Title:
Analysis of Katmai and Lake Clark National & Preserve�s fish to establish a baseline .

Recipient:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Principle Investigator:
Emanuel Hignutt Total Anticipated Award Amount:
$60,000 Cost Share:
N/A New Award Or Continuation:
New Anticipated Length of Agreement:
1 1/2 Years Anticipated Period of Performance:
July 18, 2011 � September 30, 2012 Award Instrument:
Cooperative Agreement Statutory Authority:
16 U.S.C.

�1(g):
The National Park Service may in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter enter into cooperative agreements that involve the transfer of National Park Service appropriated funds to State, local and tribal governments, other public entities, educational institutions, and private nonprofit organizations for the public purpose of carrying out National Park Service programs pursuant to section 6305 of title 31 to carry out public purposes of National Park Service programs.

CFDA#:
1 5. 944 Justification for Use of a Cooperative Agreement Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Cooperative Agreement P11AT90098 Resident Lake Fish Contaminants Assessment for National Parks in Southwest Alaska A.l.

What type of competition is appropriate? This study is a collaborative effort between the National Park Service (NPS) and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).

The requirements needed to analyze biological samples for metal contaminant concentrations at low detection levels limits this project to a laboratory facility with specific resource expertise that is not available through an NPS facility.

ADEC is the state agency responsible for regulating environmental contaminants and ensuring that food sources are safe for consumptive use.

These responsibilities are well-aligned with NPS� directive of ensuring healthy, unimpaired fish and wildlife populations.

ADEC is conducting an on-going assessment of fish contaminant concentrations throughout Alaska which included samples from southwest Alaska parks.

The objective of SWAN�s fish contaminant assessment is to expand upon those initial efforts to provide a more in-depth analysis of contaminant levels.

For that reason, we selected a cooperator with the requisite knowledge, experience, and expertise to successfully complete this task, rather than seeking multiple bidders for the cooperator role.

A.

2. Why was this cooperator selected? The Environmental Health Laboratory within ADEC is conducting fish contaminant assessments throughout Alaska which included samples from southwest Alaska parks.

SWAN�s fish contaminant assessment objectives are to 1) establish a contaminant concentration baseline in select freshwater fish species to compare future trends, and 2) provide comparable data so that larger regional assessments can be conducted.

To keep contaminant assessment methods, and thus results, comparable, it is imperative that ADEC remain involved in the analytical phases of this project.

B.

1. Explain the nature of the anticipated substantial involvement.

This work is a continuation of previous collaboration between NPS and ADEC to assess contaminant concentrations in fish throughout Alaska.

Previously, NPS staff provided ADEC with a small number (< 20) of fish samples to be included in a statewide assessment of fish contaminant concentrations.

ADEC provided analytical services free-of-charge to NPS since both parties had a mutual interest in obtaining results from southwest Alaska parks.

The current work also involves collaboration between ADEC and NPS.

NPS will provide fish tissue samples collected from select lakes in southwest Alaska parks to ADEC for contaminant analysis.

These fish samples will be collected in conjunction with other monitoring activities where NPS staff will already be present at the proposed sample locations.

B.

2. Why is the substantial involvement considered to be necessary? NPS is able to provide staff, equipment, and other operational costs as in-kind service to this project.

NPS staff handling field-based aspects of this project represents a substantial operational cost savings to this project.

Contracting for staff, equipment, and transportation costs to an outside source would considerably increase the budget and make this project unfeasible given current funding levels.

C.

1. Explain why the project or activity entails a relationship of assistance rather than a contract.

The primary purpose of this study is not the acquisition of property or services for the direct benefit or use by the Federal Government, but rather to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute.

NPS policy and recent legislation (National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) require that park managers know the condition of natural resources under their stewardship and monitor long-term trends in those resources in order to fulfill the NPS mission of conserving parks unimpaired.

Long-term trends in fish contaminant concentrations cannot be assessed without first establishing a solid baseline for comparison.

SWAN has the programmatic and operational infrastructure needed to carry out the sample collection portion of this project.

ADEC has the required laboratory facilities and personnel to analyze the samples.

This cooperative project could not be successfully completed by either partner alone.

C.

2. What is the public purpose of support or stimulation? The public purpose is credible and scientifically based management of park resources in accordance with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA).

ANILCA mandates that Alaska parks be managed for �natural and healthy� wildlife populations.

Information from this research will support park management in this goal.

C.

3. Which law or laws authorize granting of assistance for performance of this project or activity? 16 USC 1g.

D.

1. How was the determination made that the costs proposed are accurate and proper? Provide a breakdown of costs and rationale for determining they are acceptable.

A breakdown of costs is provided with the Cooperative Agreement for this project.

Proposed costs were determined to be accurate and proper by review of the project by subject matter experts, contracting personnel, and by comparison with other, similar projects.