STATEMAP Program · 2019-09-26 · So you will see new guidance for this in the PA.\爀屲Perhaps the most significant change this year is\ഠthat I am changing the way I choose the

$Page 1: STATEMAP Program · 2019-09-26 · So you will see new guidance for this in the PA.\爀屲Perhaps the most significant change this year is\ഠthat I am changing the way I choose the$
STATEMAP Proposal Preparation Webinar, September 20, 2019Core Science Systems

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping ProgramU.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

STATEMAP Program

Darcy McPheeAssociate Program Coordinator, NCGMP and Program Officer, STATEMAP

Mike MarkettiProgram and Budget Analyst, NCGMP

Kim DoveGrants Specialist, STATEMAP

“STATEMAP Proposal Preparation Webinar”

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Introduce myself, Mike, Kim, Welcome any new SM Coordinators, etc. Please update on any new SM coordinator contact info… we do our best to keep our contacts up to date

STATEMAP Proposal Preparation Webinar, 2019National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program

STATEMAP Proposal PreparationNCGMP Program Update FY20 PA Changes STATEMAP Evaluation Process STATEMAP Evaluation Criteria- Recommendations Best PracticesDeliverables Future

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Make sure we leave enough time for questions- will try to go thru slides quickly Some of this info may be Review for some…. New to others… may not have enough time to go thru all so please contact us with any questions you may have


NCGMP 2019FEDMAP: 15 USGS regional geologic mapping and research projects, federal lands, several projects partnering with NPS

STATEMAP: 44 State Geological Surveys ($5.6M federal funds)

EDMAP: 24 University Agreements ($429K federal funds)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I just want to start out giving you a quick overview of the Program. This slide shows the current national reach of NCGMP- so these are current mapping and research projects that will carry into FY20.


CurrentFEDMAPFY19Projects

Gregory Walsh Northeast Bedrock Mapping Project NY, NH, VT, CTKyle House Lower Colorado River System Project AZ, CA, NV, UTRen Thompson and Joe Colgan

Intermountain West Geologic Framework Integration Project

CO, NM, UT, AZ, NV

Mark Hudson Ozark Dome – Arkoma Basin – Ouachita belt Transect (ODABOuT)

AR

Robert E. Powell San Andreas Fault System in Southern California (SAFSOC-2)

CA

Victoria Langenheim Southern Pacific and Sierra Earthquake and Water Studies

CA

Jon Hagstrum North Pacific Border, Cascades and Columbia Plateau Project

OR, WA, ID

Ric Page US-Mexico Borderlands Geologic Framework AZ, TX

Andy Cyr Western Basin and Range- Eastern California Shear Zone

CA, NV, AZ

Kevin Schmidt GeoMapping for Integrated Science CACal Ruleman Denali Hazards Mapping Project AKChris Swezey Great Lakes and North Central Lowlands Project WI, IL, MI, IN

Mark Carter and Arthur Merschat

Blue Ridge and Piedmont Project VA, NC, TN

David Weary Valley and Ridge/ Appalachian Basin Project WV, VA, MD

Wright Horton Coastal Basement Geology of the SE U.S. SC, GA

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This slide (hard to reach) lists FEDMAP contacts and States in which mapping and research projects are taking place. Will post on website.


North Carolina State University

Karl Wegmann NC

University of Oregon Josh Roering OR

University of Southern California

Scott Paterson CA

University of South Alabama

David Allison AL

Missouri State University Gary Michelfelder NM

University of Nevada- Reno Stacia Gordon WA

Portland State University Martin Streck OR

University of Michigan Nathan Niemi CA, NV

University of Alaska-Fairbanks

Elisabeth Nadin AK

Purdue University Kenneth Ridgway AK

University of Alabama Rebecca Minzoni AL

University of Wyoming Carol D. Frost and B. Ronald Frost

WY

Illinois State University David Malone WY

Montana Tech of the University of Montana

Larry Smith MT

Montana Tech of the University of Montana

Chris Gammons MT

University of Mississippi Ron Counts MS

University of Missouri-Kansas City

Richard Gentile MO

Michigan Tech University James DeGraff MI

Kent State University David Hacker UT

University of Cincinnati Craig Dietsch CT

Missouri State University Matthew McKay AL

Idaho State University Glenn Thackray ID

Florida State University James Tull GA

College of William and Mary

Christopher Bailey VA

Current FY19EDMAP Projects

University PI State University PI State

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Likewise, this is a list of current universities hosting EDMAP projects. Again, if you would like any more specifics about any of these projects, please let me know. EDMAP PI’s are required to submit a letter of support from the State Geologist of the State in which they are mapping, and they are also required to submit their map deliverable to that State Geological Survey at the end of their project.


EDMAP FY19 Update

24 Awards, 28 students, mapping in 18 different states

Presenter

Presentation Notes

current update


STATEMAP FY20 The StateMap Program Announcement will be posted on Grants.gov soon

(exact date TBD) Proposals are due in November There is a $300K cap on proposals Thank you for your continued participation in STATEMAP and STATEMAP

Webinars! Your feedback is appreciated!

Presenter

Presentation Notes

So, back to STATEMAP… we are about to start the FY20 cycle… some key summary points Mention possible shutdown here…


Downloading STATEMAP PA from Grants.gov

Search by G20AS00006 (Opportunity Number) or STATEMAP (Keyword or Title)Once Grant Opportunity is open, to get to the program

announcement: Click on Blue Tab “Package” Click on “Preview” under Actions in the gray bar Click on “Download Instructions” at the end of the blue bar

beginning with “Package Forms” (right above where Mandatory Forms are listed)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Will send out an announcement once open


STATEMAP Changes- FY20 Digitization projects no longer supported Recommended but NOT required to submit 4 or less projects Removed the following statement/recommendation: “The result

envisioned for the digital compilation project is a 1:100,000 scale digital geologic map that will eventually become part of the State database and the National Geologic Map Database.” Derivative Maps allowed for previous year’s mapping References no longer included in 20-page limit Example Maps- PO will choose published STATEMAP map from NGMDB Review Criteria #5- Example Map: Changed ‘products’ to ‘ map

publications’ GeMS Requirement (next slide)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Digitization projects- we don’t receive very many requests for digitization projects thru SM anymore, as these fall more under the purvue of data preservation PA says… mapping should be done at a scale deemed appropriate for the geologic problem being addressed- this includes compilation projects Previously, Derivative maps products were allowed to augment the proposed primary geologic map products, but I’ve changed the guidance to allow for derivative map products based on the previous year’s STATEMAP geologic map as well, as long as they provide additional value to the geologic problem being addressed. Considering these are 1-year agreements and it is difficult enough to finish a geologic map in 1-year, allowing more time for derivative products to be made makes more sense. So you will see new guidance for this in the PA. Perhaps the most significant change this year is that I am changing the way I choose the Example map for the Panel to review. In the past, an example map from the previous year’s STATEMAP deliverables is chosen by the Program Officer and presented to the panel as part of the proposal review process. Considering Statemap deliverables are only required to be draft maps, and are not finished, cartographic products, I’ve decided it is more appropriate that the Panel sees examples of published STATEMAP maps in order to more adequately assess the quality of a particular State Survey’s geologic map. So the Program Officer will now choose a recent, or within 5 years, published STATEMAP map from the NGMDB to go forward for review. So this change also led to the change in Criteria #5: “Products” from previous STATEMAP cooperative agreements to “Map Publications” from previous STATEMAP cooperative agreements GeMS Requirement…


New GeMS Requirement- STATEMAP FY20

Background:

NCGMP is phasing in a new requirement that the GeMS standard be adopted for all newly published STATEMAP-funded maps. NCGMP recognizes that many state surveys do not currently have the resources and GIS capabilities to support GeMS compliance, and so proposes a three-year transition to full GeMS compliance.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Before I talk about the new requirement in the FY20 PA, I want to provide some background…. READ: NCGMP is phasing in a new requirement that the GeMS standard be adopted for all newly published STATEMAP-funded maps. NCGMP recognizes that many state surveys do not currently have the resources and GIS capabilities to support GeMS compliance, and so proposes a three-year transition to full GeMS compliance. Each year, we will require an additional level of GeMS compliance (see https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/standards/GeMS/draftimplplan.pdf for more details):


GeMS Background GeMS was designed as a publication format, not a ‘working-level’

research database- Agencies are encouraged to manage their geologic map data however they conclude is most practical GeMS is stable and will not change significantly in the foreseeable

future; it is in the final stages of USGS publication. However supporting documentation and software tools will evolve as needed NGMDB (the National Geologic Map Database) will build and

maintain the nationwide GeMS repository 3 levels of compliance NCGMP formed a GeMS Working Group to guide the process of

program-wide implementation

Presenter

Presentation Notes

provide some background on the GeMS Working Group and meeting


New GeMS Requirement- STATEMAP FY20Each year, we will require an additional level of GeMS compliancy according to the following levels (see https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/standards/GeMS/draftimplplan.pdf for more details): Level One (FY20)– A geologic database in GIS format that adheres to GeMS

topology requirements, and stratigraphic nomenclature differences with Geolex are documented, Level Two (FY21) – Level One requirements, plus the GeMS schema is

implemented for the map (but only specified fields must have appropriate content), and the GeMS validation script must be run, Level Three (FY22)-- Level 2 requirements, plus legitimate content for all required

fields not noted for Level 2. Also, population of optional fields is strongly encouraged.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

READ AT END: Part of the Working Groups recommendations is that we will not proceed past the Level One requirement without additional funding for the program. These resources will not only help the NGMDB update online resources for the States, but will also go to the State Surveys to help support their GeMS capabilities. Quite basic requirement, and to some extent is already met during the prep of any well-constructed GIS file. In exchange, draft deliverable maps no longer have to be finished cartographic products (topology requirements: no gaps or overlapping polygons, all contacts and faults in same feature class, map unit polygon boundaries are covered by Contacts and faults lines) Stop for questions?

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/standards/GeMS/draftimplplan.pdf


Proposal Evaluation Process

Proposals are reviewed for completeness by the Program Officer, Program Analyst, and Contracting Officer. They are then shared with the Evaluation Panel consisting of 4 State

Geologists and 3 USGS Geologists. Each proposal is evaluated based on the criteria set forth in the Program

Announcement. Proposals are rated individually and panel member scores are recorded

in the Program Management System.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

A lot of you may know this, so I apologize if this is review. Once your proposals are submitted to Grants.gov.. They are reviewed….


Proposal Evaluation Process (cont.) Proposals are reviewed at a face-to-face panel meeting in January, 2019

to discuss the merits of each proposal. Revisions to original rating scores are recorded. Panel feedback is compiled, to be included in Decision Letters.

Program Office requirements are also evaluated such as on-time deliverable completion and NGMDB updates, required documents (ex. Data Management Plan), and adherence to budget allowable expenses. Awards are based on panel rating scores and their funding

recommendations as well as programmatic requirements as stated in the Program Announcement.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

(point 1) and they arrive at a consensus score Bullet 1: Say a little bit more about feedback…. Top 3 strengths and weaknesses, based on Panel consensus and discussion, not everything in feedback has bearing on scores but meant to be constructive. READ AT END: I am not a member of the review Panel and don’t take part in the scoring of the proposals. However, If necessary, the Program Officer may alter the score based on program requirements. If deliverables are turned in late or not at all, this could jeopardize your eligibility to participate in the next STATEMAP proposal cycle. So the program takes note of any late deliverables, and, in some cases, lateness may effect your score or eligibility to participate.


Proposal Evaluation Criteria1. State Mapping Advisory Committee (10 points).2. Purpose and Impact of geologic mapping (20 points).3. Technical Quality of the Proposal (25 points).4. Budget Clarity and Justification (15 points)5. Map Publications from previous STATEMAP

cooperative agreements (30 points).

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Point out weight of each criteria. These have not changed this year except for Criteria #5- products to publications


Criterion 1

STATEMAP Advisory Committee (10 points)

Is the committee broad based and balanced? Is a letter from the committee chair included? Does the letter explain both the State’s mapping

priorities, the process by which priorities were reached, and the long-term mapping plan?

Are the names, affiliations, and expertise of each committee member listed?

Presenter

Presentation Notes


SMAC: recommendations The SMAC letter should describe how the mapping projects were

prioritized and selected (it should not be a summary of proposed projects). If the long-range mapping plan is described in the proposal, the SMAC

letter should refer to it. Otherwise, the SMAC Chair should briefly discuss the plan (no need to describe the plan twice). SMAC letter should be a maximum of 4 pages long (not including list of

members). Voting SMAC members should not be personnel on proposed projects. Virtual attendance is encouraged. Include a list of members, affiliations, and expertise.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

…It is not intended to be a duplicate of the proposal narrative. More describes the process by which projects were prioritized and why. A typical letter is 2 pages long- we are putting a limit on this letter of 4 pages. Also, Voting SMAC members must not be listed on any projects as personnel.


Name Affiliation Expertise Attended meeting

Voting member

Fred Flintstone Hardrock Mine Rubble mover Yes Yes

Barney Rubble Softrock Quarry, Inc.

Alchemy No Yes

Cap’n Crunch High Seas Academy

Oceanography Yes Yes

Willie Coyote ACME, Inc. Excavation Yes No

* Voting SMAC members cannot be listed on any projects.

List of SMAC members

Presenter

Presentation Notes

An example list is shown here. Be sure to include expertise. The panel looks carefully at breadth of membership, but just listing the affililation didn’t always give insight in terms of the Members background or area of representation.


Recommendations: Letters of Support

Letters of support other than those required will not be reviewed by the Panel.

Required letters of support: SMAC Letter Letter supporting Statement of Outcome Letters of commitment from volunteers or in-kind

services where necessary

Presenter

Presentation Notes

letters of support other than the SMAC letter are discouraged. In the past, some States have been submitting extra letters of support from their communities/stakeholders/etc. However, this is not a requirement, and if letters like this are submitted, then the Panel members will not get to see them. The only letters of support that are acceptable are ….


Criterion 2Purpose and Impact of geologic mapping (20 points) How well does the proposal relate to the State Geological Survey’s

intermediate to long-range plan? How well does the proposed mapping respond to societal or customer

needs? How well does the proposed mapping address Secretarial priorities and the

goals of the National Geologic Mapping Act? Is a ‘Statement of Outcome’ provided? Does it show how one of your state’s

recently published STATEMAP products was used by another organization or person? Is a letter from this organization or person included that states the impact or benefit of the geologic map or how it was a critical component of their decision-making process?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

c) Mention Secretarial priorities wording? Last years panel we did have some folks who looked closely at whether the proposal directly supported the Goals of NCGMP. d) Emphasize statement of outcome as well as letter…. Need a statement this is one of the most important tools for the program to sell what we do. Statement of Outcome is limited to 1 page, but is NOT part of technical section (20 pages)-


Criterion 3Technical Quality of the Proposal (25 points) Is the proposal well-written and concise? How well does the proposal demonstrate the scientific and

technical viability of the proposed objectives? Do the deliverables for each project adequately relate to the

proposed project? Does the proposal stress relevant and new scientific

contributions?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Meat of the proposal


Clearly define new mapping vs. a compilation project. Clearly define mapping strategy. Be consistent in writing project descriptions making sure

that style and section formatting are the same throughout the proposal. The use of tables and charts for clarity and conciseness is

encouraged.

Recommendations: Technical Quality

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Mapping strategy- if this varies by project, be specific- panel focused on this as well Focus on format at last years panel too


Criterion 4Budget Clarity and Justification (15 points) Does the overall budget have a 1:1 match of Federal and State

funds? Does the budget clearly show each employee by name, salary rate,

and length of time employed on each project? Is the proposed staff sufficient to accomplish the proposed goals? Are all field expenses, supplies, and other expenses reasonable and

adequately itemized? Are all items included as direct costs appropriate? Are contract employees clearly distinguished from those already on

the State Geological Survey payroll?

Presenter

Presentation Notes


Recommendations: Budget Costs for mileage – make sure that they are reasonable. When

creating your mapping strategy, do your best to show efficiency when you can.

Rate of compensation In one column provide the salary as a rate (annual salary, pay

amount per hour). In another column tell us how many months, hours, or

percentage of the year the person will be working on the project. If you use a generic “units” column, then please annotate the actual

units next to the item.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Budget focused recommendations The panel looks at the budgets quite carefully- Make sure the panel understands where the numbers are coming from.


Recommendations: Conference Travel Travel expenses not to exceed $2K are allowed for ONE staff

member to attend ONE scientific conference/workshop. Staff member should be identified. A detailed breakdown of all ‘estimated’ costs should be

provided. Conference travel fund requests for contractors is

prohibited. States may match up to $2K for conference travel funds for

the SAME staff member.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This is optional of course.


Recommendations: Budget Explanation and Justification This section should explain and justify, in detail, your budget. It is

important that you itemize your supplies, laboratory and drilling expenses, travel expenses, and any unusual costs in this section.

Describe estimated field vs. office time. Do not roll up costs – they must be itemized! The budget and budget justification section should be consistent

with mapping strategy section. You cannot use current year’s STATEMAP funding to work on

previous STATEMAP products (unless it is for derivative maps according to the guidance).

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Also…You cannot pay for USGS services with STATEMAP funds.


Criterion 5Map Publications from previous STATEMAP cooperative agreements (30 points) What is the quality of the map deliverables and do they

include the components necessary to convey the geology of the quadrangle or mapped area?

Have all deliverables been submitted in a timely fashion? Has the state survey updated the National Geologic Map

Database?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Note that wording changed here from ‘Products’ to ‘Map Publications’ – only change in the criteria this year As a reminder, this example map is not something you submit with your proposal, this is something that the Program office selects from the NGMDB Note: All of these criteria are appropriate when preparing your proposal, however, the panel is only required to evaluate based on a. Parts b and c are absolutely required and if not submitted the state is ineligible for StateMap funding.


Recommendations: Example Maps The STATEMAP Program Officer selects a published geologic map

from your most recent submission to the National Geologic Map Database. The STATEMAP Panel reviews digital .pdfs of your maps. In the case that a particular map has several plates, all plates may be

included at the discretion of the Program Officer. (However- additional plates are NOT required) Accompanying pamphlets/reports will not be provided for the Panel

for review.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Because I am now choosing from publications, I will likely choose the state survey’s most recent statemap-funded publication submission to the NGMDB.


National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB) Requirements For all published maps and reports for which STATEMAP funding was received in

previous years, provide the specified bibliographic information (citation, link, GIS data information, pdf) for the Map Catalog. In your proposal, indicate that this has been or has not been accomplished. You are strongly encouraged to submit non-STATEMAP-funded maps as reports as

well. Publication information should be entered into the National Geologic Map Database

(http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/partners.html). See http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/partners.html or contact Dave Soller

([email protected]) for details

Presenter

Presentation Notes

READ:�Just a comment on the database: For all published maps and reports for which STATEMAP funding was received in previous years, provide the specified bibliographic information for the Map Catalog. In your proposal, indicate that this has been or has not been accomplished. You are strongly encouraged to also submit non-STATEMAP-funded maps and reports, in order to improve the comprehensiveness of the NGMDB and broaden access to your publications through this National portal. See http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/partners.html or contact Dave Soller ([email protected]) for details. In your proposal, indicate that this has been or has not been accomplished. Break for questions now before best practices??


STATEMAP: Best Practices Read the Program Announcement. Follow the Proposal Format Instructions and order (Part II, Section C) and

include the appropriate information in each document or section. Print out the Proposal Evaluation Criteria and have it with you whenever

you are writing the proposal. Be sure that you convey to the Proposal Evaluation Panel that the

proposal answers each criteria well.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

emphasize the format here


Best Practices Bundle all documents into one PDF for submission. Always include an overview/Index map of your mapping projects for

context at the beginning of your proposal. Include the name or citation of the Level One GeMS database

deliverable.When creating the budget, if you have a question about what are

allowable costs and what are not allowable - CALL ME. Proofread!

Presenter

Presentation Notes


Best Practices Adhere to the page and font size limits (4 pages for SMAC, 20 pages for

Technical Section [excluding references], 1 page for Outcome Statement, minimum of 11 pt font). Triple check your budget numbers. Be Clear and Concise- do and not leave it to the panel members to read

between the lines or to make assumptions. Graphics – only include figures and charts that will benefit your proposal.

Refer to them in the text and label them appropriately.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Page limit for technical section is 20 pages!! This excludes references now- NEW this year. This is an absolute maximum- keep it as short and concise, yet complete, as possible… THINK OF THE PANEL No PENALTY FOR A SHORTER PROPOSAL. We are doing our best to streamline the process so more time is spent on mapping and less on proposal writing. Remember each panel member is required to read every proposal.


The Bottom Line…Write clearly, thoroughly, and concisely. Proofread all documents. Thoroughly check your budget calculations and ensure that there is a 1:1

Fed/State match on the total budget. Call the Program Officer with any questions. Submit your proposal on time!

Presenter

Presentation Notes


Best Practices- Revisions Always submit a revised form SF 424 (signed). Always submit a revised Summary Sheet that also includes the revised

deliverable list. Always include budget revisions for each project AND the total overall

cost. Always include a narrative of what has changed from your original

proposal.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Emphasize last point.


STATEMAP DeliverablesSTATEMAP deliverables include: Digital version of the draft geologic map(s) that you proposed (do not need to

be finished cartographic products) 1 Level One GeMS database to the NGMDB (guidance regarding delivery will

be forthcoming) Transmittal Letter The letter should identify the award number, Recipient's name, Principal

Investigator's name, title of the Recipient's application, and a description of the map(s) being submitted.

Technical Report describing your year-long mapping projects using the guidance already provided or submit a map pamphlet/technical report.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

CLARIFY Technical Report- pamphlets/OFR are OK, but needed for each map in that case (not just the completed ones). Don’t have to be long. Clarify data files in GeMS Possibly go into more detail about technical report- we don’t give a lot of guidance, pamphlet is OK, but my best reports are different from pamphlets…


Future…• Continued DOI approval requirements• Deliverables uploaded through management system• Webinar on GeMS in FY20• Additional GeMS support• Level Two GeMS Geologic Map Schema requirement (if additional

funding)• NCGMP Website

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Thank folks for their patience with the management system. Talk about no longer allowed to use DropBox….. Ask for feedback Feedback appreciated- in particular, a lot of the material that I showed here is review for most, or even common sense at this point- so if there is any way I could make this particular webinar more useful, please let me know. .


Questions?

Presenter

Presentation Notes


Darcy McPhee, Program [email protected]

Mike Marketti, Program [email protected]

Jeanne Bruins, Program [email protected]

Kim Dove, Grants [email protected]

STATEMAP Contact Information

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Please contact me with any comments/feedback/etc.


Thank you.


Goals of the Geologic Mapping Act• Determine the Nation’s geologic framework through the systematic

development of geologic maps; such maps will contribute to the National Geologic Map Database.

• Develop complementary national databases (e.g., geophysical and paleontologic databases) that provide value-added information to the National Geologic Map Database.

• Apply cost-effective mapping techniques that assemble and disseminate geologic-map information, and that render such information of greater application and benefit to the public. Develop public awareness of the role and application of geologic-map

information to the resolution of national issues of land use management.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

These are in the PA.


DOI Secretarial Priorities Create a conservation stewardship legacy second only to Teddy Roosevelt. Sustainably develop our energy and natural resources. Restore trust and be a good neighbor. Ensure tribal sovereignty means something. Increase revenues to support the Department and national interests. Protect our people and the border. Strike a regulatory balance.Modernize our infrastructure. Reorganize the Department for the next 100 years. Achieve our goals and lead our team forward.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In the current administration, we are the subject of a lot more oversight from the Department of Interior. We are now required to get both USGS Director approval and DOI Secretarial approval for all of our USGS grants/cooperative agreements. In addition to cooperative agreements, they are also looking at Program Announcements. Hence, we are required to address Secretarial priorities in the program announcement. In case you were interested in what they are, they are listed here. So far, individual proposals have not been scrutinized, and geologic mapping in general addresses some of these priorities. But I just wanted to give you some context as to why these are now referred to in the PA. So you are not required to speak directly to these in your proposals.

Documents

STATEMAP Program · 2019-09-26 · So you will see new guidance for this in the PA.\爀屲Perhaps the most significant change this year is\ഠthat I am changing the way I choose the