Technical Report

**CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS:**

**INDICATORS OF SUCCESS**

by

Rebecca S. Toupal, M.L.A.

University of Arizona

Michael D. Johnson

Anthropologist

NRCS Social Sciences Institute

University of Arizona

Social Sciences Institute

Technical Report

Release 7.1 (February 1998)

**Acknowledgments**

Many NRCS employees, conservation district members, RC&D coordinators
and council members, and private landowners contributed immensely to
this study. We would like to thank Bill Anderson, Shirley Boothby, Jim
Briggs, Mark Brunson, Walter Bunter, Rich Casale, George Cleek, Bill
Cokely, Smitty Covey, Jim Davison, Tom Fedje, Jesse Fitzgerald, Dave
Franzen, Gerry Gonzales, Gary Gross, Charlie Hahnkamp, Douglas Helms,
Joe Henry, Phill Jacquez, Kay Joy, Jeff Kenyon, Wayne Killgore, Carol
Kruse, Barb Landgraf, Ray Ledgerwood, Tom Makowski, Vicki McGuire,
Sharon Nance, Jeff Repp, Kristin Schroeder, Bob Steidl, Judy Tilman,
Donna Vettleson, and Dave White.

We would especially like to thank the many partners of the Vernon Creek,
Badger Creek, and Muddy Creek watershed projects who participated in
this study. These individuals were more than generous with their time
and knowledge. Many thanks also to the project managers and their
staffs: Todd Nielson, Norm Evenstad, Jana Johnston, and Carlos Garcia of
Utah, Jane Wustrow and Kathy Trujillo, of Colorado, and Larry Hicks, of
Wyoming.

Finally, many thanks to the staff of the Social Sciences Institute of
the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

# Table of Contents

Introduction 4

The Development of a Success Model 4

Comparison of the Model with Three NRCS Watershed Projects 7

Description of the Case Study Watersheds 8

Vernon Creek Watershed 8

Badger Creek Watershed 9

Muddy Creek Watershed 9

Collection of Partnership Data 10

Analysis of Partnership Data 11

Results 11

Characteristics of Success in the Case Studies 12

Public versus Private Perceptions 15

Plan Goals Compared to Project Accomplishments 16

Vernon Creek Respondents' Perceptions and Definitions of Success 17

Badger Creek Respondents' Perceptions and Definitions of Success 17

Muddy Creek Respondents' Perceptions and Definitions of Success 18

dEVELOPMENT OF A gUIDE FOR SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC/PRIVATE conCONSERVATION
PARTNERSHIPS 19

MEASURING SUCCESS QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIVELY 20

Conclusions 21

Appendix A. Sixty-five Characteristics of Successful Partnerships 23

Appendix B. Three Case Study Partnerships 26

Appendix C. Interview Questions 30

Appendix d. Agreement of Presence in Three NRCS Watershed Partnerships
33

Notes 40

References 42

# 

# List of Tables

Table 1. The Success Model. 6

Table 2. Physical Description of Case Study Watersheds. 8

Table 3. Characteristics found in Vernon Creek Partnership (n=12). 12

Table 4. Characteristics found in Badger Creek Partnership (n=15). 12

Table 5. Characteristics found in Muddy Creek Partnership (n=14). 13

Table 6. Characteristics with strong presence in the three case studies.
13

Table 7. Comparison of characteristic rankings between three case
studies and the success and the s and the success model. 14

Table 8. Characteristics found in three NRCS partnerships (n=41). 14

Table 9. A Guide to Successful Public/Private Conservation Partnerships.
19

Table 10. Comprehensive measure of partnership success. 21

# Introduction

Conservation partnerships have addressed natural resource problems in
watersheds throughout the United States for over sixty years. Increased
public interest, awareness, and participation in conservation issues
since the 1960s, have added to the complexity of successfully addressing
conservation issues. Conservation partnerships often involve public
agencies, private organizations, and private land owners who have
interests in, concerns with, and/or jurisdiction over land and natural
resources. This report is a summary of recent research (Toupal, 1997)
that investigated indicators of success in watershed partnerships.

Topics addressed include: (1) the development of a success model; (2) a
comparison of the model with three case study projects led by the
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), conservation
districts (CDs), or Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)
councils; (3) a guide for developing successful conservation
partnerships; and (4) a method for combining qualitative and
quantitative measures of success in order to assess partnerships.

Indicators of success in conservation partnerships from around the world
were found in such fields of study as natural resource management,
environmental science, environmental politics, sociology, and rural
sociology. The conservation partnerships discussed in these sources
shared many common features including involvement of public and private
interests, concerns with water quality and erosion, and geographic areas
of concern at the watershed or subwatershed scale.

# The Development of a Success Model

One of the primary purposes of this research is the establishment of
methods to assess partnership success. Data on partnership success that
has been gathered under similar paradigms is scanty. This research is
intended to provide a starting point that may help in standardizing the
ways in which partnership success and failure are measured.

The effectiveness of conservation partnerships has been examined in
several studies (Endicott, 1993a; Huillet, et al, 1990; Long and Arnold,
1995). These studies, involving analyses of projects from around the
world, suggest multiple models and guides for successful conservation
partnerships, and identify numerous elements contributing to success.

Several limitations affected the development of such models and guides.
The first one was the contention that no single approach would work for
every partnership (Coyle, 1995; Daly, 1994; Zube, 1991). The second
limitation was a variety of definitions of "success" (Anderson and Baum,
1987; Endicott, 1993a; Huillet, et al, 1990; Long and Arnold, 1995;
Zube, 1992). The diversity of values assigned to natural resources was
identified as a third limitation (Hatfield and Hatfield, 1986; Houghton,
1979; Napier, et al., 1995; Nowak, 1992).

The contention that no single approach could be broadly applied was
addressed in this study by assuming that "approach" was the
"beginning-to-end" procedure used by partnerships. The diversity of
natural resources, resource problems, and people within a given
watershed does limit the practicality of such an "approach." There are,
however, characteristics of success common to a wide range of
conservation partnerships that may provide a common basis for assessment
(Anderson and Baum, 1987; Endicott, 1993a; Huillet, et al, 1990; Long
and Arnold, 1995; Zube, 1992).

The wide variety of definitions of success was addressed by combining
quantitative and qualitative measures of success. Common quantitative
measures included the number of acres protected from flooding, tons of
reduced soil erosion, and production increases (Badger, et al., 1966;
Heady, 1951; MacGaffey, 1985; Romm, 1995). Qualitative measures included
"resource and communication outcomes" indicative of partnership
functioning as well as constituent satisfaction (Lavigne, 1995: 5). This
combination of qualitative and quantitative measures broadened both the
applicability and the usefulness of this study.

The limitation of a diversity of values was addressed by including as
many interests as possible in defining partnership success. Since local
participation and community support have been identified as important to
achieving partnership success (Bouchard, et. al., 1997; Clements, 1997;
Richardson and Brunson, 1997; Sampson, 1992, 1997), development of any
guidance for developing successful partnerships should include citizen
input in addition to that of agencies and organizations.

Addressing these three limitations provided a framework for development
of a success model. Thirty literature sources that included material
from public agencies, private organizations, and research groups were
examined^1^. A list of elements of partnership success identified in
these sources was compiled and is included as Appendix A.

Several aspects of partnerships were addressed by these elements,
including participation, resources, communication, goals,
decision-making, problem-solving, and leadership. Participation was
described by who and how people participated in conservation
partnerships^2^. Resources included the number of people available to
the partnership, the skills and interests of individual participants,
money, project scale, technology, and coordination of all resources^3^.
Communication was described by what and how information was
communicated, how often information was communicated, and how
information was perceived^4^. Goals were described as being appropriate
and achievable^5^. Decision-making elements included how decisions were
made, who made the decisions, and upon what basis decisions were
made^6^. Problem-solving elements focused on how problems were solved or
resolved^7^. Leadership was described relative to existence or presence,
and operation^8^.

Many of the elements in the list were identified by more than one
source. Element recurrence among different sources provided a basis to
refine the list into 65 characteristics of success. The characteristics
were then ranked by recurrence of literature citation. The most
recurrent characteristics were assumed to be most important to
partnership success.

Mention in the literature of the 65 characteristics ranged from 1 to 29
times. More than half of the characteristics were cited only once.
Twenty-five percent of the characteristics were cited by two or three
different authors. The remaining characteristics were cited by 4 to 29
different authors. The 65 characteristics were further divided into
three categories on the basis of the number of times a particular
element was mentioned in the literature. Thirteen characteristics having
four or more citations were assumed to be the most important and were
labeled as "primary." Sixteen characteristics with two or three
citations were listed as "secondary" and the remaining 36
characteristics with only one citation each were listed as "tertiary"
(Appendix A.).

The importance of the primary characteristics was based on the
assumption that they had greater potential for broad applicability than
the secondary or tertiary characteristics. Given the need for a broadly
applicable model, only the primary characteristics were selected to
comprise a model of partnership success.

Recurrence of the primary characteristics in the literature varied
enough to suggest a descending hierarchy of importance and applicability
to partnership success. Three rankings were chosen for simplicity.
"Highly Successful" characteristics were assumed to have the greatest
applicability to a broad variety of partnerships. "Moderately
Successful" and "Minimally Successful" characteristics were assumed to
have lesser applicability (Table 1.).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 1. The Success Model.

  [Characteristic]{.underline} [Recurrence]{.underline}

  Highly Successful:

  Active participation by a wide variety and large number of partners 29

  Common goals 16

  Consensus 14

  Adaptable, flexible leadership/process 13

  Moderately Successful:

  A variety and number of people to do the work 10

  Shared risks, rewards, credit 9

  Trust 9

  Money, adequate and shared 9

  Regular communication 8

  Minimally Successful:

  Commitment 7

  Clear, consistent communication 6

  Local authority for decision-making 5

  Existence of leadership 4
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Comparison of the Model with Three Watershed Projects

The success model was derived from the secondary literature on
partnerships throughout the world. A comparison to primary,
field-collected data was considered necessary to test the validity of
the model. If the model was to include diverse values, and therefore be
more broadly applicable, private land owners needed to be included in
data collection. Trust is an important issue, however, when working with
private land owners (Endicott, 1993a; Thompson, 1993).

The NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service, is an agency that has
developed trust with private land owners over the past sixty-three years
(Mitchell, 1988; Thompson, 1993). An examination of watershed
partnerships led by the NRCS and their local partners of CD boards and
RC&D councils provides a way to consistently include private land owner
perspectives. The history of NRCS's technical assistance to private land
owners includes conservation planning and management on a
watershed-scale which further supports the choice of this agency as a
source for case studies^9^.

The geographic area examined for NRCS watershed projects encompassed ten
contiguous western states. This area had a large potential pool of
partnership projects eligible for study. Several criteria were used to
identify projects as eligible for comparison to the success model:

1.  Projects had to be led by the NRCS, a CD board, or an RC&D council;

2.  Projects had to have a written plan of action;

3.  Projects had to be at least 50% complete relative to the goals
    stated in the plan;

4.  Projects had to exhibit a diversity of public and private interests
    through participation and land ownership; and

5.  Projects had to represent different programmatic approaches to
    watershed planning and management.

The NRCS uses three approaches in watershed planning: (1) the
Coordinated Resource Management Planning process (Anderson and Baum,
1987); (2) the Small Watershed Program, PL83-566 (Simms, 1970; Steiner,
1990); and (3) the Resource Conservation and Development Program, P.L.
87-703 (Steiner, 1990). These three approaches comprised the fifth
criterion for project selection noted above. Using these five selection
criteria, three projects were chosen for case studies:

-   The Vernon Creek Watershed project, located in Utah, began in 1967
    and was led by the local conservation district and NRCS field
    office. This project had plan documents and cost-sharing contracts
    and was completed in the mid-1970s. The project included public and
    private interests and was carried out under the Small Watershed
    Program of the NRCS.

-   The Badger Creek Watershed in Colorado is led by the local Resource
    Conservation and Development Council. Originating in 1981, this
    project has plan documents and individual conservation plans. It is
    estimated to be 75% complete. The project includes public and
    private interests and is being carried out under the RC&D program.

-   The Muddy Creek Watershed in Wyoming began in the early 1990s and is
    led by the local conservation district. This project has informal
    plan guidelines that are reviewed and updated on a regular basis as
    well as individual conservation plans. It is estimated to be over
    50% complete. The partnership includes public and private interests
    and is carried out using the CRMP process.

## Description of the Case Study Watersheds

The three case study watersheds share many similarities common to the
western, intermountain setting. All the selected watersheds are
comprised of private, state, and federal lands with habitat variation
ranging from sagebrush and grasslands to heavily timbered areas (Table
2.). The three partnerships all included federal, state, and local
governments, private organizations, and private land owners (Appendix
B.).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 2. Physical Description of Case Study Watersheds.**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

ACRES

  --------------- ---------------- ------------- ----------- ---------- --------- -----------
  **Watershed**   **Elevations**   **Private**   **State**   **USFS**   **BLM**   **Total**

  --------------- ---------------- ------------- ----------- ---------- --------- -----------

  ----------- ---------------- --------- -------- -------- --------- ---------
  Vernon Crk. 5,200′- 9,000′   31,735    4,845    47,671   49,200    133,451

  Badger Crk. 6,800′-11,654′   31,320    33,760   40,760   29,200    135,040

  Muddy Crk.  6,000′- 9,000′   100,800   25,200   0        154,000   280,000
  ----------- ---------------- --------- -------- -------- --------- ---------

**[Vernon Creek Watershed.]{.underline}** Land use in the watershed, at
the time of project initiation, was predominantly grazing with 129,360
acres of rangeland. Irrigated crops were raised on 2,200 acres and
dryland crops were raised on 1,500 acres. The rangeland in the watershed
included twenty-six ranches and provided a great deal of wildlife
habitat (Vernon Soil Conservation District, 1967).

The Vernon Watershed Plan focused on issues of water quality and
irrigation water management. The following objectives were identified in
the plan (Vernon Soil Conservation District, 1967):

-   Minimize damages from sediment-laden floodwater in the Vernon
    drainage.

-   Eliminate sediment from the irrigation water supply.

-   Store, regulate, and otherwise control to the maximum extent
    feasible, the runoff from Vernon Creek, Bennion, and Dutch drainages
    for irrigation purposes.

-   Provide irrigation distribution facilities to enable sprinkler
    application of dependable water supplies.

-   Protect watershed lands from erosion and summer flood runoff.

-   Obtain the most efficient and sustained, productive use of land and
    water resources.

-   Increase and stabilize net farm incomes.

**[Badger Creek Watershed.]{.underline}** Land uses in the watershed
include livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, private residences,
recreation, and some timber harvesting (Keidel, 1994; Sangre de Cristo
RC&D Council, 1990). The principal game species are elk and antelope.
Mule deer populations also occur but are declining. Brown trout is the
principal cold water fish species. Five ranchers have leases and/or
ownership in the majority of the watershed. Hunting and fishing make up
the majority of recreational use in the watershed (Sangre de Cristo RC&D
Council, 1990).

The Badger Creek Watershed Plan focused on livestock management and
distribution to reduce erosion and improve water quality (Valentine and
Carochi, 1993). The objectives identified in the plan were (Sangre de
Cristo RC&D Council, 1990):

-   Implement a proper grazing system on 23,700 acres.

-   Initiate deferred grazing on 6,000 acres.

-   Establish stockwater facilities for better livestock distribution by
    developing four springs.

-   Construct 50 miles of fencing (electric or 3-wire-barbed) for
    livestock management.

-   Construct 68 erosion control structures. These sites will be
    selected during plan development in cooperation with landowners.

-   Establish a demonstration site (3.9 acres) on an eroding area to
    show the effectiveness of SCS plant materials species for erosion
    control.

-   Assess the effectiveness of planned Best Management Practices (BMPs)
    that are installed within the watershed as it relates to reduction
    of sediment measured at the continuous monitoring station at Big
    Springs.

-   Assess impacts of management strategies on riparian areas within the
    watershed.

-   Determine biological impacts to Badger Creek.

**[Muddy Creek Watershed.]{.underline}** Land uses in the watershed
include livestock grazing, oil and gas development, coal reserves with
development potential, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Ranchers graze
cattle and sheep in the watershed (Hicks, L., Warren, and Hicks, C.,
1996).

The Muddy Creek Watershed Plan focused on livestock management, habitat
improvements, water quality, and user relations. Six goals were
identified by the Muddy Creek partnership (Hicks, 1997: Hicks, L.,
Warren, and Hicks, C., 1996; Little Snake River Conservation District
and Bureau of Land Management, 1995):

-   Increase cooperation, coordination, and trust among landowners,
    permittees, agencies, and interest groups.

-   Improve critical ranges for antelope, elk, and deer in the area.

-   Demonstrate that properly managed livestock grazing can be
    compatible with consumptive and non-consumptive use of the area's
    multiple resources.

-   Improve water quality and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Restore
    the riparian habitats to their desired future condition, including
    visible changes in plant community, stream channels, and hydrologic
    regimes. This includes improvement of existing woody plant
    communities and their restoration to previously occupied sites.

-   Manage upland habitats to improve their bio-diversity and
    productivity for selected wildlife species and domestic livestock.

-   Reestablish Colorado River Cutthroat to headwater streams.

## Collection of Partnership Data

Direct field work, in the form of personal interviews, was chosen as the
primary data collection method over non-field survey methods for several
reasons. These reasons included: the topic had a high degree of
potential sensitivity that warranted a personal approach; cooperation
from respondents could be better achieved through personal interviews;
and the potential for empathy and confidence building was greater and
perceived "threat" was potentially less when using personal interview
collection methods. Mail surveys were identified as less effective for
enlisting cooperation and telephone surveys were identified as less
appropriate for dealing with sensitive material (Foddy, 1993; Fowler,
1984).

Data collection was organized in a manner that allowed interviewees to
answer both closed and open-ended questions that had been pre-tested by
NRCS, CD, and RC&D individuals with watershed partnership experience in
other states (Appendix C). This combination of question types was used
to capture a standard response set and allow the expression of
individual concerns and perspectives.

The case study partnerships had from forty to fifty-one active members
representing a wide variety of public and private interests. The size
and diversity of the partnerships, in addition to time and funding
constraints, influenced the decision to interview a sample of each
partnership.

Sample size was determined based on a strategy that outlined subgroups
of the population of watershed partnerships (Fowler, 1984). The strategy
included estimating percentages of the total population represented by
each subgroup. Using this strategy, each partnership was divided into
subgroups comprised of public or private interests. Portions of each
subgroup were selected to match the proportion of corresponding
interests in the total partnership. For example, if the portion of
federal agencies within the public subgroup was forty percent, then
forty percent of the public portion of the sample for that partnership
was represented by federal agencies (Appendix B.).

Applying this strategy to the three case study partnerships resulted in
a thirty percent sample size. Using Multidimensional scaling (MDS) in
SPSS (statistical software) and the group-to-group measure in RMRATE
(Gimblett, 1997), the degree of reliability and validity of the sample
sizes was determined. The MDS resulted in an r^2^ value of 0.918 with a
stress value (equivalent to standard deviation) of 0.176. These values
indicate high validity in the sample sizes. The group-to-group
coefficient was 0.918. Given that perfect agreement in this coefficient
would result in a value of 1.00, a value of 0.918, or almost 92%,
indicates a very high probability that the sample is representative of
the defined population (Gimblett, 1997).

## Analysis of Partnership Data

Interview responses were totaled by question and recorded as a
percentage of agreement (Appendix D.). Two or more questions addressed
each characteristic of the success model. Agreement regarding the level
of presence of the characteristics was determined by averaging the
responses of the questions assigned to each characteristic.

Statistical tests were used to determine differences in two areas. The
first analysis determined whether the percentages of characteristic
presence in the case studies differed significantly from the success
model. The second analysis determined whether differences in public and
private perceptions occurred (Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977; Sokal and
Rohlf, 1981).

**Results**

The results of the field work included identification of characteristics
of success in each case study and differences between public and private
perceptions. Plan goals, relative to project accomplishments, and
participants' perceptions and definitions of success were also compiled.

**[Characteristics of Success in the Case Studies.]{.underline}** Each
characteristic was recorded by frequency and percentage (Tables 3, 4,
and 5.). The characteristics identified as present by seventy percent or
more of the respondents were determined to have "strong presence" (Table
6.). A response level between thirty and seventy percent resulted in a
determination of "moderate presence." Response levels of thirty percent
or lower were determined to reflect "weak to no presence".

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 3. Characteristics found in Vernon Creek Partnership (n=12).    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > [Characteristic (Rank in Model)]{.underline} [\#]{.underline}       |
| > [%]{.underline}                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Existence of leadership (13) 11.5 95.8                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Active participation by wide variety, large number of partners (1)  |
| > 11.3 94.4                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Money: adequate & shared (8) 10.5 87.5                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Common goals (2) 10.0 83.3                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Clear and consistent communication (11) 10.0 83.3                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Shared risks, rewards, and credit (6) 9.0 75.0                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Trust (7) 9.0 75.0                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Regular communication (9) 9.0 75.0                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Flexible leadership (4) 8.7 72.2                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Consensus decision-making (3) 8.7 72.2                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Local authority for decisions (12) 8.0 66.7                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Variety of skills, large number of people to work (5) 7.5 62.5      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Commitment (10) 5.0 41.7                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 4. Characteristics found in Badger Creek Partnership (n=15).    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > [Characteristic (Rank in Model)]{.underline} [\#]{.underline}       |
| > [%]{.underline}                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Existence of leadership (13) 15.0 100                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Active participation by wide variety, large number of partners (1)  |
| > 13.0 86.7                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Flexible leadership (4) 11.7 77.8                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Money: adequate & shared (8) 12.0 80.0                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Clear and consistent communication (11) 12.0 80.0                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Flexible leadership (4) 11.7 77.8                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Common goals (2) 11.0 73.3                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Shared risks, rewards, credit (6) 10.5 70.0                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Trust (7) 10.5 70.0                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Variety of skills, large number of people to work (5) 10.0 66.7     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Local authority for decisions (12) 10.0 66.7                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Consensus decision-making (3) 9.0 60.0                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Commitment (10) 6.7 44.4                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Regular communication (9) 6.0 40.0                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 5. Characteristics found in Muddy Creek Partnership (n=14).     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > [Characteristic (Rank in Model)]{.underline} [\#]{.underline}       |
| > [%]{.underline}                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Existence of leadership (13) 14.0 100                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Money: adequate & shared (8) 13.5 96.4                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Clear and consistent communication (11) 13.0 92.9                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Active participation by wide variety, large number of partners (1)  |
| > 12.7 90.5                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Common goals (2) 11.5 82.1                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Trust (7) 11.5 82.1                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Flexible leadership (4) 11.0 78.6                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Consensus decision-making (3) 11.0 78.6                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Variety of skills, large number of people to work (5) 11.0 78.6     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Regular communication (9) 10.5 75.0                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Local authority for decisions (12) 9.5 67.9                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Shared risks, rewards, credit (6) 8.5 60.7                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Commitment (10) 6.7 47.6                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 6. Characteristics with strong presence in the three case
  studies.

  [Characteristics]{.underline} [VCW]{.underline} [BCW]{.underline}
  [MCW]{.underline}

  Active participation by a wide variety, large number of partners x x x

  Common goals x x x

  Consensus x x

  Adaptable, flexible leadership/process x x x

  A variety and number of people to do the work x

  Shared risks, rewards, credit x x

  Trust x x x

  Money, adequate and shared x x x

  Regular communication x x

  Commitment

  Clear, consistent communication x x x

  Local authority for decision-making

  Existence of leadership x x x
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

All characteristics displayed moderate to strong presence in the three
case studies. Importance ranks of success characteristics, however, were
found to be significantly different in the three case studies relative
to the success model derived from the literature (Table 7).

+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Table 7. Comparison of characteristic  |        |        |        |
| rankings between**                       |        |        |        |
|                                          |        |        |        |
| **three case studies and the success     |        |        |        |
| model.**                                 |        |        |        |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| [Characteristic]{.underline} [Model      | [      | [      | [Muddy |
| %]{.underline}                           | Vernon | Badger | %]     |
|                                          | %]     | %]     | {.unde |
|                                          | {.unde | {.unde | rline} |
|                                          | rline} | rline} |        |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Active participation by a wide variety   | 94.4   | 86.7   | 90.5   |
|                                          |        |        |        |
| & large number of partners 96.7          |        |        |        |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Common goals 53.5                        | 83.3   | 73.3   | 82.1   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Consensus 46.7                           | 72.2   | 60.0   | 78.6   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Adaptable, flexible leadership/process   | 72.2   | 77.8   | 78.6   |
| 43.3                                     |        |        |        |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Variety & number of people to do the     | 62.5   | 66.7   | 78.6   |
| work 33.3                                |        |        |        |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Shared risks, rewards, credit 30.0       | 75.0   | 70.0   | 60.7   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Trust 30.0                               | 75.0   | 70.0   | 82.1   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Money, adequate and shared 30.0          | 87.5   | 80.0   | 96.4   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Regular communication 26.7               | 75.0   | 40.0   | 75.0   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Commitment 23.3                          | 41.7   | 44.4   | 47.6   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Clear, consistent communication 20.0     | 83.3   | 80.0   | 92.9   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Local authority for decision-making 16.7 | 66.7   | 66.7   | 67.9   |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Existence of leadership 13.3             | 95.8   | 100.0  | 100.0  |
+------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

The strong presence of seven characteristics in all three case studies
indicates these characteristics consistently contribute to successful
implementation of NRCS-led partnerships. When the case study responses
are combined for evaluation, however, an additional characteristic from
the model, consensus, is shown to be strongly present (Table 8.). This
change is due to the agreement of presence for consensus being very high
in two of the three case studies and moderately high in the third case
study.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 8. Characteristics found in three NRCS partnerships (n=41\*).   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > [Characteristic]{.underline} [\#]{.underline} [%]{.underline}       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Existence of leadership 40.5 98.9                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Active participation by wide variety, large number of partners 37.0 |
| > 90.2                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Money: adequate & shared 36.0 87.8                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Clear and consistent communication 35.0 85.4                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Common goals 32.5 79.3                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Flexible leadership 31.4 76.6                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Trust 31.0 75.6                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Consensus decision-making 28.7 70.0                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Variety of skills, large number of people to work 28.5 69.5         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Shared risks, rewards, credit 28.0 68.3                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Local authority for decisions 27.0 65.9                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Regular communication 25.5 62.2                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Commitment 18.3 44.7                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

\* Combined number of individuals interviewed.

**[Public versus Private Perceptions.]{.underline}** Statistically
significant differences between public and private responses to the
interview questions were assumed to have the potential to affect
characteristic presence since the responses to two or more questions
were used to determine characteristic presence. Strong presence (≥70%)
was interpreted as conclusive to the importance of a characteristic to
partnership success. Moderate presence (≥30% and \<70%) was interpreted
as inconclusive of characteristic importance. Those characteristics of
moderate presence that were addressed by questions having significant
differences between responses might have resulted in strong presence if
the responses had not been significantly different.

The statistical analysis of the Vernon Creek Partnership responses
showed no significant difference between private and public responses in
86% of the interview questions. Significant differences between private
and public responses occurred for only three questions. These were:

-   Q4. Was the partnership able to get complete agreement when making
    decisions? (consensus)

-   Q7. Was most of the work on the project done by a few individuals?
    (variety of people)

-   Q15. Were your concerns addressed fairly by the partnership? (trust)

Since the characteristics of consensus (72.2%) and trust (75.0%) were
strongly present, the significant differences for questions #4 and #15
were interpreted as not affecting the importance of these
characteristics. The significant difference for question #7 may have
contributed to inconclusive importance of the characteristics of
commitment (41.7%) and a variety of people to do the work (62.5%).

Statistical analysis for the Badger Creek Partnership responses showed
no significant difference between private and public responses in 100%
of the questions. Recommendations for improvements made by the
respondents, however, suggest that the characteristics of regular
communication (40.0%) and consensus (60.0%) are conclusively important
to success. Different perceptions in these instances did not contribute
to levels of moderate presence.

The statistical analysis of the Muddy Creek Partnership responses showed
no significant difference between private and public responses in 91% of
the interview questions. Significant differences between private and
public responses occurred for only two questions. These are:

-   Q8. Were there many problems to overcome in order to complete the
    project? (leadership)

-   Q16. Did the partnership have the ability locally to make all
    project decisions? (local authority)

Since the characteristic of flexible leadership (89.3%) was strongly
present, the significant difference for question #8 was interpreted as
not affecting the importance of this characteristic. The significant
difference for question #16 may have contributed to inconclusive
importance of the characteristic of local authority (67.9%).

When the responses for the three NRCS partnerships were combined, they
showed no significant difference between private and public responses in
95% of the interview questions. Significant difference was found in
question #16, however, that may have contributed to inconclusive
importance of the characteristic of local authority (65.9%).

These findings indicate that differences between private and public
responses in the three case studies had little influence on
determinations of success in these partnerships. This lack of influence
may be due to the length of time (at least ten years) that respondents
have been associated with their watersheds, agriculture, and/or natural
resource issues.

**[Plan Goals Compared to Project Accomplishments.]{.underline}** The
Vernon Creek Watershed project was considered 100% complete by the
mid-1970s, although management strategies continue today as part of the
maintenance of the project. All of the plan goals were accomplished.
Sediment reduction was achieved in Vernon Creek and Bennion and Dutch
drainages. The quality, availability, and distribution of the irrigation
water supply was improved. Floodwater damages were minimized and
rangeland erosion was reduced. Farm incomes were improved and land and
water resources were developed to higher and sustained productivity. The
ranchers currently harvest up to four times more hay than they did
before the project. Some of them began shipping hay out of the area
during the winter, where they had shipped it in before the project (Soil
Conservation Service, 1985; Natural Resources Conservation Service,
1997).

The Badger Creek Watershed project is estimated at 75% complete. Many of
the plan goals have been realized. The acreage goal for application of
proper grazing systems has been exceeded. Livestock distribution through
stockwater development has resulted in improved riparian areas and
increased grazing capacity. Fencing and erosion control structures have
contributed to livestock distribution and reduced erosion. Monitoring
continues to reflect water quality improvements and direct the
partnership's activities. The demonstration site is showing how rest
followed by proper grazing can result in a healthy riparian area
(Wustrow, 1995a, 1995b, 1996).

The Muddy Creek Watershed project is estimated at well over 50% complete
with over 80% of the conservation practices installed (Hicks, 1997). The
plan goals have been or are being realized through land treatment
practices and structural measures. Muddy Creek is being protected,
enhanced, and conserved for wildlife, livestock, energy, and recreation
uses, as identified in the partnership's mission statement. Improved
rangeland health is being realized through water quality improvements,
erosion and sediment reductions, and wildlife habitat improvements. The
new grazing systems are resulting in compatibility between livestock and
wildlife uses. Cooperation and trust has been developed within the
partnership^10^.

**[Vernon Creek Respondents' Perceptions and Definitions of
Success.]{.underline}** Almost ninety-two percent of the respondents
were very satisfied with the partnership as a way to address the
conservation needs in their watershed. The twelfth respondent was
dissatisfied due to current problems with public use of the reservoir
and surrounding area. Vandalism and littering are the primary problems.
There is a lack of private control over the problems and a lack of help
from public agencies.

Over 83% of the respondents would not change anything about the way the
partnership operated. One respondent felt "government red tape" was a
problem but offered no specific solutions. The twelfth respondent
suggested better contact from the parties in charge of the project.

Respondent satisfaction focused on the need and desire to have everyone
agree with, and participate in, the project. "Everyone" included members
of the watershed community and agencies and organizations with
jurisdiction in the watershed. The respondents acknowledged a need for
this diversity due to the complexity of land ownership and the scarcity
of resources such as technical skills and money. Respondents were
particularly satisfied with the sense of equality within the
partnership. They specified the lack of "big brother down the
landowners' throats" as a positive characteristic of this effort (Vernon
Creek Interview, 1997).

The success of the Vernon Creek partnership was described by the
respondents using both qualitative and quantitative factors. A variety
of natural resource improvements, socioeconomic continuity, and
recreational use by visitors from Salt Lake City were specifically
identified as measures of success. A local leader in the partnership was
credited as the key to project success by several respondents.
Collectively, the respondents consider the project to be successful,
however, they also recognize some shortcomings of the project, such as
limited wildlife benefits and unanticipated vandalism. Several
respondents believe the project could not be replicated today given the
legislative changes that have occurred during the past thirty years.

**[Badger Creek Respondents' Perceptions and Definitions of
Success.]{.underline}** Over 93% of the respondents were very satisfied
with the partnership as a way to address the conservation needs in their
watershed. One respondent was dissatisfied due to a perceived lack of
attention to the upper watershed.

Over 53% of the respondents would not change anything about the way the
partnership operated. One respondent implied changes were needed but did
not make specific recommendations. Six of the respondents identified
three areas for improvements. They placed the most emphasis on more and
better communication, including meetings. They expressed a desire for
more consensus and more resource studies for resource management
decision-making purposes.

Respondent satisfaction focused on the diversity of the partnership and
working with that diversity. Agency personnel appreciated the
opportunity to work with and learn from landowners and other agencies.
Several respondents appreciated the opportunity to be involved in the
(1) group process, (2) decision-making, and (3) sharing of new
perspectives which resulted in a break from traditional budget and
agency driven projects. Resource improvements were also identified as
important to respondents' satisfaction.

Partnerships were perceived by the respondents as the best way to
address the management and use of diverse resource areas. The
respondents emphasized education and a high level of private sector
involvement as necessary and desirable. Respondents observed "dramatic
changes in attitudes" as the partnership developed and identified this
as a significant measure of success (Badger Creek Interview, 1997). The
improvements to water quality and riparian areas as well as forage and
livestock increases were identified as elements of project success. The
increases and changes in wildlife populations were also interpreted as
successes, however, the elk numbers were perceived as having exceeded
the current carrying capacity. Respondents indicated that wildlife
management strategies need closer attention and modification to maintain
accomplishments and realize the remaining goals.

**[Muddy Creek Respondents' Perceptions and Definitions of
Success.]{.underline}** One hundred percent of the respondents were
satisfied with the partnership as a way to address conservation needs in
their watershed. Respondents focused on cooperation, consensus, and
trust within their diverse group as contributing to their satisfaction.
Respondents were also satisfied with the management change from
government driven to locally-led. Sharing of resources and conservation
treatments across land ownerships were identified as contributing to
respondent satisfaction. Resource improvements, particularly related to
water quality, were tangible elements of satisfaction.

Almost 43% of the respondents would not change anything about the way
the partnership operated. Half of the respondents identified earlier
involvement of more land owners as important to future efforts.
Incentives for private land owner involvement were suggested. These
included more recognition of private efforts, education of the public on
behalf of private land owners, land exchanges, and game and fish
licenses for private land use. Competing priorities within the agencies,
vandalism, and public access problems were identified as areas for
improvement.

Partnership efforts like Muddy Creek's are seen by the respondents as an
effective way to ease tensions between livestock and wildlife interests.
Education, communication, and training in the Coordinated Resource
Management Planning process were identified as success elements that
should be shared with other groups. The extensive development of
wetlands, overlooking of political boundaries, restraint of personal
differences, and efficient use of funds were also used to describe the
success of this partnership.

**Development of a Guide for**

**Successful Public/Private Conservation Partnerships**

### 

###  The differences in characteristics of success between the success model and the case studies are attributed to the inclusion of private land owner perceptions. The results of the case studies, consequently, are considered to have broader applicability for a variety of public/private partnerships. The eight characteristics that were strongly and consistently present offer a basis for a revised guide to success (Table 9.). Two potential applications of this guide are as a developmental tool and/or an evaluation tool.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Table 9. A Guide to Successful Public/Private Conservation            |
| Partnerships.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Begin with **leadership**.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2.  Recruit **active participation** from a wide variety and as many  |
|     partners as possible.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  Identify and secure **funding**.                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4.  Be **clear and consistent** with all **communications**.          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.  Allow **adaptability and flexibility** throughout partnership     |
|     functioning.                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.  Establish **common goals** and                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7.  Build **trust**                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8.  Through **consensus decision-making**.                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### 

### 

As a developmental tool, the characteristics of the guide can be viewed
as building blocks beginning with leadership and active participation.
The order of establishment of the remaining six characteristics would be
determined by the partnership. This recommendation is based on the
combined percentages of presence of the characteristics. Partnerships
should be able to more effectively address conservation needs and
problems when these eight characteristics are positively addressed.

As an evaluation tool, the characteristics of the guide can be compared
to the current functioning of a partnership. Those characteristics found
to be missing or weakly applied may offer insights into a partnership's
weaknesses.

It is important to remember that there are more characteristics of
success than the eight characteristics in the proposed guide. Sixty-five
individual characteristics were originally identified as contributing to
partnership success. Fifty-two of these characteristics were interpreted
as having limited applicability since they were identified by three or
fewer sources. This limitation reflects the differences in the natural
and human resources that individualize each partnership. The eight
characteristics of the proposed guide for success offer a sound starting
point for partnerships, not a universal remedy for their problems. As
partnerships test the proposed guide, they may find some of the other
fifty-two characteristics useful to their particular efforts.

### 

### Measuring Success Qualitatively and Quantitatively

Six open-ended questions addressing qualitative issues were used during
data collection (Appendix C). Assessments of qualitative measures were
made on the basis of responses to these six questions. Respondents in
all three case studies identified many qualitative aspects of success,
particularly through explanations of their satisfaction with the
partnerships. In all three case studies, respondents expressed desire
for and satisfaction with working with other people and, particularly,
with people having different perspectives and interests. Six of the
eight characteristics identified as being strongly present in the
combined results are also of a qualitative nature:

1.  Existence of leadership

2.  Active participation by a wide variety and large number of partners

3.  Adaptable, flexible leadership/process

4.  Trust

5.  Clear, consistent communication

6.  Consensus

These findings indicate that qualitative measures play a significant
role in partnership success. A true measure of success should include
these qualitative aspects. Using the qualitative and quantitative
success measures previously identified in the second limitation of model
development, the success of the three case studies can be defined
quantitatively with the level of goal accomplishment and qualitatively
with the presence of success characteristics and level of participant
satisfaction. These measurements can be expressed in percentages that
are combined and averaged for a comprehensive determination of success
(Table 10.).

Additional measures of success may lie in the futures of the three
projects. The experiences of the Vernon Creek partnership have given
rise to the Clover Creek Watershed effort, located downstream of Vernon.
The Badger Creek partnership is enthusiastic about finishing their
project and participating in other such efforts. The Muddy Creek
partnership is considering an expansion of their natural resource
management that would incorporate new issues and new partners.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 10. Comprehensive measure of partnership success.

  [Measures of Partnership Success]{.underline} [Vernon]{.underline}
  [Badger]{.underline} [Muddy]{.underline}

  \% of model characteristics with strong presence 76.9% 61.5% 76.9%

  \% of plan accomplished 100% 75% \>50%

  [% participant satisfaction with partnership]{.underline}
  [91.7%]{.underline} [93.3%]{.underline} [100%]{.underline}

  Estimated level of success 89.5% 76.6% \>75.6%
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Conclusions**

An initial model of the effectiveness of public/private conservation
partnerships was derived from literature sources. The model described
levels of effectiveness based on partnership functioning and
conservation goals. The thirteen characteristics of the success model
summarized multiple descriptions of successful partnerships. Failed
partnerships, on the other hand, were summarized as those that could not
achieve an effective, working relationship nor the desired conservation
goals.

The success model was based on characteristics identified by agencies
and organizations while the case study results combined individual
private land owner perceptions with those of agencies and organizations.
The differences between the model and the case studies provided a way to
broaden the applicability of the proposed guide to success.

The selection of watershed partnerships using different programmatic
approaches was also intended to enhance applicability of the proposed
guide. There are several limitations, however, to this study. First, the
ages of the case studies potentially introduce some bias since recent
legislation and increased public involvement have altered the historic
composition of watershed partnerships. Second, the sample of the
partnerships and case studies required judgmental selections. Ideally,
all of the partners would have been interviewed and more partnerships
would have been examined. In determining the composition of the samples
and selecting the projects for study, an emphasis was placed on a level
of diversity based on the authors' experience with the NRCS. A third
limitation occurred in the development of the questionnaire. The
decision to pre-test only with individuals associated with NRCS, CDs,
and RC&Ds had the potential to bias the study results.

The results of this research revealed eight characteristics with the
potential to contribute to partnership success in a variety of
situations: (1) the existence of leadership; (2) active participation
from a wide variety and large number of partners; (3) adequate and
shared funding; (4) clear and consistent communication; (5) adaptable
and flexible leadership; (6) common goals; (7) trust; and (8) consensus.
These characteristics provide a starting point for partnerships; they do
not provide a cure-all for partnership problems.

Several tantalizing directions of research were indicated by this study.
It appears that private land owner involvement does affect the success
of watershed partnerships. Qualitative measures may be very important in
accurately determining the success of partnerships. Such measures should
be given as much emphasis as quantitative measures during assessment.
Within NRCS partnerships, differences between private and public
perceptions can affect success but may have a lesser impact when the
eight success characteristics identified by this research are strongly
present. These eight characteristics appear to provide a basis for
cooperation that may increase the success of conservation partnerships.

Additional research needs include field testing of the proposed success
guidance by new and existing partnerships. The refinement of qualitative
measures of success so that equitable consideration can be given to both
qualitative and quantitative determinants during project assessment also
offers research potential.

Public/private partnerships addressing conservation problems on a
watershed scale are expected to continue increasing. Successful
partnerships between the public and private sectors offer an effective
and efficient method to achieve conservation goals. This research was
done in order to provide a more concise method of forming successful
public/private partnerships.

**APPENDIX A.**

**SIXTY-FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS**

**[PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS:]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [\# of
Sources]{.underline}**

1\. Active participation by a wide variety and large

number of partners 29 17

2\. Shared risks, rewards, credit 9 8

3\. Commitment 7 5

4\. A variety and number of people to do the work 10 8

5\. Money, adequate and shared 9 6

6\. Regular communication 8 8

7\. Clear, consistent communication 6 5

8\. Common goals 16 11

9\. Consensus 14 12

10\. Local authority 5 5

11\. Trust 9 7

12\. Adaptable, flexible leadership/process 13 10

13\. Existence of leadership 4 4

**[SECONDARY CHARACTERISTICS:]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [\#
of Sources]{.underline}**

14. Available technology 3 3

15. Coordination of resources 3 3

16. Scale of project 3 3

17. Clear roles & responsibilities - 3 3

18. Positive public perception - 3 3

19. Education 3 3

20. Prioritize objectives 3 2

21. Attainable objectives 2 2

22. Clear objectives 3 2

23. Coordinated decisions 3 3

24. Written solutions to problems 3 3

25. Credibility 2 2

26. Build Relationships 4 2

27. Unbiased leadership 3 2

28. Leadership not turf-related 2 2

29. Local origin of leadership 2 2

**[TERTIARY CHARACTERISTICS:]{.underline} [Frequency]{.underline} [\# of
Sources]{.underline}**

30. Planning team as small as practical 1 1

31. Use of work group, task force, etc. 1 1

32. Attitudes of enthusiasm, high expectations 1 1

33. Honest treatment of landowners 1 1

34. Reliability 1 1

35. Form networks of supporting institutions 1 1

36. Build public support 1 1

37. Transfer of technology 1 1

38. Focus on technological targets & constituencies 1 1

39. Practical resource plans 1 1

40. Tangible objectives 1 1

41. Viable vision 1 1

42. Specific objectives 1 1

43. Provide benefits to local people 1 1

44. Meet local needs 1 1

45. Effective actions and tangible results 1 1

46. Decisions recorded in plan 1 1

47. Consider advantage and disadvantages 1 1

48. Based on sound science 1 1

49. Emphasis on implementation from beginning 1 1

50. Process to prioritize watersheds 1 1

51. Plan holistically 1 1

52. Plan area as a system 1 1

53. Intelligent preserve selection and design 1 1

54. Based on sound conservation need 1 1

55. Conflicts dealt with openly 1 1

56. Problem-solving through public participation 1 1

57. Foster scientific research 1 1

58. Employ what you learn 1 1

59. Focus on individuals, hands-on activities 1 1

60. Regional agency as mediator 1 1

61. Shared leadership 1 1

62. Pragmatic leadership, no rigid ideology 1 1

63. Permanence of actions 1 1

64. Evaluate by more effective methods than "acres enhanced or restored"
    1 1

65. Evaluate results against goals and alternatives 1 1

**APPENDIX B.**

**THREE CASE STUDY PARTNERSHIPS**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERNON CREEK PARTNERSHIP                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Private Interests: 26 signed plans on private lands                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Vernon Soil Conservation District                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Vernon Irrigation Company                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Public Interests: 5 Federal agencies                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6 State agencies                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 County government                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Total Interests: 40                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > 30% Sample: 12                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > 50/50: 6 private, 6 public                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Sampled Private Interests: 4 private landowners                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Vernon Soil Conservation District                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Vernon Irrigation Company                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Sampled Public Interests: 3 Federal agencies (SCS, USFS, BLM)\*     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 State agencies (Wildlife, Water Resources)\*\*                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tooele County                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

\* Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

> U. S. Forest Service (USFS)
>
> Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

\*\*While there were more state than federal agencies involved, only two
state agencies had anyone available who remembered the project.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| BADGER CREEK PARTNERSHIP                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Private Interests: 33 private landowners                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Fremont Soil Conservation District                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Teller Park Soil Conservation District                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Upper Arkansas Soil Conservation District                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sangre de Cristo RC&D Council                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Colorado Trout Unlimited                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| South East Colorado Water Conservancy District                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Upper Arkansas Council of Governments                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Public Interests: 5 Federal agencies                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4 State agencies                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 County governments                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Total Interests: 51                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > 30% Sample: 15                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > 50/50: 8 private, 7 public\*                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Sampled Private Interests: Fremont Soil Conservation District       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sangre de Cristo RC&D Council                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Colorado Trout Unlimited                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 private landowners with conservation plans                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 private landowners without conservation plans                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Sampled Public Interests: Park County                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 Federal agencies (SCS, USFS, BLM)\*\*                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 State agencies (Wildlife, Forest, Land Board)                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > \*The odd sample number was weighted to private interests due to a  |
| > perceived                                                           |
| >                                                                     |
| > lack of private landowner representation in the literature.         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

\*\* Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

> U. S. Forest Service (USFS)
>
> Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MUDDY CREEK PARTNERSHIP                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Private Interests: 13 private landowners with conservation plans    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 private landowner without a conservation plan                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Little Snake River Conservation District                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation Dist.                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Trout Unlimited                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Chapter Sierra Club                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Water for Wildlife                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (TNC)                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Wildlife Federation                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Outdoor Council                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Riparian Association                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| National Fish and Wildlife Foundation                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ducks Unlimited                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Public Interests: 7 Federal agencies                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7 State agencies                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 University departments                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 County government                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 City government                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 Federal/State liaison                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Total Interests: 45                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > 30% Sample: 14                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > 50/50: 7 private, 7 public                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Sampled Private Interests: Little Snake River Conservation District |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Wyoming Outdoor Council                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 private landowners with conservation plans                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1 private landowner without a conservation plan                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > Sampled Public Interests: Carbon County                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3 Federal agencies (NRCS, USEPA, BLM)\*                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2 State agencies (Game and Fish, Agriculture)                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| City of Rawlins                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

\* Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

> U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
>
> Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

**APPENDIX C.**

# INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 

How long have you lived in the area?

How long have you been involved with agricultural or natural resource
activities?

What was your interest in the project?

1\. Everyone actively participated in the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

2\. The partnership included everyone who was interested in the project

Agree Neutral Disagree

3\. The partnership had a variety of talents and skills to accomplish
the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

4\. The partnership was able to get complete agreement when making
decisions.

Agree Neutral Disagree

5\. Everyone was involved in deciding what would be done on the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

6\. Goals and objectives for the project were decided by everyone.

Agree Neutral Disagree

7\. Most of the work on the project was done by a few individuals.

Agree Neutral Disagree

8\. There were many problems to overcome in order to complete the
project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

9\. The partnership tried a variety of ways to solve problems
encountered on the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

10\. The partnership met at least once a month to work on the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

11\. I was always aware of project developments.

Agree Neutral Disagree

12\. Everyone contributed equitably to the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

13\. Everyone was credited for the accomplishments of the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

14\. I had serious concerns about the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

15\. My concerns were addressed fairly by the partnership.

Agree Neutral Disagree

16\. The partnership had the ability locally to make all project
decisions.

Agree Neutral Disagree

17\. There was adequate funding for the project.

Agree Neutral Disagree

18\. Funding was from public and private sources.

Agree Neutral Disagree

19\. Information was always provided in a clear and consistent manner.

Agree Neutral Disagree

20\. There was adequate leadership for the partnership.

Agree Neutral Disagree

21\. Leadership was well-coordinated.

Agree Neutral Disagree

22\. Leadership was facilitative.

Agree Neutral Disagree

Are you satisfied with the partnership as a way to address conservation
needs in this watershed? Why?

Would you change anything about the way the partnership operated? If
yes, what?

# Is there anything I haven't asked you about that you would like to add?

**APPENDIX D.**

**AGREEMENT OF PRESENCE IN THREE NRCS WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPS**

  ------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **1. Did                                                                                                                           
  everyone                                                                                                                           
  actively                                                                                                                           
  participate                                                                                                                        
  in the                                                                                                                             
  project?**                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                     

                                      [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                     

                Vernon                10                    2                       0                        83.3%                   

                Badger                9                     2                       4                        60.0%                   

                Muddy                 10                    0                       4                        71.4%                   

                                                                                                                                     

                TOTAL                 29                    4                       8                        70.7%                   
  ------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  ------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------
  **2. Did the                                                                                                                   
  partnership                                                                                                                    
  include                                                                                                                        
  everyone who                                                                                                                   
  was                                                                                                                            
  interested in                                                                                                                  
  the                                                                                                                            
  project?**                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                 

                                  [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                 

                Vernon            12                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                Badger            15                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                Muddy             14                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                                                                                                                                 

                TOTAL             41                    0                       0                        100.0%                  
  ------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------

  -------------- -------- -- ------ --------------------- ------ ----------------------- ------ ------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ------ -----------
  **3. Did the                                                                                                                                                 
  partnership                                                                                                                                                  
  have a variety                                                                                                                                               
  of talents and                                                                                                                                               
  skills to                                                                                                                                                    
  accomplish**                                                                                                                                                 

  **the                                                                                                                                                        
  project?**                                                                                                                                                   

                                    [Agree]{.underline}          [Neutral]{.underline}          [Disagree]{.underline}          [%Agreed]{.underline}          

                                                                                                                                                               

                 Vernon             12                           0                              0                               100.0%                         

                 Badger             15                           0                              0                               100.0%                         

                 Muddy              14                           0                              0                               100.0%                         

                                                                                                                                                               

                 TOTAL              41                           0                              0                               100.0%                         
  -------------- -------- -- ------ --------------------- ------ ----------------------- ------ ------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ------ -----------

  ---------------- -------- -- ------ --------------------- ------ ----------------------- ------ ------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ------ -----------
  **4. Was the                                                                                                                                                   
  partnership able                                                                                                                                               
  to get complete                                                                                                                                                
  agreement when                                                                                                                                                 
  making**                                                                                                                                                       

  **decisions?**                                                                                                                                                 

                                      [Agree]{.underline}          [Neutral]{.underline}          [Disagree]{.underline}          [%Agreed]{.underline}          

                                                                                                                                                                 

                   Vernon             6                            4                              2                               50.0%                          

                   Badger             5                            4                              6                               33.3%                          

                   Muddy              10                           2                              2                               71.4%                          

                                                                                                                                                                 

                   TOTAL              21                           10                             10                              51.2%                          

                                                                                                                                                                 

  **5. Was                                                                                                                                                       
  everyone                                                                                                                                                       
  involved in                                                                                                                                                    
  deciding what                                                                                                                                                  
  would be done on                                                                                                                                               
  the project?**                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                      [Agree]{.underline}          [Neutral]{.underline}          [Disagree]{.underline}          [%Agreed]{.underline}          

                                                                                                                                                                 

                   Vernon             9                            2                              1                               75.0%                          

                   Badger             10                           3                              2                               66.7%                          

                   Muddy              10                           3                              1                               71.4%                          

                                                                                                                                                                 

                   TOTAL              29                           8                              4                               70.7%                          
  ---------------- -------- -- ------ --------------------- ------ ----------------------- ------ ------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ------ -----------

  ------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --
  **6. Were                                                                                                                          
  goals and                                                                                                                          
  objectives                                                                                                                         
  for the                                                                                                                            
  project                                                                                                                            
  decided by                                                                                                                         
  everyone?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                     

                                      [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                     

                Vernon                11                    1                       0                        91.7%                   

                Badger                12                    2                       1                        80.0%                   

                Muddy                 13                    1                       0                        92.9%                   

                                                                                                                                     

                TOTAL                 36                    4                       1                        87.8%                   
  ------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --
  **7. Was most of                                                                                                                      
  the work on the                                                                                                                       
  project done by                                                                                                                       
  a few                                                                                                                                 
  individuals?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                        

                                         [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                        

                   Vernon                6                     3                       3                        50.0%                   

                   Badger                9                     1                       5                        60.0%                   

                   Muddy                 6                     0                       8                        42.9%                   

                                                                                                                                        

                   TOTAL                 21                    4                       16                       51.2%                   
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --

  --------------- -------- -- ------ --------------------- ------ ----------------------- ------ ------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ------ -----------
  **8. Were there                                                                                                                                               
  many problems                                                                                                                                                 
  to overcome in                                                                                                                                                
  order to                                                                                                                                                      
  complete the                                                                                                                                                  
  project?**                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                

                                     [Agree]{.underline}          [Neutral]{.underline}          [Disagree]{.underline}          [%Agreed]{.underline}          

                                                                                                                                                                

                  Vernon             11                           1                              0                               91.7%                          

                  Badger             9                            2                              4                               60.0%                          

                  Muddy              8                            2                              4                               57.1%                          

                                                                                                                                                                

                  TOTAL              28                           5                              8                               68.3%                          

  **9. Did the                                                                                                                                                  
  partnership try                                                                                                                                               
  a variety of                                                                                                                                                  
  ways to solve                                                                                                                                                 
  problems                                                                                                                                                      
  encountered**                                                                                                                                                 

  **on the                                                                                                                                                      
  project?**                                                                                                                                                    

                                     [Agree]{.underline}          [Neutral]{.underline}          [Disagree]{.underline}          [%Agreed]{.underline}          

                                                                                                                                                                

                  Vernon             8                            3                              1                               66.7%                          

                  Badger             14                           0                              1                               93.3%                          

                  Muddy              12                           2                              0                               85.7%                          

                                                                                                                                                                

                  TOTAL              34                           5                              2                               82.9%                          
  --------------- -------- -- ------ --------------------- ------ ----------------------- ------ ------------------------ ------ ----------------------- ------ -----------

  ------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------
  **10. Did the                                                                                                                  
  partnership                                                                                                                    
  meet at least                                                                                                                  
  once a month                                                                                                                   
  to work on                                                                                                                     
  the                                                                                                                            
  project?**                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                 

                                  [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                 

                Vernon            8                     3                       1                        66.7%                   

                Badger            2                     1                       12                       13.3%                   

                Muddy             8                     3                       3                        57.1%                   

                                                                                                                                 

                TOTAL             18                    7                       16                       43.9%                   
  ------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------

  ----------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **11. Were you                                                                                                                         
  always aware of                                                                                                                        
  project                                                                                                                                
  developments?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                         

                                          [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                         

                    Vernon                10                    1                       1                        83.3%                   

                    Badger                10                    0                       5                        66.7%                   

                    Muddy                 13                    0                       1                        92.9%                   

                                                                                                                                         

                    TOTAL                 33                    1                       7                        80.5%                   
  ----------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **12. Did                                                                                                                         
  everyone                                                                                                                          
  contribute                                                                                                                        
  equitably to                                                                                                                      
  the                                                                                                                               
  project?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                    

                                     [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                    

               Vernon                8                     2                       2                        66.7%                   

               Badger                7                     3                       5                        46.7%                   

               Muddy                 5                     2                       7                        35.7%                   

                                                                                                                                    

               TOTAL                 20                    7                       14                       48.8%                   
  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  ----------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --
  **13. Was                                                                                                                              
  everyone credited                                                                                                                      
  for the                                                                                                                                
  accomplishments                                                                                                                        
  of the project?**                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                         

                                          [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                         

                    Vernon                10                    2                       0                        83.3%                   

                    Badger                14                    1                       0                        93.3%                   

                    Muddy                 12                    2                       0                        85.7%                   

                                                                                                                                         

                    TOTAL                 36                    5                       0                        87.8%                   
  ----------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --

  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **14. Did                                                                                                                         
  you have                                                                                                                          
  serious                                                                                                                           
  concerns                                                                                                                          
  about the                                                                                                                         
  project?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                    

                                     [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                    

               Vernon                7                     1                       4                        58.3%                   

               Badger                7                     0                       8                        46.7%                   

               Muddy                 7                     0                       7                        50.0%                   

                                                                                                                                    

               TOTAL                 21                    1                       19                       51.2%                   
  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --
  **15. Were your                                                                                                                       
  concerns                                                                                                                              
  addressed fairly                                                                                                                      
  by the                                                                                                                                
  partnership?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                        

                                         [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                        

                   Vernon                9                     3                       0                        75.0%                   

                   Badger                11                    3                       1                        73.3%                   

                   Muddy                 13                    1                       0                        92.9%                   

                                                                                                                                        

                   TOTAL                 33                    7                       1                        80.5%                   
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --

  -------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------
  **16. Did the                                                                                                                   
  partnership                                                                                                                     
  have the                                                                                                                        
  ability                                                                                                                         
  locally to                                                                                                                      
  make all                                                                                                                        
  project                                                                                                                         
  decisions?**                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                  

                                   [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                  

                 Vernon            7                     4                       1                        58.3%                   

                 Badger            10                    2                       3                        66.7%                   

                 Muddy             9                     2                       3                        64.3%                   

                                                                                                                                  

                 TOTAL             25                    7                       9                        61.0%                   
  -------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------

  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **17. Was                                                                                                                         
  there                                                                                                                             
  adequate                                                                                                                          
  funding for                                                                                                                       
  the                                                                                                                               
  project?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                    

                                     [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                    

               Vernon                12                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

               Badger                12                    2                       1                        80.0%                   

               Muddy                 13                    0                       1                        92.9%                   

                                                                                                                                    

               TOTAL                 37                    2                       2                        90.2%                   
  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **18. Was                                                                                                                         
  funding from                                                                                                                      
  public and                                                                                                                        
  private                                                                                                                           
  sources?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                    

                                     [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                    

               Vernon                9                     2                       1                        75.0%                   

               Badger                12                    2                       1                        80.0%                   

               Muddy                 14                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                                                                                                                                    

               TOTAL                 35                    4                       2                        85.4%                   
  ------------ ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  ------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------
  **19. Was                                                                                                                      
  information                                                                                                                    
  always                                                                                                                         
  provided in a                                                                                                                  
  clear and                                                                                                                      
  consistent                                                                                                                     
  manner?**                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                 

                                  [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                 

                Vernon            10                    1                       1                        83.3%                   

                Badger            14                    1                       0                        93.3%                   

                Muddy             13                    0                       1                        92.9%                   

                                                                                                                                 

                TOTAL             37                    2                       2                        90.2%                   
  ------------- -------- -------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -----------

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------
  **20. Was there                                                                                                                       
  adequate                                                                                                                              
  leadership for                                                                                                                        
  the                                                                                                                                   
  partnership?**                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                        

                                         [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}   [Disagree]{.underline}   [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                        

                   Vernon                12                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                   Badger                15                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                   Muddy                 14                    0                       0                        100.0%                  

                                                                                                                                        

                   TOTAL                 41                    0                       0                        100.0%                  
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- -------

  --------------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------- ------------------------ ------- ----------------------- -------
  **21. Was leadership                                                                                                                                       
  well-coordinated?**                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                             

                                              [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}           [Disagree]{.underline}           [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                                             

                        Vernon                11                    1                               0                                91.7%                   

                        Badger                15                    0                               0                                100.0%                  

                        Muddy                 14                    0                               0                                100.0%                  

                                                                                                                                                             

                        TOTAL                 40                    1                               0                                97.6%                   
  --------------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------- ------------------------ ------- ----------------------- -------

  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------- ------------------------ ------- ----------------------- -------
  **22. Was                                                                                                                                             
  leadership                                                                                                                                            
  faciliative?**                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                        

                                         [Agree]{.underline}   [Neutral]{.underline}           [Disagree]{.underline}           [%Agreed]{.underline}   

                                                                                                                                                        

                   Vernon                7                     5                               0                                58.3%                   

                   Badger                12                    3                               0                                80.0%                   

                   Muddy                 13                    0                               1                                92.9%                   

                                                                                                                                                        

                   TOTAL                 32                    8                               1                                78.0%                   
  ---------------- ---------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------- ------- ------------------------ ------- ----------------------- -------

#  Notes

Anderson and Baum, 1987; Anderson, 1990; Bendick, 1993; Brown, C. N.,
1993; Brown, W. Lee., 1993; Cleary, 1988; Coyle, 1995; Daly, 1994;
Davis, 1985; Dennis, 1993; Dudal, 1980; Endicott, 1993b; Endicott,
1993c; Gensemer and Yamaguchi, 1985; Graziano, Massengale, and Updike,
1993; Havercamp, Torell, and Evans, 1993; Hoban, 1992b; Hoban, et al.,
1995; Hoffman, 1994; Huillet, et al., 1990; Journal of Soil & Water
Conservation, 1982; Long and Arnold, 1995; McNeely, 1992; Moote, 1995;
Murray, 1992; Poole, 1993; Thompson, 1993; Trauger, et al., 1995;
Wanberg and Anderson, 1994; Zube, 1992

^2^ Anderson and Baum, 1987; Anderson, 1990; Brown, C. N., 1993; Brown,
W., 1993; Cleary, 1988; Coyle, 1995; Endicott, 1993b; Gensemer and
Yamaguchi, 1985; Graziano, et al., 1993; Hoban, 1992b; Hoban, et al.,
1995; Hoffman, 1994; Huillet, et al., 1990; Long and Arnold, 1995;
Trauger, et al, 1995

^3^ Anderson, 1990; Brown, W., 1993; Coyle, 1995; Endicott, 1993b;
Graziano, et al., 1993; Hoban, 1992b; Hoban, et al., 1995; Hoffman,
1994; Huillet, et al., 1990; Long and Arnold, 1995; Poole, 1993;
Thompson, 1993; Trauger, et al, 1995

^4^ Anderson and Baum, 1987; Bendick, 1993; Brown, C. N., 1993; Brown,
W., 1993; Cleary, 1988; Coyle, 1995; Dennis, 1993; Endicott, 1993b;
Gensemer and Yamaguchi, 1985; Graziano, et al., 1993; Hoban, et al.,
1995; Hoffman, 1994; Huillet, et al., 1990; Long and Arnold, 1995;
Poole, 1993; Trauger, et al, 1995

^5^ Anderson and Baum, 1987; Brown, C. N., 1993; Brown, W., 1993;
Dennis, 1993; Endicott, 1993b; Graziano, et al., 1993; Hoban, 1992b;
Hoban, et al., 1995; Huillet, et al., 1990; Long and Arnold, 1995;
Thompson, 1993; Trauger, et al, 1995

^6^ Anderson and Baum, 1987; Anderson, 1990; Bendick, 1993; Brown, C.
N., 1993; Cleary, 1988; Coyle, 1995; Endicott, 1993b; Gensemer and
Yamaguchi, 1985; Graziano, et al., 1993; Hoban, 1992b; Hoffman, 1994;
Huillet, et al., 1990; Long and Arnold, 1995; Trauger, et al, 1995

^7^ Anderson and Baum, 1987; Brown, W., 1993; Cleary, 1988; Endicott,
1993b; Gensemer and Yamaguchi, 1985; Graziano, et al., 1993; Hoban,
1992b; Hoffman, 1994; Long and Arnold, 1995; Thompson, 1993; Trauger, et
al, 1995

^8^ Anderson and Baum, 1987; Anderson, 1990; Coyle, 1995; Endicott,
1993b; Gensemer and Yamaguchi, 1985; Hoban, 1992b; Huillet, et al.,
1990; Long and Arnold, 1995; Trauger, et al, 1995

^9^ American Farmland Trust, 1984; Bennett, 1939, 1946; Durban, 1987,
1988; Helms, 1985, 1992; Johnson, 1995; Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 1981, 1994; Last, 1981; Merrill, 1983; Nacht, 1981; Nowak,
1985; Sampson, 1981; Scaling, 1985; Shea, 1995; Simms, 1970; Stoddard,
1987

^10^ Hicks, L., 1996; Hicks, L., Warren, Hicks, C., 1996; Little Snake
River Conservation District and Bureau of Land Management, 1995

# References

Anderson, E. William, and Robert C. Baum. 1987. "Coordinated resource
management planning: Does it work?" Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 161-166.

Anderson, E. William. 1990. "Tips on Initiating a Coordinated Plan."
Rangelands, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 262-263.

American Farmland Trust. 1984. *Soil Conservation in America: What do we
have to lose?* Specialty Binding and Printing Co., Shepherdstown, WV.
133 pp.

Badger Creek Interview, 1997. Personal communication.

Badger, D. D., W. W. Payne, and N. R. Cook. 1966. "Community Benefits in
the Upper Wildhorse Creek Watershed." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 45-46.

Bendick, Robert L., Jr. 1993. "State Partnerships to Preserve Open
Space: Lessons from Rhode Island and New York." in *Land Conservation
Through Public/Private Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor. Island
Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 149-171.

Bennett, Hugh H. 1939. *Soil Conservation.* McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, NY. 993 pp.

Bennett, Hugh H. 1946. "A National Program of Soil Conservation."
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 21-43.

Bhattacharyya, Gouri K. and Richard A. Johnson, 1977. *Statistical
Concepts and Methods.* John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 639 pp.

Bouchard, Carl E., et al. 1997. "Sustainable Rural Development and
Natural Resource Land Use: A Model for Effective Change." National Rural
Development Partnership Report, unpublished, 4 pp.

Brown, Christopher N. 1993. "National Park Service Partnerships Beyond
the National Parks." in *Land Conservation Through Public/Private
Partnerships*, ed. Eve Endicott, Island Press, Washington, D. C., pp.
129-146.

Brown, Warren. 1993. "Public/Private Land Conservation Partnerships in
and Around National Parks." in *Land Conservation Through Public/Private
Partnerships*, ed. Eve Endicott, Island Press, Washington, D. C., pp.
104-128.

Cleary, C. Rex. 1988. "Coordinated resource management: A planning
process that works." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 43,
No. 2, pp. 138-139.

Clements, Kathryn, Emily Green, and Jim Kleinschmit. 1997. "Farmer-Led
Watershed Initiatives: Success Stories." in *Report from the Second
Annual Farmer-Led Watershed Initiatives Conference, 1997.* Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN. 30 pp.

Coyle, Kevin. 1995. "Watershed Conservation in America: The Swift River
Principles." River Voices, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 4-5.

Daly, Sean. 1994. "Watersheds: A Look at the Big Picture." Erosion
Control, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 32-37.

Davis, R. M. 1985. "Conservation: A matter of motivation." Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 400-402.

Dennis, Pamela M. 1993. "A State Program to Preserve Land and Provide
Housing: Vermont's Housing and Conservation Trust Fund." in *Land
Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor.
Island Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 172-194.

Dudal, R. 1980. "An Evaluation of Conservation Needs." in *Soil
Conservation: Problems and Prospects.* edited by R. P. C. Morgan. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 576 pp.

Durban, Clarence. 1988. "Conservation planning: A local perspective."
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 44-47.

Durban, Clarence. 1987. "Meeting the challenge." Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 70-71.

Endicott, Eve. 1993a. "Introduction." in *Land Conservation Through
Public/Private Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor. Island Press,
Washington, D. C., pp. 3-11.

Endicott, Eve. 1993b. "Preserving Natural Areas: The Nature Conservancy
and Its Partners." in *Land Conservation Through Public/Private
Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor. Island Press, Washington, D. C.,
pp. 17-42.

Foddy, William. 1993. *Constructing Questions for Interviews and
Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research.* Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY. 228 pp.

Fowler, Floyd J., Jr. 1984. *Survey Research Methods.* Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. 159 pp.

Gensemer, Miriam Koral and Marianne Yamaguchi. 1985. "Successful water
quality planning: An area-wide perspective." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 76-78.

Gimblett, H. R., 1997. *Simulating Recreation Behaviour in Complex
Wilderness Landscapes Using Spatially-Explicit Autonomous Agents.*
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, Parkville,
Victoria, 3052 Australia.

Graziano, Angela, Tom Massengale, and Jerry Updike. 1993. "Preserving
Wildlife Habitat: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan." in *Land Conservation Through
Public/Private Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor. Island Press,
Washington, D. C., pp. 85-103.

Hatfield, Doc and Connie. 1986. "Conflicts - Let's Try to Understand
Them." Rangelands, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5-7.

Havercamp, Michael J., David J. Torell, and William P. Evans. 1993.
"Using PGA for consensus building in public land disputes." Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 90-93.

Heady, Earl O. 1951. "Efficiency in Public Soil-Conservation Programs."
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LIX, No. 2, pp. 47-60.

Helms, Douglas. 1985. "The Civilian Conservation Corps: Demonstrating
the value of soil conservation." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 184-188.

Helms, Douglas. 1992. *Readings in the History of the Soil Conservation
Service.* Washington, D.C., 174 pp.

Hicks, L., 1996. *Muddy Creek CRM Winter Minutes.* Little Snake River
Conservation District, Baggs, WY. 3 pp.

Hicks, Larry, 1997. Personal communication.

Hicks, Larry, Andy Warren, and Cheryl Hicks, 1996. "Upper Muddy Creek
CRM." in *Sharing Common Ground on Western Rangelands: Proceedings of a
Livestock/Big Game Symposium.* Comp. Keith Evans. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Odgen, UT. pp. 12-14.

Hoban, Thomas J., IV, et al. 1995. *Building Local Partnerships: A Guide
for Watershed Partnerships.* Conservation Technology Information Center,
W. Lafayette, IN. 12 pp.

Hoban, Thomas J., IV. 1992. "Strategies for building a conservation
team." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.
294-297.

Hoffman, Chuck. 1994. "Does Anybody Really Do Watershed Management?"
River Voices, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 10-13.

Houghton, Ruth M. 1979. "The PEOPLE of a Nevada Grazing District."
Rangelands, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 47-48.

Huillet, Christian, Pieter Van Dijk, and Theodore Alter. 1990.
*Partnerships for Rural Development.* Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. 156 pp.

Johnson, Paul. 1995. "The Watershed Approach in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service." in *Opening the Toolbox: Strategies for
Successful Watershed Management - Proceedings of the Fourth National
Watershed Conference.* National Watershed Coalition, Lakewood, CO. pp.
113-116.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 1981. "Soil conservation
problems and practices: A farmer view." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 186-193.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 1982. "The politics of making
conservation happen, a panel discussion." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol.37, No. 5, pp. 259-268.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 1994. "Interview with Paul
Johnson." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp.
518-520.

Keidel, Jeff, 1994. "Badger Creek Tour." in *The Colorado Conservator*,
August, p. 6.

Last, Donald G. 1981. "Urban erosion control: The conservation district
role in Wisconsin." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 36, No.
5, pp. 270-274.

Lavigne, Peter. 1995. "Watershed Approaches: What Have We Learned?"
River Voices, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 1, 5-7.

Little Snake River Conservation District and Bureau of Land Management,
1995. *Muddy Creek CRM: Seeking Common Ground (video).* National Applied
Resource Sciences Center.

Long, Frederick J. and Matthew B. Arnold. 1995. *The Power of
Environmental Partnerships.* Dryden Press - Harcourt Brace College
Publishers, Orlando, FL. 338 pp.

MacGaffey, Neil. 1985. *The Long-Term Effectiveness of Soil Conservation
Efforts on Three Wisconsin P. L. 566 Projects.* Master of Science
Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 67 pp.

McNeely, J. A., 1992. "Partnerships for Conservation: An Introduction."
in *Expanding Partnerships in Conservation.* Ed. J.A. McNeely. Island
Press, Washington, D. C. pp. 1-10.

Merrill, John L. 1983. "Grazing Land Stewardship - Our Performance and
Our Image." Rangelands, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 109-111.

Mitchell, Myrl D. 1988. "Implementing conservation compliance and
sodbuster: A private view." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.
43, No. 1, p. 26.

Moote, Ann. 1995. *Changing Models of Administrative Decision-Making:
Public Participation in Public Land Planning.* Masters Thesis,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 129 pp.

Murray, Will, 1992. "Lessons from 35 Years of Private Preserve
Management in the USA: The Preserve System of the Nature Conservancy."
in *Expanding Partnerships in Conservation.* Ed. J.A. McNeely. Island
Press, Washington, D. C. pp. 197-205.

Nacht, Steve J. 1981. "New uses of old tools to conserve soil." Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 60-61.

Napier, Ted L., Sam E. McCarter, and Julia R. McCarter. 1995.
"Willingness of Ohio land owner-operators to participate in a wetlands
trading system." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 50, No. 6,
pp. 648-656.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997. Tooele Field Office
Reports, Tooele, UT.

Nowak, Peter J. 1985. "The leadership crisis in conservation districts."
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 420-425.

Nowak, Pete. 1992. "Of what value are values in resource management?"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 356-359.

Poole, William. 1993. "Preserving Urban and Suburban Gardens and Parks:
The Trust for Public Land and Its Partners." in *Land Conservation
Through Public/Private Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor. Island
Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 61-82.

Richardson, Kimberly J. and Mark W. Brunson. 1997. "Perceived Fairness
and Effectiveness of Rangeland Collaborative Partnerships." Paper
presented at the 50^th^ Annual Meeting of the Society for Range
Management, Rapid City, SD. 2 pp.

Romm, Jeff. 1995. "Tension between the science and the management of
watersheds: The need for a public science." in *Watersheds '94:
Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Watershed Management Conference*,
University of California, Davis, CA. pp. 83-85.

Sampson, R. Neil. 1981. *Farmland or Wasteland - A Time to Choose.*
Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. 422 pp.

Sampson, R. Neil. 1992. "Achieving public values on private land."
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 360-364.

Sampson, R. Neil. 1997. "Living in YOUR Watershed." Keynote address,
Fifth National Watershed Conference, Reno, NV. 6 pp.

Sangre de Cristo RC&D Council, 1990. *Badger Creek Watershed Project
Implementation Plan.* U.S.D.A., Pueblo, CO. 49 pp.

Scaling, Wilson. 1985. "A continuing commitment to conservation
service." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 5, p.
399.

Shea, Ernest C. 1995. "Soil Conservation Districts in the Watershed
Movement." in *Opening the Toolbox: Strategies for Successful Watershed
Management - Proceedings of the Fourth National Watershed Conference.*
National Watershed Coalition, Lakewood, CO. pp. 65-68.

Simms, D. Harper. 1970. *The Soil Conservation Service.* Praeger
Publishers, New York, NY. 238 pp.

Soil Conservation Service, 1985. *The Vernon Watershed Story (video).*
Video For Keeps, Salt Lake City, UT. 9.5 minutes.

Sokal, Robert R. and F. James Rohlf, 1981. *Biometry, 2^nd^ Edition.* W.
H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 859 pp.

Steiner, Frederick R. 1990. *Soil Conservation in the United States -
Policy and Planning.* Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 249
pp.

Stoddard, Glenn M. 1987. "Implementing the conservation title of the
Food Security Act: The unfinished agenda." Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 93-94.

Thompson, Edward, Jr. 1993. "Preserving Farmland: The American Farmland
Trust and Its Partners." in *Land Conservation Through Public/Private
Partnerships.* Eve Endicott, editor. Island Press, Washington, D. C.,
pp. 43-60.

Toupal, Rebecca S., 1997. *The Effectiveness of Public/Private
Conservation Partnerships As Measured By Common Characteristics of
Success.* Unpublished M.L.A. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Trauger, David L., et al. 1995. "Partnerships: Innovative strategies for
wildlife conservation." Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.
114-119.

Valentine, John and John Carochi, 1993. "Making a difference: Agencies
can, will, do work together to solve nonpoint source pollution
problems." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.
401-406.

Vernon Creek Interview, 1997. Personal communication.

Vernon Soil Conservation District, 1967. *Vernon Watershed - Watershed
Work Plan.* Soil Conservation Service, Tooele, UT. 76 pp.

Wanberg, David J. and Paul F. Anderson. 1994. "Coalition building for
conservation : the Iowa REAP program. (Iowa Resource Enhancement and
Protection)" Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.
343-347.

Wustrow, Jane, 1995a. *Sangre de Cristo RC&D Quarterly Report, April.*
Pueblo, CO.

Wustrow, Jane, 1995b. *Sangre de Cristo RC&D Quarterly Report,
September.* Pueblo, CO.

Wustrow, Jane, 1996. *Sangre de Cristo RC&D Quarterly Report, February.*
Pueblo, CO.

Zube, E. H., 1991. "Partnerships in Parks: History, Policies, and
Practices." (unpublished paper). Tucson, AZ

Zube, E. H., 1992. "No Park Is an Island." in *Expanding Partnerships in
Conservation.* Ed. J.A. McNeely. Island Press, Washington, D. C. pp.
169-177.