Using Cooperative Agreements Using Cooperative Agreements to Accomplish Conservation to Accomplish Conservation

Goals on DOD LandsGoals on DOD Lands

Lee Barber, Ph.D.Director, CEMML

lee.barber@colostate.edu

From the Federal Cooperative Grants and Agreements Act of 1977(31USC 6303-6308):

•Contracts – principal purpose = property or services for direct benefit or use of the United States Government

From 31USC 6303-6308 (cont.):

•Grants – principal purpose = carry out a “public purpose of support” instead of property or services for direct benefit or use of the United States Government; federal government NOT substantially involved

From 31USC 6303-6308 (cont.):

•Cooperative Agreements - principal purpose = carry out a “public purpose of support” AND federal government IS substantially involved

Sponsor Involvement

S.O

.W.

Deta

ilContract

Grant

Cooperative

Agreement

Case Study I –Dall Sheep population studies at Donnelly

and Black Rapids Training Areas, AK:

•NEPA-driven analysis of impacts of High Angle Marksmanship Range (HAMR) expansion into sheep habitat

•Flexibility of cooperative agreement allowed faculty from CSU FWCB to redesign study methodology for greater efficiency and effectiveness → camera traps vs aerial survey → better data more safely collected at lower cost

Case Study II – Feral Ungulate Exclosures at Pohakuloa

Training Area:

•2003 USFWS Biological Opinion – Army must protect 15 listed plants from feral ungulates•Protection of 37,000 acres required over 65 miles of 6-foot fence over rugged terrain•Funded incrementally over 2 ½ years @ >$10M via 7 (!) separate task modifications •Multiple design modifications approved (and documented) via email - altered alignment, enclosure of newly-discovered plant populations, Native Hawaiian access to sacred sites, etc.

Challenges I :

•Contracting Officer qualifications – fewer KOs have “Grants Authority” required to create and administer cooperative agreements

•Contracting Officer comfort zones – typically attempt to force CAs and tasks into a unnecessarily rigid Contract framework

Challenges II :

•Both parties must be governmental entities or NGOs – not accessible to for-profit vendors

•Cooperators must communicate – CA tasks can evolve, and good communication is essential to avoid surprises and ensure sponsor satisfaction

Benefits I:

•Many legislative drivers allowing DOD to utilize cooperative agreements (e.g. Sikes Act), & Law trumps Policy•Many master agreements already exist•Flexibility and substantial sponsor involvement are well suited to “fuzzy” environmental management tasks

Benefits II:

•Legal and appropriate for cooperator SMEs to help scope tasks

•Legal and appropriate to discuss what can be accomplished with available funding

Examples of Cooperative Agreements utilized by CEMML

Sponsors:

•Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units

o USACE Ft. Worth Districto USACE ERDC-CERLo CESU Regions

•U.S. Forest Service agreement with CSU•USACE Omaha agreement with CSU•USACE Alaska agreement with CSU

Note: Economy Act allows DOD access to agreements “owned” by non-DOD federal agencies

Questions?