**Office of Surface Mining**

**Applied Science Proposal**

**Evaluation Form for 2009**

**Evaluation Due Date:**

Proposal Number:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Proposal Title:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Principal Investigator:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Reviewer:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Date Proposal Reviewed:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Proposal Score

  ------------ ------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------
  Criterion 1  Criterion 2   Criterion 3   Criterion 4     Criterion 5

  External     Technology    Technical     SMCRA Value     High Priority
  Support      Transfer      Merit                         
               Potential                                   

                                                           
  ------------ ------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------

Total Score : \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ of 30 Points Possible

**Criterion 1. External Support (0-3 points). Score: \_\_\_\_\_**

Consider the nature of the cost share, i.e. cash versus in-kind
services. In-kind services must provide documentation that these
services actually represent the equivalent of cash.

0 = No cost share present.

1 = Cost share present but less than 25%

2 = 25% - 50% cost share present

3 = Greater than 50% cost share present

Add 1 point if cost share is provided by a stakeholder other than the
proposer.

**List Stakeholders:**

**Criterion 2. Technology Transfer Potential (0-6 points). Score:
\_\_\_\_\_**

Does the project provide a plan for technology transfer?

1.  Will the results be published in a peer reviewed journal? Y/N (3)

2.  Will the results be presented at a relevant mining professional
    symposium? Y/N (2)

3.  Is there a specific plan for training, workshops or forums to
    transfer results? Y/N (1)

**Comments:**

**Criterion 3. Technical Merit (0-8 points). Score: \_\_\_\_\_**

4.  Is this proposal a valuable addition to the science? Y/N

5.  Does the approach of the proposal have a good opportunity of

technical success? Y/N

6.  Are the project description and statement of work thorough,
    detailed,

> and logically sequenced? Y/N

7.  Does the proposal address all technical variables that could
    reasonably

be expected to impact success? Y/N

8.  Does the proposal set reasonable objectives and goals? Y/N

9.  Do the principal investigator and senior personnel have

sufficient experience and understanding to accomplish

this work? Y/N

10. Are there adequate facilities necessary to conduct the

proposed work? Y/N

11. Is the proposed time frame appropriate for the stated scope of work?
    Y/N

One point for each yes.

**Comments:**

**Criterion 4. Evaluation of Value to the SMCRA programs (0-10 points).
Score: \_\_\_\_\_**

Value for impacting on the ground results (Excellent 3) (Good 2)
(Minimal 1) (Not 0)

Is this an original and innovative proposal? (2)

Is the proposal applied rather than theoretical? (2)

Is the proposal highly cost effective? (2) and how is it cost effective?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Does this technology appear to be transferable to more than one OSM
region? (1)

Deduct two points if the proposer is not current with previously funded
applied science projects as determined by the OSM NTTT regional team
representative for projects in their region.

**Comments:**

**Criterion 5. High Priority Proposal for FY 2009 (0-2 point) Score:
\_\_\_\_\_**

High priority topics for FY 2009 that will receive two additional points
in the consensus scoring process include:

**1. Reforestation Issues:** Develop innovative and improved methods
for: (a) cost effectiveness; (b) forest productivity; and (c) erosion
control.

**2. Blasting Issues:** Develop innovative and improved methods for: (a)
assessing and controlling ground vibration and airblast; (b) monitoring
blasting characteristics and their effects; (c) assessing structure
response and damage caused by blasting; and (d) assessing the impacts of
vibration on water wells.

**3. Hydrology Issues:** Develop innovative and improved methods for:
(a) preventing, minimizing the extent and duration, and restoring stream
loss associated with underground mines; (b) predicting outfalls, water
quality and quantity associated with mine pools, and the potential for
mine blow-outs; (c) predicting, preventing, and treating mine drainage
from abandoned or active mines; and (d) assessing water quality
parameters.

**4. Soils-based Crop Yield Predictor:** Develop and demonstrate an
accurate soils-based predictor of crop yield to be used to determine
revegetation success without actually growing crops.

**5. Carbon Dioxide Gas Intrusion:** Evaluate potential causes for
carbon dioxide gas intrusion into houses and other man made structures
built on reclaimed coal mine spoils; identify practical solutions for
its prevention; and develop methods for remediating and/or eliminating
it.

**6. Coal Mine Voids and Fires:** Develop reliable techniques and
methods for detecting and characterizing coal mine voids and fires.

**7. Invasive Species:** Develop innovative and improved methods for
identifying, assessing, managing, and preventing invasive species (i.e.
cheat grass, etc.) on reclaimed mine lands.