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)
2

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.
3

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
4

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).
5

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 examined1. 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

partnerships2. 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 resources3. Communication was described by what and how information was

communicated, how often information was communicated, and how information was

perceived4. Goals were described as being appropriate and achievable5. Decision-making

elements included how decisions were made, who made the decisions, and upon what basis

decisions were made6. Problem-solving elements focused on how problems were solved or

resolved7. Leadership was described relative to existence or presence, and operation8.

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.
6

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 Recurrence

 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
7

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 studies9.

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.
8

• 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. 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.
9

• Obtain the most efficient and sustained, productive use of land and water

resources.

• Increase and stabilize net farm incomes.

Badger Creek Watershed. 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. 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):
10

• 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
11

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 r2 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. 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) # % 

Existence of leadership (13) 11.5 95.8
12

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) # % 

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) # % 

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
13

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 VCW BCW MCW

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 Model % Vernon % Badger % Muddy %

Active participation by a wide variety

 & large number of partners 96.7 94.4 86.7 90.5

Common goals 53.5 83.3 73.3 82.1

Consensus 46.7 72.2 60.0 78.6

Adaptable, flexible leadership/process 43.3 72.2 77.8 78.6

Variety & number of people to do the work 33.3 62.5 66.7 78.6

Shared risks, rewards, credit 30.0 75.0 70.0 60.7

Trust 30.0 75.0 70.0 82.1
14

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 # % 

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. 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.
15

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
16

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. 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

partnership10.

Vernon Creek Respondents’ Perceptions and Definitions of Success. 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
17

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. 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
18

“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. 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.
19

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:
20

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 Vernon Badger Muddy

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

% of plan accomplished 100% 75% >50%

% participant satisfaction with partnership 91.7% 93.3% 100%

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
21

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.
22

APPENDIX A.

SIXTY-FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIPS
23

PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS: Frequency # of Sources

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: Frequency # of Sources

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
24

TERTIARY CHARACTERISTICS: Frequency # of Sources

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
25

APPENDIX B.

THREE CASE STUDY PARTNERSHIPS
26

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.
27

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)
28

 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)
29

APPENDIX C.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
30

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
31

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?
32

APPENDIX D.

AGREEMENT OF PRESENCE IN THREE NRCS WATERSHED

PARTNERSHIPS
33

1. Did everyone actively participate in the project?

Agree Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

Vernon 6 4 2 50.0%

Badger 5 4 6 33.3%

Muddy 10 2 2 71.4%

TOTAL 21 10 10 51.2%
34

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

Agree Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

Vernon 11 1 0 91.7%

Badger 9 2 4 60.0%

Muddy 8 2 4 57.1%

TOTAL 28 5 8 68.3%
35

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

 on the project?

Agree Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

Vernon 8 2 2 66.7%

Badger 7 3 5 46.7%

Muddy 5 2 7 35.7%

TOTAL 20 7 14 48.8%
36

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

Agree Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

Vernon 7 4 1 58.3%

Badger 10 2 3 66.7%

Muddy 9 2 3 64.3%

TOTAL 25 7 9 61.0%
37

17. Was there adequate funding for the project?

Agree Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

Vernon 12 0 0 100.0%

Badger 15 0 0 100.0%

Muddy 14 0 0 100.0%

TOTAL 41 0 0 100.0%
38

21. Was leadership well-coordinated?

Agree Neutral Disagree %Agreed

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 Neutral Disagree %Agreed

Vernon 7 5 0 58.3%

Badger 12 3 0 80.0%

Muddy 13 0 1 92.9%

TOTAL 32 8 1 78.0%
39

 Notes

1 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;
40

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
41

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.
42

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.
43

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.
44

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.
45

MacGaffey, Neil. 1985. The Long-Term Effectiveness of Soil Conservation Efforts on Three

Wisconsin P. L. 566 Projects. Master of Science Thesis, University of WisconsinMadison. 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 50th Annual Meeting

of the Society for Range Management, Rapid City, SD. 2 pp.
46

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, 2nd 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.
47

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.