Scion and Seed Collection and Processing | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) Is this a traditional government grant that accepts applications and guarantees awards?

No. This posting was a Request for Letters of Interest (LOI), not a formal Funding Opportunity Announcement. The Park was not accepting grant applications and was not promising awards. It was seeking to identify qualified partners for a potential collaboration.

2) What agency and site issued the request?

The National Park Service (NPS), through Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, issued the request.

3) What is the purpose of the Letter of Interest?

The LOI was intended to help the Park identify capable organizations that could collaborate on a conservation and plant-propagation effort, and to help the Park shape a statement of objectives and begin project work within about six months.

4) What types of organizations were the NPS hoping to hear from?

The Park specifically invited capable organizations such as universities, university-affiliated research centers, and private or public companies to describe relevant expertise and past work in scion collection, seed collection, and propagation/processing.

5) Was eligibility restricted to certain applicant types?

Eligibility was described as broadly unrestricted, subject to any clarifications in the full text of the notice.

6) What kind of agreement did the NPS anticipate using?

The anticipated instrument type was a cooperative agreement.

7) What was the Funding Opportunity Number?

The Funding Opportunity Number listed was NPS LICARL110001.

8) When was the notice posted and when was it due?

The notice was posted on March 23, 2011. Letters of Interest were due by close of business on Friday, April 1, 2011.

9) Where and how was the Letter of Interest submitted?

Submitters were instructed to send an electronic statement by the deadline. (The notice also provided phone, fax, and email details for the point of contact.)

10) Who was the point of contact?

The point of contact listed was Judith C. Couch, Agreements/Contracting Officer, NPS Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Administrative Service Unit.

11) Did the opportunity list funding amounts, award ceilings, or a minimum award size?

No. The posting carried no stated total funding, no award ceiling, and no award floor.

12) How many awards were expected?

Expected awards were listed as zero, which reinforced that this was a partner-identification/market-research style notice rather than a conventional competitive grant solicitation.

13) What is the conservation problem the Park is trying to solve?

The Park needs to preserve the historic and culturally important vegetative landscape that frames the Carl Sandburg home. As mature trees decline and require removal over the coming decade, the Park wants replacement material that maintains the site’s genetic and cultural integrity.

14) Why not just buy replacement plants from commercial nurseries?

While commercial nursery stock could be used, the Park strongly preferred to replace declining specimens with plants propagated from the Park’s own genetic material, keeping the same local genotypes on site when possible.

15) What kinds of plant material was the Park interested in conserving and propagating?

The focus was on scion collection, seed collection, propagation/processing, and creating a reserve of replacement trees and shrubs derived from Park genetics, along with seed conservation (germplasm preservation) for immediate and future use.

16) Were herbaceous species included, or only trees and shrubs?

Herbaceous species were included. The posting highlighted concern for two herbaceous species on the property: one listed as threatened by the state and another treated as a management concern, both requiring protective conservation actions.

17) Which woody species and landscape plants were identified as targets for conservation attention?

The Park listed a number of target species and historically significant landscape plants, including: American elm, Japanese maple, Chinese quince, variegated common boxwood, horse chestnut, Eastern and Carolina hemlock, Asian pear, flowering dogwood (including a yellow-fruited form), Chinese chestnut, Japanese snowball, and an heirloom or Old World apple.

18) Why are the Park’s American elms specifically important?

The Park noted it has five very large, veteran American elms dating to the property’s early development in the 1830s. These elms have avoided Dutch elm disease but are now in decline, making their genetic material a high priority for preservation and replacement planning.

19) Why did the posting emphasize hemlocks?

The hemlocks were described as locally threatened due to the spread of hemlock woolly adelgid across the eastern United States. The Park wanted to preserve local hemlock genotype(s) to maintain the character of the historic hemlock-lined drive.

20) What made some of the listed plants difficult to replace through normal purchasing?

The Park emphasized safeguarding plant genotypes that are difficult or impossible to replace through normal nursery purchasing. Some plants were described as unusual cultivars or older genetic lines not readily available in the market, such as a mid-1800s variegated boxwood and a yellow-fruited flowering dogwood.

21) How was the project concept structured?

The concept was framed in two phases: Phase 1 focused on field collection and initial seed processing/storage preparation; Phase 2 focused on propagation and nursery development in a secure greenhouse setting outside the Park.

22) What activities were included in Phase 1?

Phase 1 included assembling representative seeds from select herbaceous and woody species and collecting cuttings (including scion material) from desired trees and shrubs found within the Park. It also included treating and preparing harvested seeds for conditioned storage, with the Park retaining and conserving the processed seed for immediate and future use as a germplasm preservation measure.

23) How long could Phase 1 take, and why?

The Park anticipated Phase 1 could take up to nine months because seed ripening and appropriate cutting times vary by species, requiring multiple collection windows throughout the growing season.

24) How many samples did the Park anticipate collecting?

The scope described collecting roughly 60 to 100 scion and seedling samples, which would be transferred to the selected partner’s facilities for propagation.

25) What activities were included in Phase 2?

Phase 2 centered on propagation and nursery development. A portion of the harvested seed and all collected cuttings would be propagated in a secure greenhouse setting outside the Park for as long as three years. The partner would be responsible for propagation and ongoing maintenance of the resulting plant material.

26) What was the expected project output from Phase 2?

The expected output was about 60 to 100 tree and shrub seedlings or grafted plants grown to a size suitable for transplanting into a Park nursery.

27) Where would propagation occur?

Propagation was envisioned to occur in a secure greenhouse setting outside the Park, with plant material maintained there for up to three years before being transferred to a Park nursery.

28) What was the end goal for the Park?

The end goal was a seedling nursery reserve derived from Park genetics, creating a pipeline of replacement trees and shrubs that can be planted as older specimens are removed, while also building a seed collection that preserves germplasm for longer-term resilience and restoration needs.

29) What did the NPS ask organizations to include in their Letter of Interest?

The NPS asked prospective collaborators to describe how they would envision and structure the collaboration, provide a clear summary of relevant experience, describe current or previous projects in scion/seed collection and processing, and outline available personnel resources (staff, faculty, and/or students). Organizations were also instructed to include identification and contact information (name, department, university or organization).

30) What program area/category did the notice fall under?

The opportunity was categorized under natural resources.

31) Did the notice indicate it was archived?

Yes. The announcement was archived shortly after the closing date.

32) What timeline did the Park suggest for initiating the collaboration?

The Park signaled it wanted to shape a statement of objectives and begin project work within about six months, suggesting it was looking for partners who could mobilize quickly and demonstrate credible capacity.