This is the second of the periodic updates I promised would be made to the collaboration. There are three topics below:

1) The flooding reprieve and NSF announcement of a site decision very early this summer.

2) The implications for our "version #2" proposal.

3) Discussions with URA and AUI about management of NUSEL-Homestake.

MINE STATUS/FLOODING: As you are aware from messages I sent out last week, as well as from coverage in the NY Times and elsewhere, Barrick Gold announced its intention to flood Homestake two weeks ago. Barrick has long worried that the NSF process, compounded by growing national deficits, could mean that a NUSEL decision would be years away. As the pumping costs for the mine are $100K/ month, and as other operations costs probably account for another $200K/month, Barrick would then be out substantial sums. (One can debate pumping costs vs operations costs, etc, but this does not qualitatively change the issue.) Through a bit of luck, the pumps were still operating Monday of last week, when Lead Mayor Tom Nelson went to court to keep the pumps operating. There are several twists and turns to the story, but the net result was sufficient concern on the part of Governor Rounds to negotiate an agreement with Barrick to continue pumping into June. Critical to this decision was a timely announcement by Curt Suplee of the NSF that site selection will occur very soon, perhaps by June 1. This allowed Governor Rounds to argue that the mine should not be flooded when a site decision was so near.

Nothing is guaranteed beyond June. However it is clear that if Homestake is chosen, the NSF and Governor Rounds will be able to put together a much clearer plan for Homestake's future. We hope site selection will alter Barrick's position on the use of the $10M Congress allocated in its FY02 budget for preserving Homestake for science.

It is the view of the NUSEL Executive Committee that flooding would have been extremely damaging. Very likely the altered geochemistry of the 8000 ft level would have ruled out any NUSEL geomicrobiology program. Very soon we would have lost the capacity to ventilate any of the lower levels of the mine, making inspection of lower levels virtually impossible. Most important, our very experienced engineers feel that dewatering the mine would have required heroic engineering steps. We emphasized to South Dakota that Barrick's credibility would have been enhanced had they presented, at the time of their flooding announcement, a realistic dewatering plan. We believe the construction of such a plan would have demonstrated that maintaining pumping was the only rational course.

THE VERSION #2 PROPOSAL: Several of us have been working on a version #2 proposal in anticipation of a future site review. The surprise NSF announcement now means this has to be put in good shape within the next three weeks -- a difficult task.

The version #2 proposal is critical for several reasons:

* We have a much more intelligent plan for utilizing the Homestake site than was presented in the original proposal. The new plan avoids the costly Yates shaft extension and the construction of a new major drift connecting the Ross and Yates shafts. It places the laboratory on two levels, 7400 ft and 4800 ft, instead of one -- a configuration that helps distribute the ventilation load, and will allow experiments requiring moderate depth to have simpler access. It places all hall construction in the highest quality rock (Yates formation rock). It also sets the stage for megadetector construction at an ideal location: a separate hoist is reserved for this experiment, so it will not interfere with or be impeded by other NUSEL activities. Some of these improvements respond to suggestions made by the NSF engineering committee that did the Homestake site inspection in August, 2001.

* Many of you labored hard on "white papers" during the Lead, Aspen, and NESS02 meetings, and in support of our collaboration's response to Barish Committee questions. To the best of our ability we have used these materials as the basis for the Science Book, a key part of the new proposal. (I know some of you have worried that your hard work had not been put to use. The Science Book is the heart of the new proposal, and would have been impossible had the white papers not been available.)

* The earth science community is now enthusiastically supporting NUSEL -- which they term EarthLab. They have done a wonderful job on an EarthLab contribution to the new proposal.

The new proposal will include more science -- for example, a much improved low-level counting facility and support for the geomicrobiology program. The access costs are considerably reduced. And we will be more cautious in our contingencies, following conservative agency guidelines. The bottom-line does not change much, but the resulting facility is greatly improved.

It is very likely that we will turn to many of you to ask you to read sections of the new proposal, and to provide us with figures, tables, and captions that will enhance the presentation. And we will likely give you two or three days to respond! Please do your best to help us -- the core group is under great pressure due to the surprise NSF siting decision date.

MANAGEMENT: At the very beginning of the NUSEL process AUI and URA approached us about helping manage this project. We declined at that time because some of our partners in South Dakota were not enthusiastic. Two months ago the executive committee decided we should reopen discussions. There are several reasons:

* It is unclear to us that a new consortium will have the credibility of URA or AUI, organizations that have successfully managed NSF and DOE projects previously. There is a "reinventing the wheel" aspect to the university consortium we proposed originally.

* If a site decision is made, our group very much wants to unite with other contenders -- San Jacinto, WIPP, Soudan -- in building the best possible laboratory for the entire community. We on the executive committee feel it will be easier for others to join us if the proposing institution for NUSEL is AUI or URA, rather than a consortium that includes only some of the universities active in underground science. We want to emphasize that NUSEL is proposed by and for the national community.

* Due in part to the NRC Quarks and the Cosmos report, NUSEL is now recognized as being important to the NSF and DOE. AUI and URA are both experienced with dual agency projects.

* If Homestake is chosen, South Dakota will need to put in place insurance to protect Barrick Gold. Also, the state should be concerned about the impact of our science on their site. We feel AUI and URA have great experience that could be of help to the state, which has very little experience with the liability issues of major science projects. (The state of South Dakota has agreed to take title to the needed portions of the Homestake site -- this is a crucial contribution to our project.)

I met with the Boards of both URA and AUI recently. While the meetings were of the "get acquainted" kind, both groups seem to appreciate that NUSEL is a very exciting project, important to US science. We hope at least one will agree to help us. I will keep you posted.