NOT A REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS Badlands National Park Centennial Design Studio NOT A REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is Funding Opportunity Number P15AC00767?

P15AC00767 is a National Park Service (NPS) funding opportunity for a cooperative agreement connected to Badlands National Park. The work focuses on planning and design alternatives for the Cedar Pass Developed Area, the park's primary hub for visitor services and infrastructure.

2) Which part of Badlands National Park does this project focus on?

The project is specifically focused on the Cedar Pass Developed Area. Cedar Pass includes the visitor center, campground, lodge/restaurant, cabins, and an interconnected system of roads and trails that support visitor circulation and services.

3) Why is Cedar Pass considered historically significant?

Cedar Pass is described as a historic designed landscape and a cultural landscape district with layered significance tied to multiple eras of park development. Those include early tourism growth in the 1930s, New Deal-era resources, and Mission 66 development in the 1960s.

4) Is Cedar Pass listed on the National Register of Historic Places?

The Cedar Pass area was determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a district in 2005. Because of this status, future changes are expected to respect the area's historic character while also addressing modern needs.

5) What is the main purpose of this cooperative agreement?

The core purpose is to produce a planning and management framework that generates new design alternatives for Cedar Pass. The intent is to address facility and visitor-experience gaps in a coordinated way rather than through piecemeal fixes.

6) What problems or needs is the project trying to address?

The project is meant to respond to gaps between existing facilities and current expectations for visitor experience, sustainability, and accessibility. It is also intended to better understand and manage visitor use and associated impacts across the Cedar Pass Developed Area.

7) What kind of analysis is expected about visitor use and impacts?

The work is framed around understanding how visitor use is currently affecting Cedar Pass. That includes the level and types of use, where impacts are occurring, and when peak impacts happen. This diagnosis is intended to inform the design alternatives and management framework.

8) What are the expected outcomes or deliverables?

The expected outcome is a planning and management framework with design alternatives for Cedar Pass. The alternatives are expected to improve visitor experience, reduce or better manage visitor impacts, and protect historic resources and surrounding natural resources within the cultural landscape.

9) How does the project balance historic preservation with modernization?

The opportunity emphasizes that Cedar Pass must evolve to meet modern needs while respecting its historic character. The planning and design alternatives are intended to protect historic resources while also addressing sustainability, accessibility, and visitor experience expectations.

10) What role do accessibility and sustainability play in the project?

Accessibility and sustainability are central themes. The project calls for studying physical and programmatic accessibility deficiencies in buildings and the surrounding landscape and tying those findings to visitor-use patterns and issues.

11) Are any specific sustainability frameworks referenced?

Yes. The announcement commits to incorporating established rating frameworks, specifically the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) and LEED, to ground proposed alternatives in recognized best practices for site and building planning.

12) What is distinctive about the project approach?

A distinctive feature is the academic design studio model using graduate students from the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. The studio is intended to be multidisciplinary, incorporating historic preservation, landscape architecture, architecture, and planning perspectives.

13) Which university and units are involved?

The studio work is associated with the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center is listed as providing assistance as a subcontractor.

14) Who is identified as leading the design studio?

The studio leadership is identified as Associate Professor Michael Holleran and Assistant Professor Benjamin Ibarra.

15) What was the anticipated timeline for the studio work?

The studio was planned primarily for the fall 2015 semester, with design support extending into summer 2015 and spring 2016.

16) Is this opportunity an open call for applications?

No. The opportunity is explicitly labeled "NOT A REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS," indicating it was not an open, competitive solicitation to the general public.

17) Who was eligible for this opportunity?

Eligibility was limited to Gulf Coast CESU members. This reflects the way NPS often uses Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) networks for research, technical assistance, and training partnerships.

18) How many awards were expected?

The announcement indicated an expected number of awards of one.

19) What was the estimated total funding amount?

The estimated total funding amount was $251,958, and the award ceiling was also listed as $251,958.

20) Was there a minimum award amount?

The award floor was listed as $0.

21) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No cost sharing or matching requirement was listed.

22) What type of funding instrument is used?

The funding instrument type is a cooperative agreement. This typically means the federal agency anticipates substantial involvement in the project, which aligns with a design-studio effort requiring coordination with park staff, specialists, and related considerations.

23) What broad subject areas does the announcement categorize this work under?

The opportunity categorizes the work under education, environment, natural resources, and science and technology/research and development, reflecting its blend of learning-based design studio activity and applied park planning.

24) How does this opportunity connect to NPS priorities?

The announcement explicitly connects the work to NPS "Call to Action" priorities, including Scaling Up (item 22), Go Green (item 23), and What's Old is New (item 25).

25) When was the opportunity posted, and what were the key dates?

The opportunity was posted on June 8, 2015. The original and current closing date was June 12, 2015. The archive date was July 12, 2015, indicating the opportunity was time-limited and tied to a specific period.

26) Who is the listed contact for administrative or access issues?

The contact listed was Noel Miller, Grants Management Specialist. Phone: 402-661-1658. Email: noelmiller@nps.gov.

27) What is the practical intent of the design alternatives produced?

Based on the description, the alternatives are meant to combine real-world park planning constraints with design exploration typical of an academic studio. The intent is to produce concept-level or alternative-based planning products that can guide later implementation.

28) What resources is the project expected to protect?

The project is expected to protect both historic resources within Cedar Pass and surrounding natural resources in the broader cultural landscape, while also improving visitor experience and managing visitor impacts.