of the groups focused on scientific areas and were in charge of distilling the "big questions," drawing a roadmap of high priority generic experiments, identifying the corresponding infrastructure requirements, and attempting to map out the likely evolution of the demand for underground space in their fields and subfields. The two other groups were in charge of general aspects: the infrastructure and management needs, and education and outreach.

4. In addition, two consulting groups were established: (1) the Site Consultation Group, which provided an official channel for the eight candidate sites to comment on the final S1 study, without unduly influencing any of the writings; and (2) the Initiative Coordination Group, representing national labs and other major stakeholders, to help align the proposed DUSEL project with existing national initiatives and point out possible biases in the study.

5. Proceedings of all deliberations were systematically compiled on DUSEL website (www.dusel.org).
   
   It was agreed at the outset that the end product should come in two parts:

• a publication of a "high level" document, directed at generalists (government, funding agencies, and the public), that would identify the big science questions, define the scientific activities at the underground frontier, synthesize the fundamental infrastructure requirements, and evaluate the arguments for a U.S. DUSEL in the context of growing international demand; and

• web-based technical reports⁴, aimed at experts in the corresponding subfields, which would provide detailed infrastructure matrices and lab management requirements, define modules for the initial high-priority experiments, and elaborate on the key scientific issues discussed in the main publication.

The present document and the Working Group Reports have been reviewed by the following distinguished scientists and engineers, to whom our gratitude is extended.

Giovanni Barla, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Pierre Bérest, Ecole Polytechnique, France
Carlo Broggini, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy
Gabriel Chardin, Commisariat a l'Energie Atomique, France
Yves Declais, Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules, France
Donald DePaolo, University of California, Berkeley
Stuart J. Freedman, University of California, Berkeley
Katherine Freese, University of Michigan
Vladimir Gavrin, Institute for Nuclear Research, Russia
William Ghiorse, Cornell University
George M. Hornberger, University of Virginia
John Hudson, Imperial College, UK
Takaaki Kajita, University of Tokyo, Japan
Boris Kayser, Fermilab
Hans Kraus, University of Oxford
Karlheinz Langanke, Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung, Germany
Arthur B. McDonald, Queen's University, Canada
Susan Millar, University of Wisconsin
John Peoples, Fermilab
Andreas Piepke, University of Alabama
Alexei Smirnov, International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste
Andreas Teske, University of North Carolina
Petr Vogel, California Institute of Technology
Kai Zuber, University of Sussex, UK