Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental DNA for Monitoring Amphibians in Yellowstone National Park | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the title of this National Park Service funding opportunity?

The opportunity is titled "Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental DNA for Monitoring Amphibians in Yellowstone National Park."

What type of funding instrument was used?

It was issued as a discretionary cooperative agreement under a science and technology / research and development activity category.

What was the main purpose of the project?

The project was a small, targeted research effort to test whether environmental DNA (eDNA) methods could strengthen or streamline amphibian monitoring in Yellowstone National Park, and to move eDNA from a promising concept toward something practical for park monitoring programs.

What does the opportunity mean by environmental DNA (eDNA) in this context?

In this context, eDNA refers to DNA that can be collected from environmental water samples in wetlands. The project aimed to see whether that DNA could be used to detect amphibian species presence in a way that can be compared to traditional field-based observations.

What was the specific project focus for 2013?

The 2013 focus was practical and method-driven: (1) develop and validate species-specific molecular markers (DNA assays) for four native amphibian species in Yellowstone, and (2) take an initial step toward field evaluation by using those markers in real wetlands and comparing eDNA detections to results from traditional visual encounter surveys.

How many amphibian species were targeted?

Four native amphibian species found in Yellowstone National Park were targeted for marker (assay) development and validation.

What were the primary deliverables implied by the announcement?

The primary deliverable implied was the creation and validation of molecular markers that are specific enough to detect only the target amphibian species, without detecting closely related species or other organisms present in Yellowstone wetlands.

What does "validate species-specific molecular markers" mean here?

Validation typically means demonstrating that each marker consistently identifies the correct species under controlled conditions (such as known tissue samples or reference DNA) and that the marker performs well enough to be useful when DNA is degraded and dilute, as is common in environmental water samples.

Was the project purely lab-based, or did it include field evaluation?

It included both. The project was intended to begin with laboratory development and validation of assays, then extend into an initial field evaluation by applying the assays to wetlands that were already monitored annually and comparing eDNA detections to traditional survey results.

How were the field results intended to be evaluated?

The announcement framed the field step as a comparison between eDNA detections and the species documented through traditional visual encounter surveys in wetlands already monitored annually. The comparison was intended to help answer early questions about sensitivity and reliability.

What kinds of reliability questions was the project trying to address?

Based on the opportunity description, the comparison was meant to explore questions such as whether eDNA detects amphibians when visual surveys miss them, whether detections align with known presence, and what wetland types or sampling conditions might produce false negatives or ambiguous results.

Was the goal to replace traditional amphibian surveys in Yellowstone?

The opportunity described eDNA as something the park could use alongside traditional on-the-ground monitoring and, in some cases, possibly instead of standard observation methods. The stated work was an early evaluation rather than a full replacement plan.

What longer-term outcomes did the announcement suggest?

The longer-term purpose was to assess whether DNA-based monitoring could provide added insight, improved coverage, or lower-cost information about amphibian distribution (and potentially abundance) across Yellowstone wetlands, especially where repeated site visits can be time-consuming and detection varies with weather, season, and observer effort.

Was the method aimed at presence/absence, abundance, or both?

The announcement signals that eDNA is often most straightforward for presence-absence, but it also indicates interest in whether the method could contribute to understanding distribution and potentially abundance over time. The described project itself focused on marker development/validation and initial field comparisons.

Why did the opportunity emphasize wetlands already monitored annually?

Anchoring the eDNA evaluation to wetlands already surveyed by traditional methods was intended to produce results that park managers could interpret in a management context, rather than treating the work as an isolated laboratory study.

What was the estimated funding amount for the award?

The opportunity anticipated a single award with an estimated total funding amount of $8,813.

What were the funding floor and ceiling?

The listed ceiling matched the estimated total at $8,813, and the listed floor was $1.

How many awards were anticipated?

A single award was anticipated.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The announcement stated there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.

Who was eligible to receive this cooperative agreement?

Eligibility was limited to public and state-controlled institutions of higher education.

Why was eligibility limited to public and state-controlled institutions of higher education?

The opportunity text indicates the Park Service intended to work through an academic partner, which aligns with the cooperative agreement model where federal staff often remain substantially involved in shaping or supporting the work.

What CFDA program was associated with this opportunity?

The CFDA listing associated with the opportunity was 15.945, "Cooperative Research and Training Programs - Resources of the National Park System."

What were the key posting and closing dates?

The notice was posted June 27, 2013. The closing date was July 7, 2013. The archive date was July 8, 2013.

What does "Notification of Intent to Award - No applications will be accepted" mean?

This language typically indicates the agency had already identified an intended recipient or was finalizing an award under a specific cooperative research relationship. In that situation, the posting functions as a public notice rather than an open competition that accepts applications.

Could applicants submit proposals through Grants.gov for this opportunity?

Based on the announcement language "No applications will be accepted," the notice indicates that proposals were not being accepted for this posting, even though general information was available through Grants.gov.

Who was the listed point of contact for questions or access issues?

The listed point of contact was John Bechtold at the National Park Service (JohnBechtold@nps.gov).

Where was general information about the opportunity provided?

The announcement cited Grants.gov as the general information source.

What makes this a cooperative agreement rather than a standard grant (based on the description provided)?

The description notes that, consistent with the cooperative agreement model, federal staff often remain substantially involved in shaping or supporting the work, and the opportunity was framed as a cooperative research effort with an academic partner.

What management value was the project designed to provide to Yellowstone National Park?

It was designed to generate results that could be interpreted directly by park managers by comparing eDNA detections against traditional survey outcomes in wetlands already part of annual monitoring, helping evaluate whether eDNA could improve efficiency, coverage, or insight for amphibian monitoring.