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

1. Using Cooperative Agreements to Accomplish Conservation Goals on DOD LandsLee Barber, Ph.D.Director, CEMMLlee.barber@colostate.edu

2. 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

3. 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

4. From 31USC 6303-6308 (cont.): • Cooperative Agreements - principal purpose = carry out a “public purpose of support” AND federal government IS substantially involved

5. Contract Cooperative Agreement S.O.W. Detail Grant Sponsor Involvement

6. 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

12. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Benefits II: • Legal and appropriate for cooperator SMEs to help scope tasks • Legal and appropriate to discuss what can be accomplished with available funding

21. Examples of Cooperative Agreements utilized by CEMML Sponsors: • Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Units • USACE Ft. Worth District • USACE ERDC-CERL • 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

22. Questions?