National Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASCA)

National Association of State Conservation Agencies

In Completion of Requirements

Of

Contribution Agreement Number68-3A75-7-33

Final Report

StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding

Information Technology Issue Assistance

State-Level Watershed Activity Pilot Project

Submitted May 31, 2008

To

Dr. Samuel Thornton

Special Assistant to the Chief

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

P.O.Box 2890, Room 6013-SWashington, DC20013-2890

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
National Association of State Conservation Agencies

Contribution Agreement Number68-3A75-7-33

Final Report

StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding

Information Technology Issue Assistance

State-Level Watershed Activity Pilot Project

Executive Summary

From August, 2007 through May, 2008 the National Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASCA) performed work under a contribution agreement (Contribution Agreement Number 68-3A75-7-33) with the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to collaborate in the areas of state partnership cooperation, information sharing and security, and service delivery. The contribution agreement included three projects: state partnership capacity-building; information technology issue assistance; and, state-level watershed activity.

NASCA facilitated state partnership capacitybuilding planning in each of its seven regions, and sponsored individual state partnership meetings in four regions. These meetings were designed to assist state conservation agencies in bringing together their state partnerships to resolve partnership issues and to improve partnership cooperation on issues important to those states. States chose partnership issues such as leadership training, managing technical services employees, legislative action planning, conservation district funding, flood control/watershed program enhancement, partnership communication, developing motivated and informed conservation districts, and improving partners’ understanding and fulfillment of their proper roles.

NASCA collaborated with NRCS and other partners to investigate information technology (IT) security issues at the state level, and to develop viable solutions to meet partners’ needs related to emerging IT issues. NASCA worked to develop an IT interconnectivity agreement,to offer states (including their conservation districts and state associations) a model for executing a clear and reliable agreement with NRCS about sharing information, managing information and computer networks, and protecting sensitive customer information. This agreement is now being implemented in the field.

NASCA evaluated member states’ interest and status with respect to structural and non-structural approaches to focusing conservation district programs on a watershed deliverybasis. NASCA collected information that can be shared among states, and that can help formulate NASCA policy on watershed-based approaches.

Table of Contents

Executive SummaryPage 3

Contribution Agreement Tasks and ApproachPage 6

Project ResultsPage 9

StatePartnershipCapacityBuildingPage9

Information Technology Issue AssistancePage14

State-Level Watershed Activity PilotPage 16

General Conclusions and RecommendationsPage 19

AcknowledgementsPage 21

List of AppendicesPage 23

Appendix A - StatePartnershipBuilding,General Outline for

Host State responsibilities, October 8, 2007Page 24

Appendix B–SouthCentralState Partnership Meeting Plan

December 5, 2007Page 27

Appendix C -Interim Report – State Partnership Capacity

Building Project, December 28, 2008Page 29

Appendix D – StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding Meetings –

NASCA South Central Region Meeting Report

March 6-7, 2008Page 34

Appendix E– StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding Meetings –

NASCA Southeast Region Meeting Report

April 16-17, 2008Page 47

Appendix F – StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding Meetings –

NASCA Southwest Region Meeting Report

April 29-30, 2008Page 60

Appendix G – StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding Meetings –

NASCA Northeast Region Meeting Report

May 13, 2008Page 85

Appendix H – Federal Audits Issues Background and Notes

October, 2007Page95

Appendix I – Interim Report – Information Technology/Security

Project, December 28, 2007Page 100

Appendix J – Information Exchange Memorandum of

Understanding, May 21, 2008 DRAFTPage 104

Appendix K – State-Level Watershed Activity Pilot Project

Interview Questions, October, 2007Page 121

Appendix L – State-Level Watershed Activity Pilot Project

WatershedState Survey Responses, October, 2007Page 126

Appendix M – Interim Report – State-Level Watershed Activity

Pilot Project, November 30, 2007Page 144

Contribution Agreement Tasks and Approach

In 2007, following completion by the National Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASCA) of a three-year evaluation of the national conservation delivery system, NASCA entered into a fourth contribution agreement (Contribution Agreement Number 68-3A75-7-33) with the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to collaborate on three new tasks. This contribution agreement was designed to provide NASCA with an opportunity to improve partnership cooperation, information sharing and service delivery.

The first task under the new contribution agreement was state partnership capacity building. Under this project, NASCA was tasked to hold partnership meetings in a state in each of the seven NASCA regions, involving conservation partners in that state in a meeting or workshop to improve workings of the state partnership in some fashion. The concept emerged from recommendations in the delivery system evaluation project and from discussions of partnership leaders, and was intended to extendto the state levelthe points of cooperation reached by partnership leaders at their November, 2006 partnership leaders meeting (and subsequent leadership meetings). NASCA was charged with facilitating state efforts to bring the partnership closer together and enhance cooperation at the state level. States were to consider partner roles, goals and strategies, and identify for themselves areas for partnership enhancement.

The second task under the new agreement was Information Technology Issue Assistance. This project grew out of partnership concerns about information technology (IT) and the growing issue of security of network connections and data shared by the partnership. NASCA was tasked to investigate IT security issues at the state level, and to attempt to find viable solutions to meet partners’ needs related to emerging IT issues.

The third task was a state-level watershed activity pilot project. NASCA was tasked to evaluate state-level efforts to accomplish watershed-based conservation service delivery. A number of state conservation agencies and state partnerships have considered new strategies to deliver conservation services on a watershed basis. These ideas may include structural options such as re-aligningconservation district boundaries, or may instead rely on non-structural orinformal means (coalitions, joint powers agreements) to shift the work focus toward watersheds. NASCA was charged to evaluate progress on these approaches, and to develop appropriate information by which to help shape future NASCA policy discussions on the issue. Interest in this process had been sparked by one NASCA member, Mississippi.

These three tasks were to be completed during a ten-month period (August, 2007 – May, 2008). NASCA retained a program consultant (David Vogel) to perform work under this agreement. Work began on project tasks in August, 2007, with NASCA membership and officers providing guidance and initial participation at the NASCA Annual Meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, in September, 2007.

NASCA and its program consultant prepared a work plan to outline an approach to accomplish the assigned tasks. The work plan is summarized below by task:

StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding Approach

This task was to carry out state partnership meetings in seven pilot or “host” states, one from each NASCA region. Host states wereselectedfrom volunteer states recruited by NASCA regional directors in cooperation with the NASCA consultant. General criteria for selecting host states included a significant opportunity for improvement in partnership function (e.g., timely state partnership initiatives, new state personnel, scheduled strategic planning, state program modification), and an opportunity to improve host state participation in NASCA activities.

The project called for facilitation to assist each host state’s partners to (1) identify shared partnership needs, (2) compare goals and strategies currently employed to address those needs, and (3) define each partner’s appropriate role in addressing the need(s). Emphasis was placed on areas where partners agreed there is room for improved cooperation and collaboration.

Proposed examples included coordinating field work, budgets, special programs, planning, data collection, definition of roles and responsibilities, staffing and management, and training.

The expected outcome was that each host state’s partners would develop mutually beneficial strategies to more efficiently further their in-state shared goals and objectives. NASCA was also to provide follow-up to identify further assistance needed for implementation of adopted strategies, or to identify barriers to implementation of agreed upon actions.

Project steps included:

• Establish (or utilize) a partnership planning committee, consisting of two NASCA regional directors (appointed by NASCA Executive Committee) and reps from NRCS, NACD, NCRC&D, NCDEA.

• Incorporate points included in the November, 2006 Partner Plan of Action Statement (and subsequent refinements).

• Prepare an outline of responsibilities for a host state; identify partnership operations holding promise for partner coordination.

• Coordinate efforts of NASCA regional directors in recruiting and considering candidate host states.

• Assist host states in planning meetings, preparing meeting agenda, and in conduct of meetings; record outcome, commitments and needed further action; outline continuation tasks for post-meeting planning; coordinate NASCA arrangements with host states for any offered financial assistance, reimbursement, scholarships, etc.

• Prepare individual state meeting reports for use by host state partners; consolidate these into a final report; include improvements in partnership operations, planning for future coordinated activities, and barriers to implementation.

IT Issue Assistance Approach

This task was to identify solutions to address partners’ varied IT needs and concerns. This included Identifying emerging problems of data sharing and security in response to concerns expressed by federal IT audits, and in response to federal homeland security policies. NASCA was charged to determine opportunities for resolution of emerging IT concerns. NASCA assigned two state IT staff members to participate with the NASCA consultant on this project.

Project steps included:

• Obtain information about concerns of the federal auditor(s) and NRCS.

• Establish (or utilize) a partnership working committee (NCDEA, NACD, NRCS, NASCA); coordinate with ongoing related efforts on IT by committee partners; align NASCA task to mesh with partnership efforts.

• Enlist assistance of state conservation agency IT specialists to analyze concerns based on a working knowledge of state and local district officials and staff experience.

• Hold direct regional or other IT meetings or discussions as needed, with assistance from state agency IT specialists.

State-Level Watershed Activity Pilot Project Approach

This task was to evaluate the benefits and challenges resulting from re-aligning conservation services and programs on a watershed boundary basis or applying other watershed approaches. The focus was on evaluating state conservation agency status and level of interest, and on policy development, shaping future policy discussions on watershed-level conservation services delivery.

Project steps included:

• Inventory state conversions to watershed boundary service delivery either completed or underway; conduct interviews; compile these states’ information, considerations and issues as they may relate to policy development.

• Consider also non-structural approaches employed by states (e.g., coalitions, joint powers agreements) to achieve watershed-based delivery or coordination.

• Consult with NASCA Mississippi member, staff and officials as required to evaluate possible impacts/benefits of watershed boundary restructuring of conservation districts in that state; include financial/local funding impacts, size and coverage of potential watersheds, program delivery, customer identification, outreach, staffing impacts, the necessity to mesh authorities, planning, and other considerations.

Project Results

Project results are described below by task. Text refers where appropriate to individual state reports, interim reports or example documents in the appendices.

StatePartnershipCapacityBuilding

NASCA consulted with conservation partners in developing its plan to identify and select host states for partnership meetings. The NASCA consultant participated in routine teleconferences of the Partnership Staff Group to provide progress reports and to solicit partner input. NASCA received suggestions from partners about possible host states. The NASCA consultant also obtained recommendations from Ray Ledgerwood (WA) , who recently conducted NASCA state member agency telephone interviews. From this input, the NASCA consultant prepared recommendations for NASCA regional directors to consider in selecting host states. NASCA also kept partners informed about state partnership meeting locations and schedules via the Partnership Staff Group, so that local partner representatives could participate where they wished.

NASCA regional directors made contact with their region’s states to solicit candidate host states. NASCA distributed a General Outline forHost State Responsibilities(see Appendix A) in October, 2007 to assist states in considering whether and how to participate.

The host state selection process established dates and locations for state partnership meetings beginning in the spring of 2008. Being a voluntary process, selection was delayed in some regions due to lack of a volunteer state, or due to the difficultyof some states in bringing together the state partnership during the project schedule. In two cases, planned state partnership meetings were cancelled due to a personnel change in state agency leadership or due to a schedule problem.

Where a volunteering hosting state was selected, a meeting plan was prepared by the state and the NASCA consultant, identifying the topic(s) for partnership discussion, outlining an agenda anddesired work products, identifying speakers, facilitators, and state topic examples (included as actual participants or referenced materials). Appendix B shows an example state partnership meeting plan for the NASCA South Central Region. In this case, the entire region (AR, CO, TX and LA) elected to participate in the partnership meeting. All other meetings involved a single state.

Meeting plans were used by state conservation agency planners and their partners to bring together the right people for the topics they wanted to discuss and act on. Accordingly, the number of participants varied in state partnership meetings, ranging from 8 to 63.

The NASCA consultant prepared an interim report in December, 2007 outlining progress to-date and making further recommendations for NASCA action (see Appendix C). At that date, meeting planning was underway in five states in five regions, and the NASCA consultant was in contact with regional directors and individual states to recruit host states in the remaining two regions. Based on the project’s completion date of May, 2008, NASCA intensified efforts to secure host states in the remaining NASCA regions.

The interim report included recommendations to aid NASCA in the intensified effort, such as proposing that NASCA offer financial assistance to states, provide scholarships for attendees, and facilitate participation by NASCA state representatives. The report also emphasized the need for full NASCA membership response to surveys and queries about examples of successful state conservation agency programs and strategies that can be shared with host states for selected meeting topics. The interim report advised that state partnership meetings may identify actions requested of the NASCA Board to support states (or regions) in their partnership efforts at the national level.

State partnership meeting topics were chosen by the participating state partnerships, and varied across regions according to local and regional priorities. Topics included the flood control/watershed program, conservation district

operations funding, state legislative strategy and planning, conservation district

supervisor and state association training and leadership development, conservation easement programs, technical services providers programs, developing conservation district capacity, partnership communication, and conservation district supervisor recruitment.

Although states chose different topics, discussion of these topics often contained some overlapping and common themes. These common themes reinforced partnership principles such as the need for partners to fulfill their proper partnership roles, the need for cooperation, trust and mutual support among state partners, the critical need for leadership in a state partnership, respecting local differences while sharing common conservation goals, the importance of a unified and consistent conservation message, and the opportunities for state partnerships to learn from other states how to apply innovative and unique approaches to assume responsibility and expand capacity to deliver conservation programs and services. In some cases, these themes reinforced recommendations developed in the recently completed NASCA Conservation Delivery System Evaluation Project (2007).

State (or regional) partners outlined plans for action on their selected topics, and committed to making progress in realistic timeframes (i.e., six months or one year). In all cases where state partnership meetings were held, participants expressed satisfaction that partnership leaders were working together to improve cooperation, and that whatever actions are decided upon must be accomplished. In some cases, the partnership worked to tackle hard-to-solve differences, while others took advantage of the state partnership meeting to provide better focus to ongoing partnership efforts to improve collaboration, or to start the process anew.

In the end, state partnership meetings were held in four states in four of the seven NASCA regions. Following state partnership meetings, the NASCA contractor prepared state meeting reports in consultation with host state conservation agency representatives. These reports are being used by the participating state partnerships to document and support their continued action on the selected partnership topics. State partnership meetings occurred in, and meeting reports were prepared for:

• South Central RegionTexas (host), Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana
• Southeast RegionSouth Carolina
• Southwest RegionNew Mexico
• Northeast RegionMassachusetts

These reports are presented in Appendices D through G. Each of these state partnership meetings resulted in action plans, and these are listed in the individual reports.

Examples of partnership actions decided upon include:

• Increase action and support by state legislatures and state conservation agencies to contribute to funding and technical aspects of the federal flood control/watershed program, to support local sponsors, and to share state experiences and successes.

• Employ routine, regular consultation within a state’s partnership about the watershed program and activities; include periodic consultation involving regional state partnerships; share among states examples of watershed/flood control news, incidents, state actions, etc.; offer mutual support in dealing with state issues.

• State and local partners acknowledge the need to assume a greater role in obtaining federal resources (i.e., working with states’ Congressional delegations) for conservation, and/or providing state and local technical assistance support for changing district roles, in view of trends in federal partner funding and priorities.

• Renew the state partnership cooperative agreement and publicize it to promote partnership identity.

• Identify effective delivery models for conservation district official training and partnership staff training; initiate basic and advanced training to all supervisors; improve Supervisor Handbook.

• Conduct a workshop on the conservation easement topic at the next state association conference, providing land trusts with an opportunity to get to know conservation districts and to share their missions and partnership capacity.

• Clearly identify and document the relationship between conservation districts and NRCS, by outlining legal requirements, traditional roles, cooperator agreements, state statutory authorities, and federal policies and procedures; consider amending state partnership agreements to incorporate needed partnership language; develop annual training for conservation districts, district conservationists and state staff to educate partners about this unique relationship.

• Establish improved supervisor training and recruitment efforts, and assist conservation districts by providing template documents for annual work plans and for common mission statements.

• Identify new services that conservation districts may provide to attract new customers and new sources of funding (e.g., new partnerships with counties and municipalities).

• Prepare a state partnership strategic communication plan, including goals and procedures for both internal and external communication, specifying communication processes at three levels – local districts, state association and partnership leadership.

In addition to the individual state partnership actions adopted at the four state partnership capacity building meetings held, the meetings generated a number of assistancerequests of the NASCA Board. These requests fell into two categories: