Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program ......Year 1 Summative Report Prepared March...

Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation

Partnership Program Social Science Evaluation Year 1 Summative Report

Prepared March 2017 by:

Francis R. Eanes, Brian R. Bulla, Pranay Ranjan, and Linda S. Prokopy

Natural Resources Social Science Lab

Department of Forestry and Natural Resources

Purdue University

The Natural Resources Social Science Lab studies how human interactions with the environment impact natural

resources. Our research, teaching, and engagement activities focus on how to best motivate farmers, stakeholders,

and citizens of all kinds to participate in more environmentally friendly behaviors and practices. For more

information, please go to https://www.purdue.edu/fnr/prokopy

Recommended Citation: Eanes, F.R., Bulla, B.R., Ranjan, P., and Prokopy, L.S. (2017). Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership

Program Social Science Evaluation: Year 1 Summative Report. West Lafayette: Purdue University

Acknowledgements This report was prepared with technical and logistical assistance from Jackie Getson, Belyna Bentlage, and Laura

Esman (Purdue University), the Michigan Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Mary Fales and Ben

Wickerham (The Nature Conservancy). This work was made possible through financial support from the Cook

Family Foundation, the Mott Foundation, and The Nature Conservancy

Purdue University and Affiliate 2 (if applicable), Title of Report i

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................1 2 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................3 3 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................4

3.1 Farmer survey and interviews .......................................................................................................................4 3.2 CA survey & interviews ................................................................................................................................4 3.3 NRCS-SWCD survey ....................................................................................................................................5

4 Results from Farmer Survey & Interviews .......................................................................................................6 4.1 Demographics of survey respondents ............................................................................................................6 4.2 Water quality perceptions ..............................................................................................................................7

4.2.1 Water quality pollutants......................................................................................................................7

4.2.2 Sources of water quality pollution ......................................................................................................9

4.2.3 Consequences of water quality pollution ..........................................................................................10

4.3 Water quality attitudes .................................................................................................................................13 4.4 Management practices .................................................................................................................................14

4.4.1 Experience with conservation practices............................................................................................14

4.4.2 Experience with cover crops .............................................................................................................15

4.4.3 Experience with reduced tillage .......................................................................................................17

4.4.4 Experience with nutrient management plans ....................................................................................19

4.4.5 Experience with conservation plans .................................................................................................20

4.5 Crop advisers ...............................................................................................................................................21 4.5.1 Trust in CAs .....................................................................................................................................22

4.5.2 Influence of CAs ...............................................................................................................................22

4.5.3 Preferences and Attitudes toward CAs .............................................................................................24

4.5.4 CAs and Conservation Practices .......................................................................................................24

4.6 Additional interview results ........................................................................................................................26 4.7 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................26

5 Results from CA Survey and Interviews .........................................................................................................28 5.1 Demographics of survey respondents ..........................................................................................................28 5.2 Perceptions of RCPP ...................................................................................................................................28 5.3 Perceptions of water quality and associated regulations .............................................................................28 5.4 Perceptions of and likelihood of recommending conservation practices ....................................................30 5.5 Role of CAs in supporting conservation .....................................................................................................34 5.6 Engaging CAs in RCPP and new conservation paradigms .........................................................................37 5.7 Additional interview results ........................................................................................................................38 5.8 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................41

6 NRCS-SWCD Survey Results...........................................................................................................................42 6.1 Demographics of survey respondents ..........................................................................................................42 6.2 Water quality perceptions ............................................................................................................................42 6.3 Attitudes towards regulation........................................................................................................................45 6.4 Conservation planning .................................................................................................................................45 6.5 Conservation program effectiveness ...........................................................................................................46 6.6 Knowledge and perceptions of RCPP .........................................................................................................46 6.7 Influence on conservation, collaboration with CAs, and the future of conservation...................................49 6.8 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................52

Appendix A – Farmer Survey Summary Statistics ...............................................................................................1 Appendix B – CA Survey Summary Statistics .....................................................................................................21 Appendix C – NRCS-SWCD Survey Summary Statistics ..................................................................................38

Purdue University, Saginaw Bay RCPP Evaluation Year-End Report ii

Tables

Table 1. Summary of barriers that prevent CAs from greater conservation engagement. .......................................33 Table 2. Comparative share of barriers to engaging with the Saginaw Bay RCPP. .................................................47 Table 3. Barriers that NRCS/SWCD respondents said would prevent farmers from engaging with RCPP. ...........48 Table 4. Metrics for measuring RCPP progress as perceived by NRCS/SWCD and CA respondents. ...................48 Table 5. Metrics for measuring RCPP progress as perceived by NRCS/SWCD and CA respondents. ...................49 Table 6. Why NRCS/SWCD respondents are comfortable (or not) with CAs engaging with RCPP. .....................50 Table 7. Frequency of NRCS/SWCD respondents’ stated reasons for means of compensating CAs. .....................50 Table 8. Frequency of NRCS/SWCD respondents’ stated preference for monitoring CA performance. ................51 Table 9. Frequency of themes for how NRCS/SWCD sees their role changing in the next decade. .......................51

Figures

Figure 1. Decision making on rented land. ................................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Perceptions of water quality pollutants in the Saginaw Bay watershed.. ....................................................7 Figure 3. Perceptions water quality pollutants are problems, by respodents’ recreation habits .................................8 Figure 4. Perceptions of muck as a water quality pollutant, by watershed in which respondent farms. ....................8 Figure 5. Perceptions of sources of water quality pollution.. .....................................................................................9 Figure 6. Perceptions of wastewater as a source of pollution, by watershed in which respondents farm. ...............10 Figure 7. Perceptions of water quality consequences in the Saginaw Bay. ..............................................................11 Figure 8. Mean perceptions of water quality consequences, by gender. ..................................................................12 Figure 9. Perceptions of the loss of desirable fish species, by the watershed in which respondents farm. ..............12 Figure 10. Levels of agreement with attitudinal statements regarding water quality.. .............................................13 Figure 11. Agricultural producers’ level of experience with conservation practices. ..............................................14 Figure 12. Degrees to which factors limit agricultural producers’ ability to implement cover crops.. ....................16 Figure 13. Willingness to use reduced tillage, by the watersheds in which an agricultural producer farms.. ..........17 Figure 14. Degrees to which factors limit agricultural producers’ ability to use reduced tillage.. ...........................18 Figure 15. Degrees to which factors limit agricultural producers’ ability to use NMPs.. ........................................19 Figure 16. Distributions of respondents’ willingness to develop a conservation plan, by the watershed. ...............20 Figure 17. Trust in different sources for information about conservation.. ..............................................................22 Figure 18. Influence of CAs on various agricultural services and/or decisions.. .....................................................23 Figure 19. Farmers perceptions of CAs.. ..................................................................................................................24 Figure 20. Willingness to adopt conservation practices by whether or not a farmer currently uses a CA. ..............25 Figure 21. CAs’ perceptions of water quality pollutants in the Saginaw Bay watershed. ........................................29 Figure 22. CAs’ and farmers’ perceptions of water quality pollutants. ....................................................................30 Figure 23. CA attitudes, social norms, and perceived self-efficacy regarding conservation practices. ...................31 Figure 24. CAs’ perceptions of conservation practices’ effectiveness. ....................................................................32 Figure 25. CAs’ perceptions of their role in delivering conservation information and support to farmers. .............34 Figure 26. Comparison of farmers’ and CA’s perceptions of the role that CAs have in supporting conservation. .35 Figure 27. CAs’ perception of their role in agricultural services/decisions.. ...........................................................36 Figure 28. Farmer and CA trust in sources of information about conservation practices. .......................................38 Figure 29. NRCS-SWCD perceptions of water quality pollutants in the Saginaw Bay watershed. .........................42 Figure 30. Comparative perceptions of water quality pollutants in the Saginaw Bay watershed. ...........................43 Figure 31. Perceptions of sources of water quality pollutants. .................................................................................44 Figure 32. Perceptions of water quality pollution consequences. ............................................................................44 Figure 33. Frequency with which NRCS/SWCD staff work with various entities on conservation plans. ..............45 Figure 34. Perceived effectiveness of Farm Bill conservation programs at addressing water quality challenges. ..46 Figure 35. Knowledge of key RCPP characteristics among NRCS/SWCD respondents. ........................................47 Figure 36. Perceived level of influence of various organizations in helping farmers identify programs,

information, and practices that meet their on-farm conservation needs and address watershed-scale problems.. ...49

Purdue University, Saginaw Bay RCPP Evaluation Year-End Report iii

Acronyms

RCPP Regional Conservation Partnership Program

CA Crop Adviser

TNC The Nature Conservancy

FSA Farm Services Agency

MSU Extension Michigan State University Cooperative Extension

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

SWCD Soil & Water Conservation District

MABA Michigan Agri-Business Association

MI DARD Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

MI DNR Michigan Department of natural Resources

MI DEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Purdue University, Saginaw Bay RCPP Evaluation Year-End Report 1

1 Executive Summary

This report compiles findings from a quantitative and qualitative social science evaluation of Year 1 of the

Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). This evaluation included surveys and

interviews with RCPP’s principal stakeholders, including farmers, crop advisers (CAs) and staff affiliated with

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs).

Evaluation of Farmers

The overall aim of this study was to assess farmers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards water quality in the

watershed, to gauge their experience with conservation practices, and to understand their relationships with and

expectations of crop advisors – particularly in the context of conservation. In addition to informing subsequent

stages of the RCPP, this survey serves as a baseline measurement against which future survey data will be

compared, enabling an evaluation of perceptual and attitudinal change over time.

Results indicate that farmers generally perceive water quality to be improving, both locally and regionally.

Known water quality pollutants (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus) and adverse consequences (e.g. algae blooms) were

largely perceived as only slightly problematic overall, and urban sources (e.g. wastewater treatment plants, lawn

fertilizers) were perceived as more responsible for this pollution than agricultural sources. Farmers reported

higher levels of experience with previously promoted conservation practices like filter trips, grassed waterways

and regular soil testing, and less experience with newer and/or more technical practices like variable-rate

phosphorus application, treatment wetlands, and drainage water management. Large majorities of producers said

they currently use or were willing to try cover crops, reduced tillage, nutrient management plans, and

conservation plans. Interestingly, farmers’ perceptions of water quality and their recreational contact with

waterbodies in the watershed were only weakly statistically associated with their experience with conservation

practices and their willingness to try the conservation practices emphasized by the RCPP. Interviews revealed

that the attainment of on-farm benefits – principally that of improved soil health – was among the most important

factors that encouraged and sustained the adoption and maintenance of conservation practices.

Farmers rated crop advisors as among the most trusted sources for information about conservation.

Approximately two-thirds of farmers currently use a crop advisor to aid in on-farm decision making, and reported

that advice on crop disease, soil testing, and herbicide/insecticide applications is the most influential among all of

the recommendations that crop advisors give. In interviews, producers consistently expressed openness towards

receiving field-specific conservation recommendations from their crop advisor, but consistently noted in

interviews that this type of information was not typically part of the services that advisors provide.

Survey and interview data indicate that using crop advisors as partners in conservation is a promising strategy.

However, this approach to dispensing conservation advice is generally new for all parties involved, and thus must

be approached with modicum of adaptive flexibility as the RCPP commences. Framing conversations with

farmers in terms of conservation practices’ many on-farm benefits (e.g. improved soil health) – as opposed to

framing conservation in terms of downstream concerns for water quality – may provide crop advisors with a

useful starting point for engaging farmers in conversations about practices that meet their own needs and priorities

while at the same time delivering desirable water quality outcomes.

Evaluation of CAs

This second part of the investigation focused on CAs’ perceptions of engaging with RCPP and assuming the role

of a conservation entrepreneur – that is, someone who assesses farmers’ on-farm resource needs and concerns,

and delivers advice and information about both conservation practices and programs that address farmers’

needs/concerns, and assists them in conservation practice implementation and/or program enrollment. To

understand CAs’ perceptions, researchers as Purdue University conducted a survey of certified CAs in Michigan

(n=81), and completed follow-up interviews with twelve of the CAs who participated in the survey.

Results indicate that CAs are aware of RCPP and believe that they have a role to play in disseminating

conservation information and advice to farmers. CAs hold generally favorable attitudes towards the efficacy of

conservation practices, and are more willing than not to recommend specific conservation practices to their


clients. Furthermore, CAs view themselves as highly influential on farmers’ decision making – including the

adoption and maintenance of conservation practices – and articulated that they are in the best position to

demonstrate to farmers the on- and off-farm value of conservation. But despite their view that they can and should

be more involved in the promotion of conservation practices and programs, CAs identified several key barriers

that prevent fuller engagement on both of these fronts. These barriers include informational deficits regarding the

agronomics and economic value of some conservation practices – particularly newer ones (e.g. saturated buffers,

or drainage water management) – and conservation programs. Other barriers include the present lack of a clear

articulation of the parameters and responsibilities of conservation entrepreneurial role, as well as a lack of a fair

and reliable incentives and compensation structure. Other barriers touch on the real and perceived differences

between how the Ag industry (including CAs) and the NRCS operate, such as differences in their respective

missions, operational mandates/constraints, flexibility, and professional rewards/incentives.

While the results of this report suggest that CAs are willing and able to assume a more engaged role in watershed-

wide conservation initiatives, the results and associated recommendations indicate that the barriers described

above must be thoroughly addressed for CAs to more fully participate in conservation efforts.

Evaluation of NRCS-SWCD staff

The final report summarizes findings from a survey of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Soil

and Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff whose services areas are located, at least in part, in the Saginaw

Bay watershed. The goal of the survey was to understand respondents’ knowledge of and attitudes towards water

quality issues in the watershed, and towards the current state and future of conservation and RCPP – including its

component of relying on CAs to assist in program promotion and conservation practice implementation.

NRCS and SWCD staff who responded to our survey largely agree about the extent to which water quality

pollutants are a problem in the Saginaw Bay watershed, and compared to either CAs or farmers, consistently rank

all pollutants (except for muck) as more severe problems. Considerably more variability among NRCS/SWCD

respondents was observed, however, over the relative contribution of specific sources to water quality problems –

particularly rural versus urban – and the consequences associated with those problems. A similar lack of

consensus remains over respondents’ perception of the best approach (i.e. regulatory vs. voluntary) to fostering

conservation, though CAs as a group favored a slightly more voluntary approach. NRCS/SWCD respondents who

viewed nitrates/nitrogen, bacteria, and heavy metals as more problematic (relative to other respondents) were

more likely to favor a regulatory-oriented approach to fostering conservation, but otherwise there were no other

noteworthy relationships detected between water quality perceptions and views on regulation.

Perhaps more significantly, respondents lacked consensus in their views of how the role(s) of conservation

organizations will change in the coming decade, with some envisioning diminished influence, some seeing hope

for increased effectiveness if provided adequate funding/staffing, and others viewing NRCS and SWCDs as out of

touch with the pace of change in the agricultural community. Similar heterogeneity was observed among

respondents’ knowledge and understanding of RCPP. Some of this likely is attributable to the fact that some

respondents are located or serve customers in sub-watersheds that do not qualify for RCPP money. Likewise,

some lack of knowledge may be due to the relatively low engagement of potential farmers and CAs with the

program, and perceived overlap with other similar incentive programs.

In addition, respondents expressed considerable skepticism of and discomfort with CAs participating as

conservation partners, viewing CAs as largely uninfluential in matters pertaining to conservation. A lack of role

clarity with regards to CAs has led to frustration among staff about CAs’ current lack of engagement in RCPP –

despite promises to the contrary – and likely compounds staff’s skepticism and discomfort. As was observed

among responses to the CA survey, uncertainty remains about how, if at all, CAs should be formally brought into

the traditional conservation paradigm – and if they are, how and whether they should be monitored and/or

compensated. Ongoing discussions and creative experiments around these issues will be necessary to resolve

some of this uncertainty, and along with opportunities for mutual education and trust-building, will be essential

for achieving the sort of cross-sector collaboration envisioned by RCPP.


2 Introduction

In February 2016, Purdue University launched the first survey of a multi-phased, five-year study to evaluate the

effectiveness and impact of the Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Under the

auspices of USDA, the Saginaw Bay RCPP is the result of a collaboration between Michigan’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), the Michigan chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Michigan Agri-

Business Association (MABA). RCPP’s design builds on a growing body of evidence suggesting that agricultural

consultants – including certified crop advisers (CAs) – are highly trusted entities who greatly influence farmers’

agricultural decision-making. Despite this influence on production-oriented matters, CAs have not traditionally

been included in conservation initiatives or relied upon to provide field- and farm-specific information on

conservation practices or programs. CAs affiliated with MABA have been asked to participate in RCPP,

principally through promoting the program to their farmer-clients, assisting NRCS in determining clients’

program eligibility, and helping their qualifying customers implement cost-share conservation practices

prioritized by RCPP, including reduced tillage, cover crops, and nutrient management plans.

The aim of Purdue’s evaluation is to use a quantitative and qualitative social science approach to test the efficacy

of and impact of RCPP, and its reliance on CAs, on the uptake of soil and water conservation practices in the

Saginaw Bay watershed. This mixed-methods approach consists of random-sample surveys, in-person interviews,

and observations of CA-client interactions, RCPP promotion/training events geared towards CAs, and other

RCPP-related on-farm demonstration events. In Year 1 (which this report covers), the goal was to conduct

baseline surveys and interviews with all relevant RCPP stakeholders, including farmers, CAs, and NRCS and Soil

and Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff in the watershed. Surveys consisted of a suite of extensively tested

social indicator questions that assess respondents’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards water quality and

conservation practices and programs, along with context- and program-specific questions tailored to the

watershed. Interviews complement they survey data, providing deeper insight into phenomena of interest (e.g.

perceived barriers to CAs collaborating with NRCS/SWCD staff), and answering why and how types of questions

that cannot be captured through a quantitative survey instrument. Years 2, 3, and 4 will consist of the observations

described above as well as follow-up interviews with observed participants. Finally, we will conduct a follow-up

survey and interviews in Year 5 to assess whether and/or how knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards water

quality and conservation have changed over time.


3 Methods

3.1 Farmer survey and interviews

In February 2016, Purdue University launched the first survey of a multi-phased study to evaluate perceptions of

water quality and conservation practices among farmers, landowners, producers, and crop advisers in the Saginaw

Bay watershed of Michigan. The population of interest consisted of agricultural producers and non-farming

landowners in the Saginaw Bay watershed. A sampling frame was generated through a Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA) request that asked for names and addresses of individuals, businesses, and organizations in the state

of Michigan that had previously received Farm Bill funding; that request generated 24,619 names and addresses.

From that master list, the addresses were geocoded and those mapped outside of the six sub-watershed areas of

interest were removed reducing the population to 5,275. After removing duplicate names and addresses the list

was further reduced to 4,242 landowners or producers. From that list, we randomly selected 3,000 potential

participants for the final sample and further divided those 3,000 into two random lists of 1,500.

Survey distribution began with an advance letter and followed a five-wave protocol. We offered two versions of

the advance letter, one with a $2 incentive sent to 1,500 potential participants and one with no incentive to the

other 1,500 participants in the sample. The version of the advance letter with the incentive simply stated that the

money was a small token of appreciation for completing the survey.

Both versions of the advance letter introduced the study, provided a website address and unique four-digit code

for participants to enter to take the survey online. For participants not wanting to take the survey online, the

advance letter stated that a paper version of the survey would be mailed within a week if the online survey had not

been completed. The online survey and the paper survey were identical. The survey closed on May 24, 2016. A

total of 1,459 surveys were completed for a response rate, including refusals, of 49.5%.

Mailing dates were as follows:

Feb. 12 - advance letter mailed

Feb. 26 - 1st paper survey mailed

Mar. 8 - reminder mailed

Mar. 21 - 2nd paper survey mailed

Apr. 6 - 3rd paper survey and final reminder mailed

In addition to the survey, 22 semi-structured, in-person interviews were conducted with farmers between June 21

and September 15. Farmers were identified from our list of survey respondents and purposively selected to reflect

a diversity of characteristics, including farm size, crops grown, and farmer age and gender. Interviews were

transcribed and qualitatively analyzed for key themes and categories of interest. An intercoder reliability test was

conducted to insure consistency of data analysis, with a resulting kappa of 0.88, indicating strong agreement and

reliability.

3.2 CA survey & interviews

Data for this research were obtained following a mixed-methods approach. From July to September 2016 Purdue

University, in partnership with Michigan Agribusiness Association (MABA), launched an E-mail survey of CAs

in the state of Michigan. An initial E-mail was sent to CAs in Michigan inviting them to participate in the online

survey. Because of the lack of a comprehensive database for CAs, the survey was distributed through

MABA, who maintains a private list of CAs associated with MABA (n =155), and contact information of CAs

maintained by the American Society of Agronomy (n=243). To reduce the likelihood of a CA being associated

with MABA and ASA response identifiers (including respondents’ IP and e-mail addresses) were cross-checked

with those from the surveys collected through the MABA and ASA invitations to participate, and all duplicates

were removed. In total, 81 responses were combined into one file, cleaned and analyzed. Adjusting for 13 bad E-

mail addresses, the surveys yielded a combined response rate of 35.5%.


In addition to the survey, semi-structured person interviews were conducted with CAs (n=12) between September

1 and November 4, 2016. Interviewees were selected from among the 50 CA survey takers who indicated that

they currently work with farmers in the Saginaw Bay watershed. All 50 of these CAs were contacted once by

phone and invited to participate in an in-person interview. Voicemail messages were left for CAs who did not

answer, with an invitation to participate and call-back instructions. Between those who answered the initial call

and those who called back, a total of 12 interviews were arranged and conducted – four with independent CAs

(who sell only their consulting services, not any agricultural inputs/products) and eight with retail-affiliated CAs

(who provide agricultural advice/recommendations along with the sale of inputs/products). Interview questions

covered the following: CAs’ primary roles and responsibilities; perceptions of the effectiveness of various

conservation practices, including their perceived benefits/drawbacks; where CAs find credible information on

these practices; whether and why CAs recommend these practices; how CAs approach conversations about these

practices with farmers; how conservation fits into their perceived role as a CA; whether and/or how to incentivize

CAs to provide more farm- and field-specific conservation practice recommendations; and CAs’ perceptions of

working with other conservation professionals (e.g. Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] staff) to

achieve watershed-wide soil conservation and water quality outcomes.

Interviews were qualitatively coded and analyzed for key themes – that is, clusters or categories of similar

answers associated with a common question. An intercoder reliability test was conducted to ensure the

consistency and validity of the analytical coding process. This test consists of numerically comparing the

agreement and disagreement of the coding results between two or more coders, who use a common set of coding

instructions to analyze a subset of the interviews. The test resulted in a kappa of 0.71, indicating an acceptable

level of agreement and consistency between the two coders, and thus confidence in the overall results’ validity.

3.3 NRCS-SWCD survey

From January 9th to February 3rd 2017 Purdue University, with permission from Michigan NRCS, launched a

survey of conservation professionals who work with farmers in the Saginaw Bay watershed. E-mail invitations

with a link to the survey was sent to all Michigan NRCS and SWCD employees whose occupational

responsibilities are directly related to conservation (i.e. excluding administrative assistants), and who are

employed by offices who serve some portion of the Saginaw Bay watershed. Three follow-up reminder E-mails,

including a final reminder, were sent to potential participants who had not yet responded to the survey. We

received 55 usable responses from a sampling frame of 130 potential respondents (less three bad addresses),

resulting in an effective response rate of 43.3%. Answers to open-ended survey items were coded using NVivo

11. An intercoder reliability test was conducted to ensure consistency and validity in how answers were

interpreted and coded. This test resulted in a kappa of 0.80, indicating high reliability.


4 Results from Farmer Survey & Interviews

4.1 Demographics of survey respondents

In total, 86.2% of respondents identified as male, and 13.8% as female, with a mean age of 64.5 years old

(ranging from 27 to 101). On average, respondents have completed at least some college (i.e. more than a high

school diploma, but less than a 2- or 4-year degree), with 20.6% of all respondents having completed a 4-year

college or postgraduate degree.

A majority of respondents reported having at least some contact with Saginaw Bay, including visiting or

recreating in the bay, in the previous year. Almost half (47.3%) visit the bay two times or more in a typical year,

17.7% visit once, and about a third (35.0%) do not visit the bay at all. A slight majority (51.8%) have not

recreated in the Saginaw Bay or any of its principal tributaries in the last year, while the remainder reported that

they fished, boated, or hiked in one or more of the Bay’s connecting water bodies.

The land owned by respondents was distributed evenly throughout the Saginaw Bay’s constituent watersheds.

Just over half (54.0%) reported that the property they own, manage, or farm touches a water body of some sort.

Almost half (49.4%) of respondents were not at all familiar with the Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation

Partnership Program (RCPP), while approximately a third (32.7%) were a little familiar with it, and the

remainder were either somewhat or very familiar with it. Respondents most frequently heard about the RCPP

from their local natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or conservation district office, followed by

radio/newspaper, neighbors or other farmers, their crop advisor, or their farm management firm.

Of the 1,459 total respondents, 888 (63.8%) identified themselves as agricultural producers, while the rest were

non-operating landowners. The mean farm size (the sum of acres owned and acres rented) for agricultural

producers was 582 acres (median size = 240 acres). Just over half (52.4%) rent at least some farmland from

someone else, and have contracts with an average of six landlords. These rental arrangements can impact key

management and conservation decisions. Regarding decisions about cropping, tillage practices, and fertilizer

applications, two thirds or more of respondents indicated that the tenant is primarily responsible (Figure 1). For

decisions regarding the installation of structures (e.g. ponds or wetlands), however, a plurality of respondents

said the landowner is primarily responsible.

Figure 1. Distribution of responses to the question: Who is responsible for making decisions about the following agricultural

practices on the land you rent to others?.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cropping/Croprotation

Tillage practices Fertilizerapplication

Installation ofstructures

Primarily farm mgmt firm

Farm mgmt firm and tenant

Farm mgmt firm andlandowner

Primarily landowner

Landowner and tenant

Primarily tenant

n = 705 n = 691 n = 692 n = 675


4.2 Water quality perceptions

4.2.1 Water quality pollutants

Overall, agricultural producers perceive all water quality pollutants as slight-to-moderate problems. Bacteria

(e.g. Escherichia coli also known as E.coli) is perceived as the most problematic, followed respectively by

sedimentation/silt, phosphorus, heavy metals, muck, and nitrate/nitrogen (Figure 2). A relatively high percentage

of respondents (29-45%) reported not knowing about the degree to which one or more pollutants were a problem

in the watershed (these respondents were excluded when calculating mean water quality perceptions).

Figure 2. Perceptions of the degree to which water quality pollutants are perceived to be problems in the Saginaw Bay

watershed. Mean (M) calculated on the scale: 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem). Respondents answering “Don’t know”

were excluded from the analysis of the means.

No statistically significant differences in water quality perceptions were detected for respondents’ gender and

age. We did detect statistically significant weak, negative associations between respondents’ farm size and the

degree to which they perceived heavy metals nitrates/nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, and muck as problematic.

Similarly weak (but positive) associations were detected between these pollutants and the number of days

agricultural producers worked off-farm, and the amount of education a producer had completed. Weak, positive

associations were detected between the frequency with which respondents visit the Saginaw Bay itself and the

degree to which they perceived bacteria, muck, and sedimentation/silt bacteria as problematic, but no statistically

significant relationship was detected between visitation and perceptions of nitrates, phosphorus, or heavy metals.

Small but statistically significant differences were found for three of six water quality pollutants between

respondents who had and had not recreated in one or more of the Saginaw Bay’s principal tributaries (Figure 3).

Respondents who had recreated in one or more of the Bay’s tributaries viewed bacteria, sediment, and muck as

more problematic, on average, compared to those who had not recreated in any of those water bodies.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nitrates/Nitrogen

Muck

Heavy metals

Phosphorus

Sedimentation/silt

Bacteria (e.g. E coli)

Severe problem Moderate problem Slight problem Not a problem Don't know

n=861; M=1.4

n=860 M=1.5

n=860; M=1.5

n=861; M=1.5

n=863; M=1.5

n=855; M=1.7


Figure 3. Perceptions of the degree to which water quality pollutants are problems, by whether or not a respondent had

recreated in one or more of the Saginaw Bay’s principal tributaries.

Farming land that touches a waterbody was not associated with respondents’ perceptions of four of six

pollutants; statistically significant weak, positive associations were found for perceptions of sediment/silt and

nitrates/nitrogen. Whether or not respondents had animals of any kind on their farm did not result in any

significant differences in perceptions of any water quality pollutants with the exception of muck and

nitrates/nitrogen. On average, those with animals perceived muck to be less of a problem than those who did not

report having any animals, and nitrates to be more of a problem (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Perceptions of muck as a water quality pollutant, by watershed in which respondent farms. Mean (M) calculated on a

scale of 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

No Yes

In the last year, have you recreated in any rivers or streams connected to the Saginaw Bay?

**significant at p < .01

***significant at p < .001

Not a problem

Severe problem

MEAN

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Chippewa

Pinnebog

Cass

Pine

Pigeon

Not sure

Shiawassee

Sebewaing

Saginaw

Kawkawlin

Multiple watersheds

Tittabawassee


n = 16; M = 1.8

n = 73; M = 1.7

n = 28; M = 1.7

n = 43; M = 1.7

n = 41; M = 1.5

n = 68; M = 1.4

n = 21; M = 1.3

n = 21; M = 1.3

n = 84; M = 1.3

n = 11; M = 1.2

n = 19; M = 0.9

n = 28; M = 1.6


4.2.2 Sources of water quality pollution

Overall, agricultural producers view non-farm sources (e.g. urban and industrial sources) as having greater

impacts on water quality than agricultural sources. Discharges from wastewater, industry, urban storm water,

and lawn fertilizers, respectively, are perceived as the most problematic sources of water quality, and are viewed

in aggregate as moderately problematic (Figure 5). Of the 13 sources that respondents were asked to rate, non-

farm sources constituted the six sources perceived as most problematic; farm fertilizer/manure and soil erosion

from farm fields, contrastingly, were perceived as the seventh- and ninth-most problematic sources, and viewed

overall as only slight-to-moderate problems.

Figure 5. Perceptions of the degree to which respondents perceived each item as a source of water quality pollution. Mean (M)

calculated on a scale of 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem).

With the exception of discharges from industry and farm pesticides/herbicides, there were no significant

differences between males’ and females’ perceptions of water quality pollution sources. On a scale of 0-3 (i.e.

not a problem – severe problem) females rated both discharges from industry (M = 2.2) and farm

fertilizer/pesticides (M = 1.5) as more of a problem than males (M = 1.7 and M = 1.1, respectively).

Respondents’ level of education was weakly, positively associated with nine of 13 sources of water quality

pollution. No significant relationships were detected between respondents’ age or amount of off-farm work and

their views on sources water quality pollution. Perceptions of four pollution sources – i.e. discharges from

wastewater, leaky septic systems, farm animal manure, and farm pesticides/herbicides – were found to have

statistically significant relationships with whether or not a respondents had visited the Saginaw Bay in the prior

year, but the strength of these associations was very weak. Similarly, some perceptual differences were observed

between those who had and had not recreated in one of the Bay’s principal tributaries in the past year, but only

five of those differences in means were statistically significant, and the observed differences were relatively

small.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Animal feeding operations

Farm pesticides or herbicides

Manure from farm animals

Removal of streambank vegetation

Soil erosion from farm fields

Soil erosion from streambanks/shorelines

Farm fertilizers/manure

Poorly maintained septic systems

Littering/illegal dumping of trash

Lawn fertilizers/pesticides

Urban storm water

Discharges from industry

Discharges from wastewater


n=862; M=1.4

n=867 M=1.5

n=865; M=1.6

n=862; M=1.7

n=866; M=1.7

n=861; M=1.9

n=862; M=1.1

n=865 M=1.2

n=861; M=1.2

n=857; M=1.3

n=862; M=1.3

n=866; M=1.4

n=865; M=1.1


Farm size was negatively associated with some on-farm sources of water quality pollution, but positively

correlated with perceptions of non-farm entities as pollution sources. For example a negative, moderate

association was found between farm size and farm pesticides/herbicides as a pollution source, while a weak,

positive relationship was observed between farm size and poorly maintained septic systems. Small but significant

differences were found for six of 13 pollution sources – soil erosion from farm fields, streambank/shoreline soil

erosion, lawn fertilizers/pesticides, farm fertilizers, septic systems, and farm animal manure – between

respondents whose land (that they either own or farm) touches a body of water and those whose land does not.

Similarly small but significant effects were detected for two pollutions sources – farm fertilizer/manure and farm

animal manure – between producers who do and do not keep livestock on their farming operation.

The degree to which water quality pollution sources were perceived as problems varied somewhat by the

watershed in which producers own and/or rent land. Producers in the Tittabawassee watershed, for example,

perceive soil erosion from farm fields to be less of a problem than producers in the Sebewaing or Shiawassee

watersheds. Likewise, farmers in the Pinnebog, Kawkawlin, and Saginaw watersheds perceive discharges from

wastewater as a more problematic pollutant than do producers in the Pigeon or Pine watersheds (Figure 6). No

noticeable trends between watersheds and perceptions of pollution sources emerged, however.

Figure 6. Perceptions of discharges from wastewater as a source of pollution, by watershed in which respondents farm.

Perceptions are measured on a scale of 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem).

4.2.3 Consequences of water quality pollution

Agricultural producers perceive most consequences of water quality pollution as slight or slight-to-moderate

problems (Figure 7). Excessive aquatic plants and algae were viewed as most problematic, along with loss of

desirable fish species and contaminated fish. Odor and lower property values were perceived as the least

problematic consequence of water pollution.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pigeon

Pine

Cass

Chippewa

Sebewaing

Not sure

Tittabawassee

Shiawassee

Multiple watersheds

Saginaw

Kawkawlin

Pinnebog


n = 15; M = 2.2

n = 29; M = 2.2

n = 57; M = 2.1

n = 87; M = 2.0

n = 21; M = 1.9

n = 93; M = 1.8

n = 33; M = 1.7

n =26; M = 1.7

n = 104; M = 1.2

n = 29; M = 1.7

n = 25; M = 1.6

n = 56; M = 2.0


Figure 7. Distribution of the degree to which agricultural producers perceive various water quality consequences as problems.

Perceptions measured on a scale of 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem).

Female respondents generally viewed water pollution consequences as more problematic than males. With the

exception of contaminated drinking water, and reduced opportunities for and quality of water recreation,

significant differences between female and male perceptions of water quality consequences were detected,

though the magnitude of those differences in means was relatively small (Figure 8). No significant associations

were detected between respondents’ perceptions of water quality consequences and their level of education, age,

amount of off-farm work, or frequency with which they visit Saginaw Bay. Some small but statistically

significant differences were observed for three of the 10 water quality consequences – reduced beauty of

rivers/streams, and reduced opportunities for and quality of water recreation – between those who have and have

not recreated in one of the Bay’s tributaries in the past year.

Relatively weak, negative but significant associations were found between farm size and all 10 water quality

consequence variables (the strongest were the loss of desirable fish species, contaminated fish, and reduced

quality of water recreation activities). Whether or not a respondents’ land touched a body of water was not

associated with perceptions of water quality consequences, with the exception of water quality impacts on

property values (those with property that touch water are more likely to perceive water pollution impacts on

property values, but the association is very weak).

Differences in mean perceptions of water quality consequences were observed among the watersheds in which

respondents own and/or farm land. The broadest distribution among watersheds occurred for perceptions of the

loss of desirable fish species (Figure 9), with respondents in the Pinnebog basin viewing this issue (on average)

as a moderate problem, compared with Sebewaing respondents viewing this loss as less than a slight problem.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lower property values

Odor

Fish kills

Reduced water recreationopportunities

Reduced quality of water recreation

Contaminated drinking water

Reduced beauty of rivers and streams

Contaminated fish

Loss of desirable fish species

Excessive aqautic plants and algae


n=862; M=1.1

n=863 M=1.1

n=862; M=1.1

n=860; M=1.4

n=858; M=1.4

n=861; M=1.6

n=857; M=0.9

n=859; M=1.1

n=864; M=1.0

n=856; M=1.1


Figure 8. Differences in mean perceptions of water quality consequences, by gender.

Figure 9. Perceptions of the degree to which loss of desirable fish species is considered a problem, by the watershed in which

respondents own and/or farm land. Scale: 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem).

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

reduced opportunities for water recreation

contaminated drinking water

lower property values**

reduced quality of water recreation activities

fish kills*

reduced beauty of rivers and streams**

odor**

contaminated fish**

loss of desireable fish species*

excessive aquatic plants/algae**

Female

Male

*significant at p < .05**significant at p < .01

Not a problem

Severe problem

MEAN

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sebewaing

Kawkawlin

Pigeon

Cass

Chippewa

Tittabawassee

Not sure

Multiple watersheds

Pine

Saginaw

Shiawassee

Pinnebog


n = 16; M = 2.0

n = 53; M = 1.6

n = 61; M = 1.5

n = 29; M = 1.5

n = 85; M = 1.5

n = 20; M = 1.5

n = 23; M = 1.3

n = 102; M = 1.2

n = 27; M = 1.2

n = 29; M = 1.2

n = 32; M = 0.8

n = 83; M = 1.5


4.3 Water quality attitudes

Survey respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a variety of statements that probed their

sense of responsibility for and willingness to change management practices on account of improving water

quality (Figure 10). Results demonstrate relatively strong agreement with most statements, with particularly high

levels of agreement with the positions that farmers have a personal responsibility to protect water quality, that

using recommended management practices improves water quality, and that farmers’ actions impact water

quality. Somewhat less agreement (though still more agreement than less) was expressed for willingness to

change management practices out of concern for water quality and its associated social impacts. Considerably

less agreement emerged regarding a willingness to pay more taxes/fees to improve water quality, with twice as

many farmers indicating they are unwilling to pay more than those who are willing.

Few statistically significant attitudinal difference were observed between males and females, with two

exceptions (females were slightly more willing to pay more to improve water quality, while males feel slightly

more personal responsibility to protect water quality). Very weak, negative associations were detected between

respondents’ age and their perception of having personal responsibility for improving and having an impact on

water quality. Similarly weak, positive associations were detected between these attitudinal variables and the

amount of off-farm work that respondents reported. All but two attitudinal variables were positively associated

with respondents’ level of education and whether or not they had visited the Saginaw Bay in the previous year,

but the strength of associations was very weak. No significant associations were detected between the various

attitudinal statements and farm size.

Figure 10. Levels of agreement with attitudinal statements regarding water quality. Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

It is my personal responsibility to help protect water quality

Using recommended mgt. practices on farms improves water quality

My actions have an impact on water quality

It's important to protect water quality even if it slows economic dvlpmt.

The quality of life in my community depends on good water

I'd be willing to change my mgt. practices to improve water quality

I'd be willing to change my mgt practices for downstream neighbors

It is important to protect water quality even if it costs me more

I'd be willing to change my mgt practices for people around the Bay

I would be willing to pay more to improve water

n=861; M=3.6

n=860 M=3.7

n=858; M=3.9

n=862; M=4.0

n=866; M=4.0

n=864; M=4.2

n=856; M=2.7

n=856; M=3.6

n=860; M=3.6

n=859; M=3.6


Relatively small but statistically significant differences in attitudinal means were observed between those who do

and do not regularly recreated in one or more of the Bay’s tributaries. In all significant cases, those who

recreated recorded marginally stronger agreement with water quality statements than those who do not recreate.

A similarly small but significant effect was found for six of 10 attitudinal variables and whether or not

respondents own and/or farm land that touches a body of water; like recreation, those whose land touches water

expressed slightly more agreement with those six statements than those whose land does not.

4.4 Management practices

4.4.1 Experience with conservation practices

Agricultural producers in the Saginaw Bay have a broad range of experience with practices that improve water

quality (Figure 11). Regular soil testing is by far the most widely used conservation practice, followed by the use

of conservation cover and riparian buffers/filter strips. Farmers reflected considerably less experience with

practices that are relatively newer and that require more technical expertise and financial investment – i.e.

saturated buffers, treatment wetlands, drainage water management, and grade stabilization structures.

Figure 11. Agricultural producers’ level of experience with common conservation practices that improve water quality. Scale: 1

(never heard of it) to 4 (currently use it).

Of all the variables we tested, farm size was most strongly associated with and had the largest effect on

producers’ reported experience with conservation practices. Farm size was moderately to strongly, positively

associated with all practices, most notably variable-rate phosphorus (P) application, gypsum application, and

regular soil testing. Experience with grassed waterways, drainage water management, and grade stabilization

structures are similarly associated with farm size. These results are consistent with our prior research on farmers

and conservation practices in the Midwest.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Regular soil testing

Conservation cover

Riparian buffers or filterstrips

Variable-rate P application

Grassed waterways

Gypsum application

Windbreaker/shelterbelt

Drainage water mgt.

Grade stabilizationstructures

Saturated buffers

Treatment wetland

Currently using it Know how to use it, not using it Somewhat familiar with it Never heard of it

n=819; M=3.5

n=814; M=3.2

n=823; M=3.1

n=802; M=2.9

n=805; M=2.7

n=797; M=2.7

n=805; M=2.4

n=790; M=2.0

n=796; M=1.9

n=810; M=2.8

n=804; M=2.1


Farming land that touches water of some sort was similarly associated with all conservation practices – in

particular, most strongly with farmers’ experience with buffer/filter strips, conservation cover, and

windbreaker/shelterbelt establishment.

Agricultural producers’ age is very weakly, negatively associated with their level of experience with drainage

water management, gypsum and variable-rate phosphorus (P) applications, regular soil testing, and conservation

cover. Producers’ level of education is very weakly, positively associated with their experience with buffer/filter

strips, grassed waterways, windbreakers/shelterbelts, drainage water management, conservation cover, and

treatment wetlands. We found some significant, positive relationships between farmers’ experience with various

conservation practices (i.e. conservation cover, windbreaks/shelterbelts, and buffer/filter strips) and whether or

not they have recently visited the Bay or recreated in one or more of its tributaries, but these associations were

comparatively weak. No statistically significant association was detected between a farmer’s experience with the

foregoing conservation practices and his/her amount of annual off-farm work or whether or not their farm

maintains any livestock.

Interestingly, agricultural producers’ overall perceptions of water quality pollutants, sources, and consequences

were largely unrelated to their experience with conservation practices. Some noteworthy exceptions include very

weak, positive relationships between the perception of sediment/silt as a pollutant, and farmers’ experience with

conservation cover, treatment wetlands, and saturated buffers, grade stabilization structures. Similarly weak,

positive associations were found between these practices and the perception that farms constitute a problematic

source of water quality pollution. However, moderately strong, negative associations were detected between two

practices – variable-rate P applications and regular soil testing – and the degree to which nitrogen/nitrates and P

are perceived as problematic water quality pollutants. And weak, negative associations were also detected

between these two practices and the degree to which farm pesticides/herbicides are perceived as a problematic

source of water quality pollution. Farmer interviews suggest that this phenomenon is most readily explainable by

the fact that farmers who practice regular soil testing and variable-rate P applications are, understandably, also

likely to think of themselves as good actors whose nutrient management efforts successfully keep nitrogen (N)

and P on their fields and out of waterways, thereby decreasing the degree to which they see these pollutants (and

themselves) as problems.

4.4.2 Experience with cover crops

The majority (74%) of respondents either already use (40%) or are willing to try (34%) cover crops, respectively.

A minority (<3%) of respondents were unwilling to try them. The remaining 23% indicated that cover crops

were “not relevant.” Follow-up interviews revealed that reasons for answering this way included: (1) having a

farming operation primarily consisting of hay or some other perennial crop (e.g. permanent pasture); (2) the

belief that leaving corn stover (or “trash”) on the field between crops supplants the need for cover crops; and (3)

the perception that cover crops would not fit well into a farm’s existing operation due to biophysical constraints

(e.g. heavy soils that warm up slowly in the spring, or the perception that they compete for moisture with other

crops) and/or timing constraints (e.g. establishing a cover crop between a late corn harvest and ground freezing).

Respondents who currently use cover crops were asked about how and to what degree do so in rotation with

wheat (M = 89.9% of wheat acres cover-cropped), dry beans (M = 77.1%), and sugar beets (M = 71.5%). Crops

that are harvested later in the fall use cover crops less widely, specifically corn (M = 56.7%) and soybeans

(53.5%).


Figure 12. Degrees to which factors limit agricultural producers’ ability to implement cover crops. Mean (M) perceptions are

on scale from 0 (not at all limiting) to 3 (very limiting).

Excluding those who answered “not relevant,” farmers’ willingness to try cover crops is moderately strongly,

positively associated with farm size. Willingness is similarly associated with farmers’ trust in certain entities as

sources of information about conservation practices, including MSU Extension, NRCS, Soil & Water

Conservation Districts (SWCDs), retail and independent certified crop advisers (CCAs), and more weakly with

MI Dept. of Ag., MI Farm Bureau, MABA, and other farms/landowners.

Use of cover crops is positively associated both with whether or not a farmer has recently visited Saginaw Bay or

recreated in one of the Bay’s tributaries, but the effect size of this relationship is very small. Likewise, there is

some cover crop usage variability across sub-watersheds and between whether or not someone’s land touches

water, but many of the observed differences in willingness are either small or not statistically significant. No

significant relationships were found between willingness to use cover crops and farmers’ age, education, amount

of off-farm work, or whether or not they have livestock as a part of their farming operation.

In follow-up interviews, farmers identified several benefits to using cover crops. These include increasing the

fraction of soil organic matter, which (among other known benefits) allows for enhanced nutrient cycling and

moisture retention, the latter of which is particularly advantageous in sandier soils and during periods of drought.

Others mentioned how cover crops, especially tillage radish, reduce soil compaction and increase water

infiltration by breaking up hardpans. Other perceived benefits include increased yield, pest control impacts for

following crops (e.g. oilseed radishes followed by sugar beets), improved moisture draw-down in the spring –

which is crucial for timely planting and crop establishment – and the use of in-row cover crops that act as weed

suppressants.

The most significant factors limiting cover crop use, according to the survey results, are cost, the perception that

cover crops are hard to use with a particular producer’s farming operation, and the time required (Figure 12). Yet

even these factors were only perceived as either a little or somewhat limiting. CCAs not mentioning the cover

crops or advising farmers against incorporating them hardly registered at all as limiting factors.

Interviews with growers who currently use cover crops revealed that managing cover crops is a constant

challenge, and like all new management practices it has a significant learning curve. Fall cover crop

establishment can be difficult depending on the timing of corn and soybean harvest. Killing the cover crop (if it

did not winter-kill) in the spring can also prove challenging at first, particularly with fast-growing crops like

annual ryegrass. One grower mentioned how rye has its own learning curve, especially in an organic system like

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

My CCA does not suggest this

My CCA has never mentioned this

Don't know how

Lack of equipment

Time required

Hard to use with my farm

Cost

Very limiting Somewhat limiting Slightly limiting Not at all limiting Don't know

n=597;M=1.7

n=596;M=1.4

n=585; M=1.4

n=579; M=1.0

n=566; M=0.5

n=567; M=0.4

n=565; M=0.2


his that precludes the use of herbicides: “The first year I used rye, everybody told me you had to get it off in a

hurry. I rented a farm that was wet to begin with. We went in and we planted rye, and I planted it too heavy to

begin with, and it was a learning curve and the following year, it was a wet spring. And by the time I made it on

that field, some of that rye was as tall as the top of my cab with my tractor which has got to be 12 feet off the

ground!”

No relationships were found between willingness to implement cover crops and perceptions of water quality

pollutants, sources, or consequences. However, a range of weak, positive relationships were found between many

of the water quality attitudinal variables – e.g. “My actions have an impact on water quality,” or “It is my

personal responsibility to help protect water quality” – and willingness to adopt cover crops. Similarly positive,

though stronger relationships were observed between willingness to try cover crops and farmers who favor

targeted conservation and see themselves as role models for other farmers for new practices and strategies such

as conservation.

4.4.3 Experience with reduced tillage

Like cover crops, a majority (74.8%) of agricultural producers either already use (53.1%) or are willing to use

(21.7%) reduced tillage. Six percent said they were unwilling to try reduced tillage, and 19.2% said that reduced

tillage was not relevant. Reasons given for answering “not relevant” effectively mirror those given for answering

this way for cover crops. Interviews reveal that some farmers believe that reduced tillage will not work in their

operation, but since they would theoretically be willing to try reduced tillage if their operation allowed it, they

opted to answer “not relevant” instead of “unwilling to try.” Indeed, producers described how reduced tillage is

most biophysically limited in the Michigan’s Thumb and other clayey, farmland in cooler parts of the Saginaw

Bay’s ancient lakebed, a perception that is reflected by relatively lower mean willingness to use reduced tillage

in three Bay-adjacent watersheds – the Pigeon, Sebewaing, and Kawkawlin (Figure 13).

Reduced tillage appears to be used fairly evenly with the five major crops grown in the Saginaw Bay, with those

who use reduced tillage doing so most with wheat (M = 92.1% of wheat acres under reduced tillage), followed

Figure 13. Willingness to use reduced tillage, by the watersheds in which an agricultural producer farms. Mean (M) was

calculated excluding the response “not relevant,” on a scale from 0 (unwilling) to 2 (currently use).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Pigeon

Sebewaing

Not sure

Kawkawlin

Saginaw

Shiawassee

Pinnebog

Cass

Multiple watersheds

Chippewa

Pine

Tittabawassee

Already use Willing Unwilling Not relevant

n = 85; M=1.8

n = 17; M=1.7

n = 63; M=1.7

n = 28; M=1.7

n = 58; M=1.7

n = 17; M=1.6

n = 34; M= 1.6

n = 23; M=1.6

n = 29; M=1.5

n = 34; M=1.4

n = 115; M=1..4

n = 99; M=1.3


by soybeans (M = 86.5%), corn (M = 85.4%), dry beans (M = 81.6%) and sugar beets (M = 80.8%). In follow-up

interviews, farmers identified several benefits to using reduced tillage. These included decreased fuel costs and

soil compaction (from fewer passes over any given field), improved soil structure, and moisture conservation

later in the growing season.

Excluding those who answered “not relevant,” agricultural producers’ willingness to use reduced tillage is

moderately strongly, positively associated with farm size, and very weakly, positively associated with farmer

age. Respondents whose land they farm also touches water were slightly more willing to try reduced tillage than

those whose land does not, but the difference in mean willingness was small. No significant associations were

found between willingness to use reduced tillage and a farmer’s level of education, or whether or not they have

recently visited the Saginaw Bay or recreated in one of its tributaries. Similarly, no relationships were found

between reduced tillage and the entity who is primarily responsible for various farming practices (e.g.

landowner, tenant, etc.), or whether not a farmer keeps livestock.

Like cover crops, no significant associations were detected between willingness to try reduced tillage and

perceptions of water quality pollutants and consequences. Some weak, positive associations were found between

reduced tillage and perceptions of lawn fertilizers, poorly maintained septic systems, and urban storm water run-

off as sources of water quality pollution, but those effects were small. Similarly weak, positive associations were

found between reduced tillage and farmers’ attitudes about targeted conservation, farmer-to-farmer information-

sharing, and their agreement with the statement “My actions have an impact on water quality.” Unlike cover

crops, however, use of reduced tillage is only associated with three of the 17 entities whom farmers may look to

for trusted information; very weak, positive associations were found for trust in environmental groups, sportsmen

groups, and fertilizer representatives.

Figure 14. Degrees to which factors limit agricultural producers’ ability to use reduced tillage. Mean (M) perceptions are on a

scale from 0 (not at all limiting) to 3 (very limiting).

Overall, the factors that could limit the use of reduced tillage are perceived as less limiting than those for cover

crops. Along with the lack of equipment, the perceived difficulty of using reduced tillage with a farmer’s

operation was rated as the highest barrier to adoption, but across our sample size was perceived, on average, as

just slightly limiting (Figure 14). As with cover crops, CCAs’ advice (or lack thereof) was not viewed as a

barrier to adoption. With the exception of these last two factors, all limiting factors were either strongly or very

strongly correlated with each other.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Don't know how

Time required

Cost

Lack of equipment



n=607;M=1.1

n=607;M=1.1

n=602; M=0.9

n=592; M=0.5

n=590; M=0.3

n=587; M=0.3

n=584; M=0.2


4.4.4 Experience with nutrient management plans

Presently about one third of respondents (35.4%) currently use a nutrient management plan (NMP), and another

28.4% are willing to develop and use one. Just 5.3% say they are unwilling to use one, but 30.9% saying that

NMP’s are “not relevant.” Reasons for answering “not relevant” almost exclusively stemmed from a belief that

they are unnecessary. When asked about why they do not have NMPs in follow-up interviews, farmers expressed

the position that regular soil testing and the related recommendations from the entity that conducted the test (e.g.

chemical dealers, NRCS, MSU Extension) were sufficient for adequate nutrient management, and that NMPs

were a superfluous waste of time and money. Interestingly, farmers who use NMPs pointed to cost savings (in

the form of more efficient nutrient use) as one of the primary benefits of having NMPs.

Excluding those who answered “not relevant,” use of NMPs was moderately strongly, positively associated with

both an agricultural producer’s level of education and their farm size. When “not relevant” responses were

included, willingness to adopt a NMP is very strongly, positively correlated with farm size, indicating that

smaller farms tend to not view NMPs as less relevant compared to larger farms. No statistically significant

associations were detected between willingness to use NMPs and farmers’ age, amount of off-farm work,

presence of animals in their farming operation, or method of phosphorus application (i.e. surface- versus

subsurface-applied). No statistically significant relationships were found between a farmer’s willingness to use a

NMP and whether or not they had recently visited the Saginaw Bay or recreated in one of its tributaries. Finally,

some variation in willingness to use NMPs was observed among watersheds, but the differences were small and

mostly not statistically significant. Similarly, willingness to use a NMP was not associated with perceptions of

any quality pollutants, nor most perceptions of the sources and consequences of water quality pollution.

Exceptions include a weak, negative relationship between willingness to use NMPs and the perception that farm

pesticides/herbicides are a problematic source of water pollution, and the degree to which contaminated fish, lost

recreation opportunities, and odor are perceived as problematic consequences of pollution. Use of NMPs,

however, was moderately strongly, positively associated with attitudes about being a role model for other

farmers (including for conservation practices) and the perception that a farmer’s actions have an impact on water

quality. Cost, time required, and lack of equipment were the factors perceived to most limit farmers’ ability to

use NMPs, respectively (Figure 15). Overall, however, these factors were perceived to be, on average, only

slightly limiting. Like cover crops and reduced tillage, CCAs’ advice was perceived as least limiting.

Figure 15. Degrees to which factors limit agricultural producers’ ability to use NMPs. Mean (M) perceptions are on a scale

from 0 (not at all limiting) to 3 (very limiting).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Don't know how


Lack of equipment

Time required

Cost


n=449;M=1.2

n=446;M=1.0

n=447; M=0.9

n=443; M=0.9

n=436; M=0.5

n=432; M=0.3

n=434; M=0.2


4.4.5 Experience with conservation plans

Roughly two in five respondents (40.2%) currently have a conservation plan. Almost one third (29.5%) of

respondents (in addition to those who already have a conservation plan) expressed some degree of willingness to

develop a conservation plan, compared to 8.3% who were unwilling, and 20.8% who said they were unsure about

their willingness. Reasons for uncertainty or unwillingness vis-à-vis conservation plans, according to farmer

interviews, stems from several perceptions. These include poor, prior experiences with NRCS and/or SWCD

staff, unacceptably long application processing times, slow NRCS/SWCD responsiveness to producers’

questions and/or concerns, and the belief that other sources (e.g. certified CAs) will have more up-to-date,

credible information.

Willingness to develop a conservation plan was very weakly, positively associated with level of education.

Respondents’ whose land touches water expressed a greater mean willingness to develop a conservation plan

than those whose land does not touch water (mean: somewhat-to-very willing, compared to somewhat willing,

respectively). Farm size and whether or not a producer recreated in any of the Bay’s tributaries was weakly,

positively correlated with their willingness to develop a conservation plan. Such willingness, however was not

associated with producers’ age, level of education, land ownership and decision making status, having animals as

part of the farming operation, or whether or not a respondent had visited the Bay in the previous year.

Greater associations were found between respondents’ willingness to develop a conservation plan and their

perceptions of water quality than was found between these perceptions and their willingness to use cover crops,

reduced tillage, or NMPs. In particular, moderately weak, positive relationships were observed between

conservation plan willingness and the degree to which N, P, sediment/silt, and muck are perceived to be

problematic. Similar associations were detected for perceptions concerning water quality sources (e.g. soil

erosion from farm fields, farm fertilizer/manure) and water quality consequences (e.g. contaminated fish,

reduced beauty of rivers/streams, excessive algae, and reduced water recreation quality/opportunities).

Similar relationships were detected between farmers’ willingness to develop a conservation plan and several key

attitudes on water quality, responsibility, conservation funding and information sharing. Producers’ concern for

the water quality of both their downstream neighbors and the people who live/work around the Bay itself were

Figure 16. Distributions of respondents’ willingness to develop a conservation plan, by the watershed(s) in which respondent

farms. Means (M) reflect a scale of 0 (not willing) to 4 (already have one).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Kawkawlin

Cass

Pigeon

Saginaw

Not sure

Sebewaing

Shiawassee

Tittabawassee

Multiple watersheds

Pine

Pinnebog

Chippewa

I already have one Very willing Somewhat willing A little willing Not willing I'm not sure

n = 21; M = 3.3

n = 101; M = 3.6

n = 27; M = 3.6

n = 51; M = 3.6

n = 90; M = 3.6

n = 30; M = 3.7

n = 61; M = 3.9

n = 19; M = 3.9

n = 89; M = 4.0

n = 15; M = 4.1

n = 24; M = 3.3

n = 32; M = 4.1


weakly, positively associated with their willingness to develop a conservation plan. Similarly weak, positive

relationships were found for attitudinal variables that measured farmers’ willingness to change their management

practices to improve water quality, support for targeted conservation, and positive views information-sharing and

mentoring with other farmers. Likewise, willingness to develop a conservation plan moderately weakly,

positively associated with the degree to which farmers trust various entities as credible sources of information on

conservation practices. The strongest relationships, respectively, were observed for farmers’ trust in the NRCs,

independent CCAs, MSU Extension, SWCDs, and environmental groups (including The Nature Conservancy).

Finally, conservation plan willingness varied somewhat according to the watershed(s) in which respondents

farm. Producers in the Chippewa, Pinnebog, and Pine watersheds expressed the highest mean willingness,

excluding those who answered “I’m not sure” (Figure 16).

4.5 Crop advisers

Crop advisers (CAs) increasingly constitute a key source of management information for farmers, and are an

essential component of the RCPP. Understanding what sorts of services, information, and relationships farmers

expect from CAs is critical for ensuring the success of the RCPPs approach to conservation, in which CAs serve

as a conduit for delivering conservation advice and RCPP recruitment. Approximately three in five (59.5%) of

agricultural producers in the Saginaw Bay watershed currently use a CA, while a third do not (and never have)

and the remaining 7.0% currently do not but have used one in the past. Among those who currently use a CA, the

greatest share of producers use Crop Production Services, followed by independent CAs and Cooperative

Elevator Co., respectively. Using a CA is moderately strongly, positively associated with farm size, moderately

weakly, negatively associated with a producer’s age, but not associated with their level of education. Because

larger farms are more likely than smaller farms to use a CA, and based on the average acreage of farms that use

CAs, we estimate that approximately 85% of the acreage in the Saginaw Bay watershed is farmed by producers

who use a CA.

In follow-up interviews, farmers identified several benefits of using CAs. These include the perceptions that CAs

are timely and responsive, provide cutting edge information, and – especially in the case of independent CAs –

offer unbiased advice. Like other sources of information, farmers said that the most credible and beneficial CAs

were those that were not too pushy, and were familiar with the agricultural dynamics of their farm, and more

generally the dynamics of their area. One farmer, for example, said “We have a guy that works with us all the

time. He comes back, he makes recommendations off [of] soil tests. And then if we have any problems anytime

…, he comes back and he does tissue tests and stuff like that. So they're very, very important. We worked with

some other people, tried some other people. Soil test people, they got ideas of how they want to do things. And

we think these guys are as good as you can get because they work here and they work in the Thumb area a lot

where it's the same kind of crops that we do, the sugar beets, the dry beans, stuff like that.”

Other farmers identified CAs’ flexibility and a relative lack of bureaucracy as advantageous. Several mentioned

that they have developed enough trust with their CA to completely delegate certain farm tasks, even without

prior consultation. One farmer noted that “If there's some new product or something different, [my CA] will

meet with me. But if it needs lime, just put it on. We have a set program. When you soil sample only about 3,000

acres a year, don't come meet with me about lime. Just put it on. We can talk about phosphorus and potassium on

a rainy day, because those are a lot more money, and maybe we're going to get manure there next year. So we let

it go. But it's like, ‘Hey, it needs lime.’ Order the trucks. Get it there. Send me a text so I don't chisel plow the

whole field or leave you a spot to dump it. Perfect. Just get it done.

Farmers cited their relatively small farm size and the related cost of hiring a CA as reasons for not currently

using a CA. Part of this resistance arises from the ambiguity among some of these farmers of the CAs’ roles and

means of compensation. Some farmers, for example, were not aware that their fertilizer and pesticide salespeople

– whose advising and recommending services are embedded in the cost of the product being sold – were in fact

CAs, or presumed that all CAs operate under the fee-for-service compensation model used by independent CAs.

Others farmers indicated that they know their fields better than anyone else, and feel confident that the methods

and practices that have brought them success in the past will persist into the future, obviating the need for an

outside consultant to “tell them what to do,” as some farmers put it.


4.5.1 Trust in CAs

When asked on the survey about the extent to which they trust different sources of information about

conservation practices, farmers rated independent CAs and retail CAs as the fifth and seventh most trustworthy,

respectively, out of seventeen total information sources. When responses from farmers who do not currently use

a CA are excluded, however, independent and retail CAs were the third- and fifth-most trusted entities, and were

rated on average as moderately trusted sources of conservation information (Figure 17). Trust in independent

CAs rank third after producers’ mean level of trust in the FSA and Michigan State University Extension, while

trust in retail CAs follows all of those in addition to SWCDs and the NRCS.

Figure 17. Percent of respondents currently using a CA who variously trust different sources for information about

conservation. Mean (M) trust was measured on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). Superscript (a) denotes a statistically

significant difference in mean (M) levels of trust between the reference case “Independent CAs” and all other entities (p<0.05).

Superscript (b) denotes a statistically significant difference in mean (M) levels of trust between the reference case “Retail

agronomists/CAs” and all other entities (p<0.05). Differences in means were calculated by a paired-samples T-test.

4.5.2 Influence of CAs

CAs provide a variety of services and information for producers, which vary in part based on the capabilities and

expertise of any given farm operation. These services and information can have a significant influence on farm

management decisions. According to respondents who currently have a CA, CAs’ advice on crop disease and

soil testing is considered, on average, very influential (Figure 18). Information on pesticide/herbicide

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Environmental groups

TNC

MDEQ

Sportsmen groups

MDNR

MDARD

MABA

Fertilizer reps

Commodity groups

Other farmers/landowners

MI Farm Bureau

NRCS

Retail agronomists/CAs

SWCD

Independent CAs

MSU Extension

FSA

Very much Moderately Slightly Not at all Not familiar with

n = 494; M=2.3ab

n = 488; M=2.3ab

n = 489; M=2.1b

n = 489; M=2.1

n = 486; M=2.1a

n = 486; M=2.1

n = 487; M=2.0ab

n = 487; M=2.0ab

n = 491; M=1.9ab

n = 489; M=1.7ab

n = 487; M=1.7ab

n = 485; M=1.6ab

n = 489; M=1.5ab

n = 487; M=1.2ab

n = 488; M=1.2ab

n = 484; M=0.7ab

n = 484; M=0.4ab


applications and fertilizer rate, timing, and placement was rated overall as somewhat-to-very influential. Advice

on the installation and maintenance of new/current conservation practices, however, was rated as just slightly-to-

somewhat influential.

Several noteworthy factors help explain these results, including the relatively low degree of influence that CAs

appear to have on conservation practices. First, the degree to which farmers trust CAs (both independent and

retail) is weakly to moderately strongly, positively associated with how influential CAs’ advice is perceived to be

(another finding that aligns with our prior research on the relationships between trust and influence). Second, it is

Figure 18. Percentage of respondents who rated the extent to which CAs influence various services and/or decisions. Mean (M)

influence was measured on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (essential).

possible that our survey underestimated the degree of influence that CAs have on some or even all of the services

we asked about. Without giving respondents an opportunity to answer “not applicable” – or some other similar

answer to denote that their crop advisor does not typically offer recommendations on a given service – we

suspect that some farmers simply defaulted to answering “not at all.” Put another way, we have no way of

differentiating in our results between respondents who answered “not at all” because they find CA’s advice on a

given practice to not be influential, and those who answered identically simply because their crop advisor has

never offered advice on that same practice. This distinction, while subtle, is important. Interviews with farmers

revealed that CAs typically do not offer conservation-related advice; farmers report being accustomed to hearing

about new practices from other farmers as well as from sources more explicitly aligned with conservation (e.g.

NRCS, SWCDs). However, interviewed farmers consistently expressed an openness to receiving field- and

practice-specific conservation recommendations from their CA, and said they would find that information to be

potentially influential. In addition to the foregoing factors, CAs’ perceived influence on manure application, soil

testing, and crop disease is moderately, positively associated with farm size.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Manure Application

Maintaining current conservationpractices

Installation of new conservation practices

Crop Rotation

Seed Type

Fertilizer Placement

Fertilizer Timing

Fertilizer Type

Fertilizer Rate

Pesticide/Herbicide Application

Soil Testing

Crop Disease

Essential Very Somewhat Slightly Not at all

n=478; M=2.9

n=480; M=2.9

n=477; M=2.8

n=480; M=2.8

n=482; M=2.7

n=480; M=2.5

n=478; M=2.4

n=482; M=2.0

n=478; M=1.6

n=478; M=1.5

n=477; M=1.5

n=451; M=1.2


4.5.3 Preferences and Attitudes toward CAs

Overall, farmers expressed positive attitudes towards CAs, and an openness towards the idea of CAs delivering

conservation information and recommendations. Respondents largely say that they follow their CAs’

recommended rates for P application, and that it is important that their CA is certified. A majority trust their CA

with most of their farm management decisions, including recommendations on conservation practices (Figure

19).

Figure 19. Percent of farmers who variously agreed with statements about CAs, farm management, and conservation. Attitudes

were measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

4.5.4 CAs and Conservation Practices

CAs appear to play a significant role in facilitating some conservation practices. For example, very strong,

positive associations were found between whether or not a farmers currently uses a CA, and famer’s level of

experience with variable-rate P applications, regular soil testing, and gypsum applications. Similarly positive

though less-strong relationships were observed between current use of a CA and farmers’ reported experience

with drainage water management, grassed waterways, and grade stabilization structures. In interviews, farmers

talked about how CAs provided some of the initial guidance for practices like these that tend to be newer and

require more technical expertise to implement. Likewise, moderate to moderately strong, positive associations

were found between whether or not a farmer currently uses a CA and his/her willingness to try cover crops, use a

NMP, and develop a conservation plan (Figure 20).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I follow my crop advisor's recommended rates for phosphorus application

It is important to me that my crop advisor is certified

I trust my crop advisor with most of my farm management decisions

I trust my crop advisor to make conservation practice recommendations

I'd like my crop advisor to provide farm & field-specific conservation advice

I think crop advisers will have needed info & answers about conservation practices

I am reluctant to change crop advisers

My crop advisor will likely only provide basic info about conservation practices

I'd like my crop advisor to help me apply to Farm Bill conservation programs

I would not be able to manage my farm without my crop advisor

I am willing to pay my crop advisor for conservation recommendations

n=489; M=3.9

n=488; M=3.7

n=487; M=3.5

n=481; M=3.4

n=484; M=3.3

n=484; M=3.3

n=488; M=3.3

n=483; M=3.1

n=485; M=3.0

n=485; M=2.8

n=481; M=2.8


Figure 20. Number of surveyed farmers who say they are variously willing to (a) try cover crops, (b) use a nutrient

management plan, and (c) develop a conservation plan, by whether or not a farmer currently uses a CA. Based on a chi-square

analysis, there is a positive, statistically significant relationship between farmers’ use of a CA and their adoption of each of

these four conservation practices (significant at the p<0.05 level).

Trust in CAs (both independent and retail), moreover, is moderately, positively associated with farmers’

willingness to use a NMP, and weakly, positively associated with their willingness to develop a conservation

plan. Similar relationships were found between trust in CAs and farmers’ experience with conservation practices

that in some cases require specific technical expertise and/or equipment. These include variable rate applications

of P, gypsum applications, regular soil testing, and grassed waterways.

Agricultural producers largely appear unwilling to pay for their CA’s assistance in applying for Farm Bill

conservation programs. The majority (71%) of respondents indicated they would not be willing to pay for these

services, while 14.2% said they would be willing to pay $0.25/acre. 5.5% and 5.9%, respectively, were willing to

pay $0.50/acre and $1.00/acre, while the remaining 3.4% said they would be willing to pay $2/acre or more for

help in applying to these programs. Interestingly, the amount that farmers were willing to pay was not

statistically associated with their willingness to try cover crops, reduced tillage, NMPs, or develop a conservation

plan, and only very weakly, positively associated with their experience with treatment wetlands, grade

stabilization structures, and applications of variable-rate P and gypsum.

Do you currently use a CA? No Yes

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Unwilling to usea NMP

Willing to use aNMP

Currently use aNMP

c

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Unwilling to trycover crops

Willing to trycover crops

Currently usecover crops

a

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Unwilling tohave a plan

Willing to havea plan

Already have aplan

d

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Unwilling to tryreduced tillage

Willing to tryreduced tillage

Currently usereduced tillage

b


4.6 Additional interview results

In addition to the interview results presented in each of the foregoing sections, several pertinent themes emerged

from the body of interviews with farmers. First, we asked them to discuss one or more of their most pressing

concerns. Farmers consistently expressed a concern about the threat of top-down regulations disrupting

agriculture. This sensitivity typically was raised in conjunction with their views on water quality, and their

accompanying perception that government regulators (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency) would

disproportionately hold agriculture responsible, resulting in rules about “how much fertilizer we can put on and

how to do this and how to do that, like they do most everything else,” according to one farmer. Many echoed

some version of the sentiment shared by another farmer, who said he feels “more public pressure to do a better

job. I don't know. I don't think we do a bad job, but there's going to be more people watching.” Coupled with the

current state of litigation agriculture-and-water-quality litigation in Iowa (Des Moines Water Works) and Ohio

(western Lake Erie basin), the perception of increasing public scrutiny has put some farmers on the defensive.

Other common concerns include the increasing prevalence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the perception that

relatively small growers are marginalized by farm consolidation, and the never-ending quest for profitability

and consistency amidst fluctuating commodity prices.

Though growers are certainly aware of these more global challenges and trends in agriculture, the primary locus

of their concern and curiosity lies within the boundaries of their own farms. The most consistently cited benefit

across all conservation practices was the improvement of soil health – through increased organic matter, and

improved tilth, water infiltration, and water- and nutrient-holding capacity. One farmer, who raises crops on

2,500 acres, mentioned how “since I started [farming], one of our main goals has been soil quality, which is all

related to the watershed. I don't always think of it as beneficial to the watershed, but anything we do to protect

and improve soil quality at home effects the watershed downstream, which is ultimately, Saginaw Bay, Lake

Huron, and the Welland canal.” And while not all farmers made articulated this connection between soil health

and downstream water quality, their level of awareness and interest in promoting the health of their soil holds

potentially significant implications for manner in which conservation is framed and promoted.

4.7 Discussion

Overall, farmers do not perceive water quality pollutants, sources, and consequences as especially problematic.

In particular, pollutants and sources that originate from farms were consistently judged to be less problematic

than those of non-farm (e.g. urban) origins. Interview data back this up: when talking about water quality in the

Saginaw Bay watershed, farmers tended to compare its current state to their recollections of water quality in the

1960s and 1970s, pre-Clean Water Act; heavy metals and other industrial pollution from that era seem to have

formed strong associations with notions of water quality – perceptions that have persisted even as the sources of

pollution (and pollutants themselves) have significantly shifted over that same time period. Coupled with the

widely expressed view that farming practices have become better informed, more efficient and precise, it is

perhaps unsurprising that farmers almost uniformly voiced the perspective that water quality conditions have

improved considerably. At the same time, survey respondents largely affirmed the position that farmers have a

role in and responsibility for maintaining surface water quality. Interviewed farmers consistently echoed this

sentiment and frequently acknowledged that agriculture does have some impacts – marginal or otherwise – on

water quality.

Large majorities of farmers already use or are willing to try the conservation practices emphasized in the RCPP,

including cover crops, reduced tillage, NMPs, and conservation plans. Less than 10% said they were unwilling to

try these practices. No barriers to adoption were perceived as any more than slightly limiting; cost, lack of

equipment, and the difficulty of using a practice in their farming operation were perceived as the most limiting.

Of these, cost-share monies available through RCPP could help allay the first two barriers, while strategic advice

from CAs and other trusted sources could help farmers overcome the perception that a practice is not compatible

with their operation. Despite farmers’ generally low level of familiarity with the RCPP, these numbers suggest a

significant opportunity for meeting the project’s conservation enrollment goals over the next four years. Crop

advisors, along with other trusted sources of conservation information (e.g. NRCS, SWCDs, FSA, and other


farmers) certainly have a role to play in this effort. Despite their lack of willingness to pay for it, farmers largely

expressed openness towards the possibility of CAs offering farm- and field-specific conservation

recommendations, and reacted favorably to the idea of CAs acting as partners in conservation. However, farmers

repeatedly mentioned that CAs do not typically provide recommendations on conservation practices, and is thus

a dynamic on which they have yet to form strong attitudes. These results, therefore, should be interpreted as a

cross-sectional snapshot of where farmers’ attitudes currently stand; their perceptions of CAs as a delivery

mechanism for conservation advice is not static, and indeed is likely to evolve over the course of the project.


5 Results from CA Survey and Interviews


Survey respondents were overwhelmingly male (84.2%), and ranged in age from 24 to 70 (mean=48.7). Three in

five reported having attained either a 4-year college degree (44.6%) or postgraduate degree (16.9%).

Approximately nine in ten (89.7%) were currently certified by the American Society of Agronomy (ASA) as a

Certified Crop Adviser (CCA), with the vast majority of the remaining 10.3% planning or maybe planning to

become certified. Respondents’ most common areas of professional expertise were: agronomy and/or crop

production (50%); fertility and soil health (18.8%); chemical and fertilizer sales (10.4%); specialty crops

production (8.3%); pest management (6.3%); research and development (4.2%) and conservation adviser (2.1%).

Just over two-thirds (67.3%) of respondents were retail-affiliated (i.e. work for a company that sells agronomic

products, such as fertilizers, pesticides/herbicides, seed, and/or equipment) while the remaining 32.7% are

independent CAs (i.e. provide agronomic services such as soil sampling , fertilizer recommendations, and pest

scouting, but do not sell agronomic products).

5.2 Perceptions of RCPP

Approximately two-thirds (63.3%) of respondents indicated that they work with farmers in the Saginaw Bay

watershed, while 73.6% have heard of the Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). On

a 5-point (1-5) scale of “not familiar at all” to “extremely familiar,” the mean level of familiarity with RCPP

among respondents who had heard about it was “slightly familiar” (M=2.0). These respondents most frequently

recalled hearing about RCPP through Michigan Agribusiness Association (MABA) (39.5%), The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) (16%), a local NRCS office (11.1%), or a training event/conference (11.1%), among other

sources. Roughly four in five (78.4%) of all survey respondents have directly or indirectly (via a client) applied

for funding via and NRCS program in the past 10 years. Those who have reported that they were, on average,

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the NRCS application process (M=2.9, scale: 1 [extremely dissatisfied] to 5

[extremely satisfied]), and were on average somewhat dissatisfied with NRCS’s funding process (M=2.2, scale:

1 [extremely dissatisfied] to 5 [extremely satisfied]). When asked about anticipated hurdles to their engagement

with RCPP, respondents most frequently indicated that: they didn’t know enough to answer (33.3% of all

responses to the question); the program takes too much time (17.3%); the program does not create a profit

(12.3%); the CA role is unnecessary due to the availability of other conservation support/resources (12.3%);

farmers’ attitudes about conservation practices would hinder CAs’ engagement in RCPP (11.1%); or that they

(CAs) lack the training/expertise to participate (9.9%). The factors cited the least include hurdles such as CAs’

supervisors not supporting RCPP (1.2%) and the perception that conservation takes land out of production

(3.7%). Overall, respondents expect that RCPP will be slightly-to-somewhat influential (M=1.8, scale 0-4)

regarding its impact on farmers and/or local agricultural practices.

When asked on the survey about which metrics they would use to define success at the end of RCPP’s first year,

respondents most frequently cited agronomic/ecological metrics, followed by administrative/programmatic

metrics. Specifically, respondents most frequently cited: the number of acres placed under conservation practices

(44.4%); pounds of phosphorus runoff reduced (40.7%); tons of sediment runoff reduced (29.6%); number of

applicants in the RCPP enrollment pipeline (27.2%); number of ag retailers participating (21.0%); number of

contracts signed (19.8%); and number of customers referred to NRCS by CAs.

5.3 Perceptions of water quality and associated regulations

CAs perceive common nonpoint source contaminants in the Saginaw Bay watershed as moderate problems

(Figure 21). Bacteria, dissolved organic phosphorus, and particulate phosphorus were perceived as the most

problematic contaminants, followed by heavy metals, sediment, “muck,” and nitrates/nitrogen, respectively. CAs

perceive all water quality contaminants as more problematic than do Saginaw Bay farmers who responded to

Purdue University’s 2016 survey. Statically significant differences in mean perceptions between CAs and

farmers were detected for bacteria, phosphorus (both dissolved reactive and particulate), heavy metals, and

sediment (Figure 22).


Figure 21. CAs’ perceptions of the degree to which various contaminants are a problem in the Saginaw Bay watershed.

Perceptions were measured on a 4-point scale from 0 (not a problem) to 3 (severe problem), and means (M) were calculated after

excluding all “don’t know” responses.

CAs indicated that they are somewhat to moderately concerned that more stringent water quality regulations may

be enacted in the future (M=2.7, scale: 0-4). When thinking about regulatory approaches and ways to foster

conservation practice adoption, CAs favor an approach that skews somewhat towards the voluntary end of the

regulation spectrum. On an 11-point scale from 0 (government-mandated) to 10 (completely voluntary), the

mean CA response was 6.5. Similarly, more CAs agreed than disagreed with the positions that regulations are

simultaneously too complex (M=3.9, scale: 1-5) and inflexible (m=3.8, scale: 1-5), but are necessary to protect

water quality (M=3.2, scale 1-5). In addition, CAs were asked about their level of awareness of increases in

regulation in response to water quality challenges in other geographic regions. On a five-point scale from 0 (not

at all aware) to 4 (extremely aware), CAs were most aware of potential regulatory increases in the western Lake

Erie basin (M=3.1), the Chesapeake Bay (M=2.6), the Raccoon River (Des Moines, IA) watershed (M=1.6), and

the Albemarle-Pamlico (NC) sound (M=0.6). (Despite significant water quality impacts from point and nonpoint

source pollution, there currently are no basin-wide regulatory measures in the Albemarle-Pamlico sound. This

item was included as a quality-control measure to ensure the validity of responses to this question, with an

expectation that we would observe a low mean response to this item – as in fact we did.)

In interviews, CAs articulated a remarkably consistent view towards regulation. Unlike farmers, who expressed

greater uncertainty about the current state of water quality and potential for future regulations in the Saginaw

Bay watershed, CAs almost uniformly acknowledged the need for action of some kind to address the watershed’s

aquatic challenges. CAs described their strong preference for a voluntary approach to conservation as a way to

preempt the need for regulation. One CA said “I feel like the majority of the people in the industry would like to

be proactive when it comes to [regulation] because we've all heard about Lake Erie watershed, the Maumee

River. Most of us heard about Chesapeake Bay …, and we're all afraid that we're going to be the next one on the

radar in the area and we don't want to get forced to do things. We'd like to be proactive versus reactive.”

Despite this bias towards voluntary approaches, interviewees recognized the need for some sort of

accountability, particularly in light of public investments (and expected returns in the form of public goods) in

conservation. As one CA said, “you still got to have some guard rails … otherwise somebody’s going to be

planting daisies, you know. … So you got to at least keep [farmers] from going off the tracks, but maybe give

them some options, some flexibility to bounce around in between.” That same CA described how he used to

write comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs), but stopped on account of the perceived lack of

flexibility and pragmatism: “It’s like when you write this plan and [the government] wants to review and then

they start nitpicking about little stupid things that mean nothing in the grand scope of the whole operation … and

in the process of being so nitpicky and making things so complicated they discourage people from doing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nitrates/nitrogen

"Muck"

Sediment

Heavy metals

Particulate P

Dissolved reactive P

Bacteria

severe problem moderate problem slight problem not a problem don't know

n=48; M=2.0

n=48; M=1.9

n=48; M=1.8

n=48; M=1.8

n=48; M=1.8

n=48; M=1.7

n=47; M=1.6


anything. So consequently they could have gotten 90% of the way but instead got nothing.” Recognizing the

inherent shortcomings of either a fully voluntary or top-down-regulatory approach, most interviewees advocated

for a more flexible, balanced model to incentivizing and monitoring conservation practice adoption: “I think we

need to be in the middle. The far right, far left are not good. Keep it voluntary, and people are educated, [but]

they don't want to be part of the conversation. If it's completely mandatory then you have complete resentment.”

Figure 22. Differences in mean perceptions between CAs and farmers about the degree to which water quality contaminants are

problematic in the Saginaw Bay watershed. Mean perceptions were measured on a 4-point scale from 0 (not a problem) to 3

(severe problem).

5.4 Perceptions of and likelihood of recommending conservation practices

CAs hold broadly positive attitudes towards conservation practices (in general), and indicated that the

organizational structures surrounding CAs (e.g. supervisors, ag retailers) support conservation practices as well

(Figure 23). CAs almost uniformly agreed or strongly agreed with the notion that conservation practices have a

role to play in addressing water quality issues, and that their organizations and direct supervisors support CAs

promoting conservation. As one interviewed CA put it, “Where we live specifically, if we're not taking care of

our waterways and we're not being mindful of the products that we use and we're not doing a good job of being

stewards of our land, it's going to be really ugly here. It's our greatest natural resource where we're at, and we

have 20% of the world's freshwater is right around us. If we're not being mindful of that, we're going to hurt

ourselves big time.” Surveyed CAs additionally agreed (though relatively less strongly) with items indicating

self-efficacy vis-à-vis conservation – that is, CAs’ perceptions of their ability to knowledgably, comfortably, and

profitably integrate conservation information into the conversations they already have with farmers. However, it

seems doubtful that these CAs are incorporating information about RCPP, since the vast majority either disagree

or are neutral about the statement that the procedures/policies of RCPP are clear to CAs.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Nitrogen/nitrates

"Muck"

*Sediment

*Heavy metals

*Phosphorus

*Bacteria

CAs Farmers

Not a problem Slight problem Moderate problem Severe problem

*Means are significantly different at p<0.05


Figure 23. CA attitudes, social norms, and perceived self-efficacy regarding conservation practices. Means were measured on a 5-

point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Figure 24 depicts CAs’ perceptions of the effectiveness (vis-à-vis water quality) of various conservation

practices and CAs’ likelihood of recommending those same practices to farmers. Mean perceptions of

conservation practices range from moderately-to-very effective (e.g. treatment wetlands, grade stabilization

structures) to very-to-extremely effective (e.g. regular soil testing, NMPs, variable-rate P application, cover

crops). Similarly, CAs’ mean likelihood of recommending practices ranges from neither likely nor unlikely (e.g.

treatment wetlands, grade stabilization structures) to somewhat-likely-to-extremely-likely (e.g. regular soil

testing, NMPs, variable-rate P application, cover crops). Positive, statistically significant correlations (with

moderately strong effect sizes) were detected between CAs’ likelihood of recommending and perceived

effectiveness of the following practices: NMPs, variable-rate P applications, cover crops, drainage water

management, grassed waterways, reduced tillage, gypsum applications, and grade stabilization structures.

Among the variables tested in our survey, the perceived effectiveness of conservation practices explained the

most variance in CAs’ likelihood of recommending conservation practices to farmers. The belief that voluntary

(as opposed to government-mandated) approaches are the best way to foster conservation was positively

associated with CAs’ likelihood of recommending cover crops, variable-rate P and gypsum applications, regular

soil testing, and NMPs.

There are few associations between CAs’ perceptions of water quality contaminants and CAs’ likelihood of

recommending conservation practices. Notable exceptions include a positive relationship between: perceptions

of the degree to which nitrogen/nitrates are problematic and the likelihood of recommending grassed waterways;

perceptions of the degree to which dissolved reactive P is problematic and the likelihood of recommending cover

crops; and perceptions of the degree to which muck is perceived be problematic and CAs’ likelihood of

recommending cover crops, drainage water management, variable-rate P applications, regular soil testing, NMPs,

and forage/biomass establishment.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

strongly agree somewhat agree neither agree nor disagree somewhat disagreee strongly disagree

Conservation practices have a role to play in addressing water quality issues

My organization supports innovation

My organization supports conservation

My direct supervisor supports promoting conservation practices

I am comfortable talking about conservation practices with farmers

I am knowledgeable enough to talk about conservation practices with farmers

Discussions about conservation are a natural extension of my job as a CA

Incorporating conservation practices into my business makes financial sense for me

The procedures/policies for the Saginaw Bay RCPP program are clear to me

n=72; M=4.5

n=71; M=4.5

n=72; M=4.4

n=72; M=4.2

n=72; M=4.1

n=72; M=4.1

n=72; M=4.0

n=71; M=3.5

n=72; M=2.5


Figure 24. CAs’ perceptions of the effectiveness of various conservation practices in addressing water quality issues, and CAs’

likelihood of recommending those same practices to farmers. Observed bivariate associates are based on Spearman’s rho.

CAs’ likelihood of recommending conservation practices, however, was statistically unassociated with CAs’

gender, level of education, or age. Their likelihood of recommending practices was similarly unassociated with

the degree to which CAs perceive their organizations or direct supervisors as supporting conservation or

innovation, or CAs’ perceptions of the role they ought to play in helping farmers maintain current or install new

conservation practices. Finally, no associations were found between their likelihood of recommending

conservation practices and their concern about future water quality regulations, their extent of trust in various

agriculture-related organizations, their level of concern about working with conservation personnel or

organizations, or whether or not they think CAs should be compensated for discussing conservation practices

with farmers.

In follow-up interviews, CAs readily identified numerous benefits of adopting conservation practices, including

on-farm economic and ecological benefits from improved soil health and nutrient management. From CAs’

perspectives, conservation practices that increase soil organic matter, minimize nutrient and soil losses, build soil

tilth/structure, and improve drainage by breaking up hardpans, are legitimate and valuable practices that they feel

comfortable talking about with farmers. Several CAs identified the potential marketing advantages for farmers

who have adopted conservation practices, with one pointing out how “if I’m another landlord and I want to say,

‘I'd like to – who do I want to rent my ground to?’ I want the best stewards of the environment, stewards of the

industry, and for [future] generations.” CAs also identified personal motivations and benefits for discussing and

1 2 3 4 5

Grade stabilization structures**

Treatment wetland

Riparian buffers/filter strips

Saturated buffers

Gypsum application**

Forage and Biomass

Reduced tillage**

Grassed waterways**

Conservation cover

Drainage water management*

Cover crops**

Variable rate P application*

Nutrient Management Plans**


Perceived effectiveness

Likelihood of recommending

Not effective at allExtremely unlikely

Slightly effectiveSomewhat unlikely

Moderately effectiveNeither likely nor

unlikely

Very effective Somewhat likely

Extremely effectiveExtremely likely

*significant at p<.05

**significant at p<.01


Table 1. Summary of the CA-identified barriers that prevent CAs from more frequently recommending conservation practice

adoption or conservation program enrollment.

recommending conservation practices to farmers, principally the opportunity to build trust. When asked, for

example, why a CA might be motivated to recommend variable-rate nutrient management – which on its face

seems counterproductive result for a nutrient salesperson – CAs argued that doing so assured farmers that their

CA was working in the farmers’ interest. As one CA said, “So we might have lost sales, but [we] gained a more

loyal customer out it. So it built a relationship with the grower that’s more of – what's the word I'm looking for?

– an exclusive relationship. You know, he was less likely to shop, so as far as our sales, he was in our program.

He liked it.” Even for conservation practices like buffer strips – which, unlike cover crops, do not provide direct

financial benefit to CAs – CAs seemed supportive: “We're not going to tell somebody not to do it, for sure.

When we're spreading fertilizing or spraying, we got to be mindful of ditches and stuff like that, so a buffer is not

a bad thing as far as when it comes to application.”

Barriers for CAs Barriers for Farmers (as perceived by CAs)

Ba

rrie

rs t

o c

on

serv

ati

on

pra

ctic

e a

do

pti

on

or

reco

mm

end

ati

on

s

1. Lack of reliable financial incentives or clear

compensation parameters for CAs to “sell”

conservation practices like other products or

services

2. Occupational inertia – i.e. difficulty for

older CAs to make a paradigm shift and

incorporate conservation into their

traditional services

3. Lack of complete knowledge on the holistic

cost-benefit tradeoffs of conservation

practices, which is necessary for making a

convincing value proposition to farmers

4. Competition concerns – i.e. fear that

farmers will utilize other Ag retail vendors

to implement practices recommended by a

CA

1. Increasing farm consolidation, resulting in

compressed time frames for establishing

crops, complicating the adoption of

reduced tillage and/or cover crop regimes

2. Lack of long-term leases that might

incentivize longer-term investments in soil

health

3. Fair allocation of costs and benefits

between landlords and tenants for

installing conservation practices on rented

land

4. Lack of understanding the true short- and

long-term value and return on investment

from adopting conservation practices

5. Lack of follow-though from NRCS and/or

CAs after initial cost-share funds expire

Barr

iers

to e

nro

llin

g o

r re

com

men

din

g e

nro

llm

ent

in

con

serv

ati

on

pro

gra

ms

1. Too much paperwork, delays, and program

complexity

2. Fear that (1) and a lack of program

flexibility will lead to farmers having bad

experiences in programs, which will reflect

poorly on the recommending CA

3. Challenge of quantifying the value of

delivering conservation program

recommendations and fairly assigning credit

(e.g. between NRCS and the CA)

4. Challenge of bridging the gap between the

pace at which conservation programs

operate, and the quarterly business cycle in

which CAs and their employers operate

5. Lack of trust in NRCS’s credibility – e.g.

that they use the best science, and/or

understand the complexity of changing Ag

economics and technology

1. Lack of commodity price sensitivity for

conservation payments (particularly

practices that remove land from

production)

2. Lack of program/regulation flexibility –

e.g. timing of or ability to mow ditches, or

cover crop varieties that still enable weed

management)

3. Too much paperwork, delays, and program

complexity

4. Too much time between initial application

submission and notification of

acceptance/funds dispersal


When probed for why, in light of their mutual economic and ecological benefits, conservation practices are not

adopted by farmers or recommended by CAs more frequently, CAs identified several complicating barriers

(Table 1). One set of barriers includes those that affect whether or not farmers adopt specific conservation

practices and those that influence CAs’ likelihood of recommending practices to farmers. The other set of

barriers affects whether or not farmers enroll in conservation programs, and/or whether CAs will actively

recommend conservation programs to farmers. CAs described how the cumulative effect of facing more than one

of these barriers – especially without an adequate understanding of the long- and short-term value of adopting

conservation practices – can produce considerable disincentives that likely account for the fact that conservation

practices are not adopted more frequently by farmers (or recommended by CAs).

5.5 Role of CAs in supporting conservation

CAs generally view themselves as trusted, knowledgeable advisers who provide farmers with field- and farm-

level conservation information and advice (Figure 25). However, considerably less consensus exists regarding

perceptions about whether CAs’ have all of the conservation information and answers needed by farmers, or

whether or how CAs support farmers’ enrollment in Farm Bill conservation programs. When compared to data

from the survey of Saginaw Bay farmers, results indicate that CAs perceive themselves as more trusted with

farm management decisions, that CAs say it is more important that they are certified, and that they provide more

farm- and field-specific conservation advice than farmers report (Figure 26). Contrastingly, CAs indicate that

they have less information and answers about conservation than farmers say CAs have. Both farmers and CAs

indicate ambiguity (that leans towards disagreement) about the position that CAs help farmers apply to Farm Bill

conservation programs.

Figure 25. CAs’ perceptions of their role in delivering conservation information and support to farmers. Mean (M) perceptions

measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

CAs expressed somewhat-to-strong agreement (Figure 27) with the statement that CAs have an important role to

play in supporting a suite of on-farm services and decisions. CAs agreed most strongly that they have a role to

play in soil testing and fertilizer timing, placement, and type, as well as pesticide/herbicide and manure

applications, and advice on crop disease and rotations. CAs expressed relatively weaker agreement with the

position that they have an important role to play in installing and maintaining conservation practices, but even on

these items CAs reported substantially more agreement than disagreement.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Farmers I work with seem to trust me with most of their farm management

decisions

It is important that I am professionally certified as a CA

I provide farm/field specific recommendations regarding

conservation practices

I have the information and answers about conservation practices that

farmers will most likely need

I only provide general information about Farm Bill conservation programs

I help farmers apply to Farm Bill conservation programs

n=68; M=4.1

n=68; M=4.0

n=68; M=3.7

n=67; M=3.0

n=67; M=3.0

n=67; M=2.8


Figure 26. Results of an independent samples T test comparing farmers’ and CA’s perceptions of the role that CAs have in

supporting conservation.

CAs indicate that when conversations about conservation with farmers occur, those conversations are initiated

slightly more than half the time by farmers, and most frequently provide advice and recommendations to farmers

for decisions affecting medium- and short-term time horizons (e.g. weeks to months, or days to weeks,

respectively). The most frequently cited perceived benefits from helping farmers get funding to install

conservation practices are fundamentally altruistic in nature, including improving water quality (77.8% of

respondents), enhanced environmental stewardship (67.9%), prevention of additional agricultural regulations

(65.4%), and protection of drinking water. For comparison, the least-cited perceived benefits are personal in

nature, including sense of self-pride/esteem (23.5%), professional achievement/recognition (13.6%), and

financial benefit to CAs (12.3%).

All interviewees were asked about who in farmers’ networks are in the best position to demonstrate the value of

conservation practices. All said that CAs were unequivocally most equipped to do so. Reasons given to

substantiate this claim include the relatively high frequency – unmatched by traditional conservation

professionals such as NRCS or SWCD staff – with which CAs have on-farm contact with farmers. Additionally,

CAs view themselves as among the actors who have the most influence over farmers’ decision making, and as a

clearinghouse for transmitting and translating which conservation practices have and have been successfully

implemented on other clients’ farms. Regarding this latter advantage, one CA described how “sometimes I go to

a meeting and [my client] thinks ‘well, they're talking for this guy over here,’ … but I think that's where we

come in and what we do because we're working one on one with that grower, and we're looking at individual

situations across his farm.” Cumulatively, CAs described how these factors allow them, more than any other ag-

related entity, to identify on-farm resource concerns, suggest practices capable of ameliorating these concerns,

and answer farmers’ questions about the logistics, tradeoffs, and value of individual conservation practices.

Moreover, every interviewee affirmed the notion that CAs can and should use their comparatively influential

position to promote and support the adoption of conservation practices, and to some extent connect farmers with

conservation funding and program opportunities.

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

CAs Farmers

CAs should help farmers apply to Farm Bill conservation programs

*CAs have the needed information and answers about

conservation

*CAs provide farm/field-specific conservation advice

*It is important that CAs are certified

*CAs are trusted with most farm management decisions

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly agree

*Means are significantly different at p < .05


Figure 27. CAs’ level of agreement with the statement “CAs should have an important role to play regarding the following

services/decisions.” Mean (M) agreement measured on a five-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

All agreed, however, that some sort of comprehensive compensation scheme would have to be cooperatively

developed in order to adequately incentivize CAs and/or their employers to make the promotion of conservation

practices and programs a meaningful priority. CA survey results suggest considerable ambiguity on what this

compensation scheme would look like. Almost half (45.6%) of respondents were unsure about whether or not

individual CAs should be financially compensated for discussion conservation programs or practices, whether or

not a farmer enrolls in a program or adopts a practice. The remaining respondents were almost evenly divided

between those who thought that CAs should (26.5%) or should not (27.9%) be individually compensated. A

relatively higher share (42.6%) indicated that they thought CAs should receive compensation for helping farmers

enroll in Farm Bill conservation programs, compared to somewhat smaller shares who were either unsure

(27.9%) or thought CAs should not (29.4%) be compensated. CAs were evenly divided over whether a flat fee or

a per-acre fee would represent the best way to be compensated for discussing conservation practices. Those who

preferred the latter suggested that a mean of $1/acre would constitute an appropriate amount of compensation.

In follow-up interviews, CAs explained this divide over conservation compensation by pointing to divergent

agribusiness models for compensating CAs in general (e.g. commission versus non-commission). For example,

one CA described how “it doesn’t matter how much fertilizer or seed I sell, my bonus is based on how well the

company does and division does, not how much I sell personally. And that's how we like it here, I think every

retailer is different. I know [COMPANY] works off some kind of commission – sales commission – but we

don't and I don't think the co-ops do [either]. So the thought of getting reimbursement for signing guys up [for

conservation programs] – I don't know, I don't get paid extra for selling products.” Another factor affecting CAs’

preferences for conservation compensation revolves around whether individual CAs or their employers will be

compensated for CAs delivering advice, information, or program enrollment assistance. One interviewee

illustrated this issue accordingly: “Say there's $100 in this for a CCA to promote a certain program, does that go

to the individual, or does that go back to the company? … And then if it goes back to the company, then the

CCA individual says, ‘Well, there's really nothing in it for me still, so why am I going to do that?’ So it's a tough

thing to work through, but that's kind of the reality and every retailer is a little different.” For other CAs, the

relative newness and lack clarity about CAs’ role and expectations complicates the compensation matter further

still: “There's a lot of ambivalence. I think it's just a new idea that people are like, ‘Well, it depends.’ My answer

would depend on how much I'm doing. Am I just making a recommendation and giving a warm hand off to

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Maintenance of current conservation practices

Installation of new conservation practices

Seed type

Crop rotation

Manure application

Crop disease

Pesticide/herbicide application

Fertilizer type

Fertilizer placement

Fertilizer timing

Soil testing


n=72; M=4.7

n=72; M=4.6

n=72; M=4.6

n=72; M=4.6

n=71; M=4.5

n=72; M=4.5

n=71; M=4.4

n=71; M=4.3

n=72; M=4.0

n=72; M=3.9

n=72; M=3.8


NRCS? In that case, sure give me a flat fee for-- the referral came from me. Am I doing paperwork? Because

then you’re talking about a whole other level of commitment. And there's a lot of ambivalence because it's, like I

said, it's not like we have this market right now.”

5.6 Engaging CAs in RCPP and new conservation paradigms

Though a majority (69.8%) of respondents have not attended a training session demonstrating how to use the

Great Lakes Watershed Management System (GLWMS), seven out of ten non-attendees said it would be either a

medium (44.4%) or high/essential (27.8%) to attend sessions in the future, with most respondents indicating that

providing continuing education credits would (59.6%) or maybe would (23.1%) increase the likelihood of

attending these sessions. In interviews, CAs consistently noted that soil and water continuing education credits

are the most difficult credits to obtain, and that offering training sessions aligned with these categories would

help CAs justify their attendance at these events.

Survey respondents indicated the best ways for the Saginaw Bay RCPP project team to engage CAs in the

project include the provision of additional key information on conservation adoption and implementation to both

CAs and farmers. Specifically, the most frequent suggestions for increasing RCPP engagement include: offering

group training sessions for CAs on the costs/benefits of new/unfamiliar conservation practices (37% of

respondents); providing a guide for starting conservation conversations with farmers (28.4%); advertising

funding opportunities directly to farmers with an accompanying suggestion for them to reach out to their ag

retailer for more information (18.5%); and evaluating digital boundary layers and notifying CAs which of their

customers’ fields may qualify for RCPP (16.0%). Likewise, a majority of respondents said that they need more

information to help them make decision about conservation practices, including information on types of eligible

practices (64.2%), funding support for specific practices (56.8%), implementations costs for each practice

(54.3%), where to go to get additional information about conservation practices (50.6%), and how to identify

resource concerns and make conservation recommendations to their customers (42.0%). Invitations to participate

in unique field events (46.9%), the ability to obtain a special certification (46.9%), promotional thank-you items

(34.4%), monetary awards for top recruiters (25%), and public recognition for top recruiters (21.9%) were the

types of professional recognition that CAs said would motivate them the most to engage with RCPP.

Interviewees commented that soil and water continuing education credits are typically the most difficult to fulfill,

and suggested that co-hosting credit-eligible meetings (e.g. with Extension, TNC, and/or NCRS) would increase

the opportunities to educate CAs about conservation practices and program opportunities.

The organizations that CAs say they trust the most as sources of information about conservation practices

include, respectively, Michigan Agribusiness Association (MABA), Soil & Water Conservation Districts

(SWCDs), NRCS, MSU Extension, Michigan Farm Bureau, and commodity groups (Figure 28). CAs trust these

groups either moderately or very much. Compared to farmers, CAs are significantly more trusting of MABA,

SWCDs, NRCS, MI Farm Bureau, commodity groups, MI Dept. of Natural Resources, and The Nature

Conservancy. Conversely, farmers are significantly more trusting than CAs of the Farm Services Agency. Unlike

farmers, almost half (47.8%) of CAs reported that they are not at all concerned about working with conservation

personnel or organizations, while 32.8% said they were only slightly concerned.

In addition to matters of trust, differences between independent and retail-affiliated CAs may have implications

for how to most effectively engage and incentivize CAs with respect to conservation initiatives. For example,

with regard to perceptions of the degree to which dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) is a problem in the

Saginaw Bay watershed (scale: 0-3), independent CAs perceive DRP as significantly more problematic (M=2.7)

than retail affiliated CAs (M=1.8); t(27)= -3.211, p=0.003. Independent CAs were also more likely to

recommend saturated buffers (M=3.8, scale: 1-5) than retail affiliated CAs (M=3.2); t(49)=-2.449, p=0.018.

Likewise, independent CAs were more likely to recommend grassed waterways (M=4.0, scale: 1-5) than retail-

affiliated CAs (M=3.4); t(49)=-1.972, p=0.05. Finally, independent CAs were statistically significantly more

likely than retail-affiliated CAs to agree with attitudinal statements that pertaining to conservation knowledge

and self-efficacy, including “I am knowledgeable enough to talk about conservation practices with farmers,” and

“I have the answers and information and answers about conservation practices that farmers will need.” Apart

from these items, no other statistical differences were observed between independent and retail-affiliated CAs,

including variables such as: demographics (e.g. age, gender, educational attainment); trust in organizations as


Figure 28. Mean level of trust in various organizations as sources of information about conservation practices for both farmers

and CAs. Differences in mean were calculated using an independent samples T test.

sources of conservation information; satisfaction with NRCS; perceived effectiveness of conservation practices;

influence of CAs on farmers’ decision making; opinions about potential ways of compensating CAs for

conservation services; concerns of working with conservation personnel; awareness of water quality issues; and

preferences for regulation and concerns about future regulation.

5.7 Additional interview results

In addition to the foregoing themes that emerged to clarify phenomena explored in the survey, three additional

findings give particular insight into whether and how CAs can more effectively influence farmers’ adoption of

conservation practices and engage with conservation programs. First, when asked how they could or should

engage in existing and future conservation initiatives, CAs described a role for themselves as conservation

entrepreneurs, who identify farmers’ on-farm resource needs and concerns, and proactively provide information

and recommendations about conservation practices and programs that address those needs/concerns. In justifying

the need of a conservation entrepreneur who collects and filters through vast amounts of conservation

information and opportunities, one CA described how “[Farmers are] too busy. They're running multi-million

dollar businesses and they've got anywhere from 5 to 15 employees. They have secretaries. They have

accountants. They don't have time to go fishing for information. They need the information to come to them.

Either it will come to them via somebody like us bringing it to them, [or] they’ll get it through news or

salesmen.”

This entrepreneurial role, as CAs described it, also includes identifying service and/or equipment providers who

can assist the farmer in implementing a practice(s) or executing the requirements for a conservation program.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0


MI DEQ

*TNC

Sportsmen groups

*MI DNR

MI DARD

*FSA

*Commodity groups

*MI Farm Bureau

MSU Extension

*NRCS

*SWCDs

*MABA

CAs Farmers

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much

*Means are significantly different at p < .05


One interviewee told how CAs are “going to have a team behind them. Either they’ll do it themselves or they're

going to say, "Here's the program you need to do. I don't sell the seed, but these [other] guys will supply it. This

is the mix that you need to do this job. Get your soil test done ahead of time so we can have all this stuff

combined so we know where we're at when we go in.” Another CA described the need for CAs to more closely

communicate with entities like NRCS and The Nature Conservancy to keep abreast of program opportunities and

requirements. This would “give us some background so that we know what capabilities or what they are thinking

about what they have, the general concept of what they want to do and how it might work. Then we can relay

that information to the farmer when we see that [on-farm resource concern] and then they can go to them for the

actual details on how to get it done. That could be the appropriate way.” Similarly, CAs envisioned conservation

entrepreneurs as facilitating a multidirectional flow of information; not only would a CA transmit information

about practices and programs farmers, but would also be best-positioned to provide conservation program

administrators with information and records of on-farm practices and conditions. According to CAs, if such a

role were integrated more explicitly into the CA certification – much like the Sustainability of 4R certification –

it would also add value to the overall CA certification, which some said has lost its value over time. As on CA

put it, “I think by and large most of the CCA's around the industry will say that there's no value in the

designation. At least it hasn't been for the last 20 years. The guy that pulls in the driveway after me that's not a

CCA he can do the same things that I do.” Accordingly, any attempt to add value to the CA certification would

be worthwhile. Similarly, another CA pointed out how “I spend how many hundreds or thousands of dollars

attending sessions to renew my credits, and at the end of the day there's nothing in that that-- it's almost a

meaningless designation, or has been. So I am happy to see that there's some effort now to maybe put some meat

in that thing, that that designation does mean something.”

However, notwithstanding the need to develop fair and reliable means of compensation, CAs said they would be

much more inclined to provide these entrepreneurial services if the paperwork and requirements of conservation

programs were significantly streamlined and user-friendly. A typical CA response to the question of why more

CAs were not actively promoting conservation programs like RCPP went like this: “[These programs have] too

much paperwork. Too much stuff that you have to go through. And also, many hoops that you have to jump. I

think if there was a way to streamline and have a simple template put in place … that would still be acceptable to

the NRCS, or The Nature Conservancy to get those funds – I think that that would make it a lot easier.”

The second theme identifies the importance of considering real and perceived differences between retail-

affiliated and independent CAs, and how that might result in somewhat differentiated roles as conservation

entrepreneurs. Independent CA interviewees, for example, expressed concerns over potential conflicts of interest

of retail-affiliated CAs receiving compensation for advice and services related to nutrient inputs. One

independent CA, for example, said “If you're selling product, you're selling product. That's your living and you're

not going to be able to have an unbiased opinion as to how a guy should proceed with some of these programs.

… Phosphorous is a good example, nitrogen is a good example. Do we need this [input] at this juncture? When

somebody's in the business to make a living selling products – which is fine, I've got no problem with that – but

not in putting them in charge of something that could be skewed by their judgment.” If, on the other hand, those

same retail-affiliated CAs “were to do projects not relating to fertilizer application I'd say the conflicts – then I

don't think that that's an issue.”

Some retail-affiliated CAs, however, felt that their expertise on nutrient inputs gave them a distinct advantage

over independent CAs. For example, some voiced the perception that independent CAs make much coarser,

field-level nutrient recommendations, as opposed to the gridded, more nuanced sampling approach of retail-

affiliated CAs, which creates more work for the latter: “[Independent CAs] will send us the maps to do [nutrient

recommendations]. Then, we got to go through the maps again, and they did this wrong. … Well now we're

doing their work for them, too." According to this particular CA, this scenario often results in a time-consuming

exchange between both CAs – “You never said that, you know, you're not seeing this part of it” – and the farmer,

who says “Just fix it. Take care of it.”

These underlying differences between independent and retail-affiliated CAs, some which may be more perceived

than actual, point to the third and final theme that will affect the likelihood of CAs formally entering the

conservation milieu – that of cross-sector collaboration. CAs identified three interrelated factors – perceived

differences, operational differences, and territoriality – that complicate collaboration between entities in the ag


industry (e.g. ag retailers, independent ag consultants) and public entities that have traditionally delivered

conservation information and services (e.g. NRCS, Extension). First, some CAs hold strong perceptions about

organizations like NRCS and Extension, including presumptions that these entities are inefficient, over

bureaucratic, out of touch with the majority of farmers, rule-oriented, organizationally understaffed and

dysfunctional, and do not operate on the cutting edge of agricultural research or provide adequate customer

service. One CA, for example, observed how “when I was a kid, the trusted adviser was the ag extension agent.

That role's completely changed. Now he's the second or third and they have to work very, very hard to … stay

relevant. I think that's also happened for the NRCS and the soil conservationists.” Or as another CA said, “The

NRCS [are] the admin people. They do the paperwork. They know the deadline dates for the contracts and that

kind of stuff, but they don't really understand the agronomics or the seeding. If you were to ask them a question

they're going to tell you this is what it says in [our handbook].” At the same time, these same CAs believe that

Extension and NRCS perceive CAs and their Ag industry employers as primarily profit-driven and hampered by

conflicts of interest.

Second, in addition to these perceived differences, CAs articulated some operational differences that complicate

cross-sector collaboration. In CAs’ view, farmers and ag retailers – particularly CAs – make decisions and act

with considerable speed, whereas NRCS operates under their own enrollment timeframes, and often at a pace

slower than CAs prefer. As one CA said, “typically there's been a level of frustration with the speed that things

go [with NRCS].” Relatedly, entities like the NRCS are operationally constrained by statutory obligations to

follow certain rules and procedures for how conservation is funded and implemented, whereas CAs view

themselves as more dynamic and constrained only by the need to demonstrate the value of any practice or service

to both their employers and farmers. As one CA said, “sometimes I think there needs to be a little bit more

flexibility in some of [NRCS’s] procedures in what they can set up and do. I guess it comes down to the point …

that they made people that can't think for themselves on looking at a situation to make any kind of adjustment.”

Similarly, CAs identified operational differences in terms of how public and private entities plan for and adapt to

change, with NRCS and Extension governed by the whims of annual multi-year funding cycles and programs.

Given their need to identify and capture stable and predictable revenue streams, CAs expressed some hesitation

about the feasibility of depending on potentially unreliable and/or continually changing conservation programs

and funding arrangements.

The third factor affecting the efficacy of cross-sector collaboration is best described as territoriality – that is, the

sense that if not executed carefully, collaboration could be perceived more as encroachment and/or displacement

rather than as synergistic. Numerous CAs made clear that they have neither the interest nor the capacity to

process the paperwork or conduct other administrative duties that typically fall under NRCS’s purview. Despite

this clear indication that they see a continuing need for NRCS and have no intention of duplicating their efforts,

CAs nevertheless felt that more direct promotion of conservation practices and programs might be adversely

perceived by NRCS as an encroachment that might threaten their relevance. Accordingly, this results in a

division in perceptions that one CA described as “ ‘You [NRCS] do this, I [industry] do that. You stay in your

space, I stay in my space. Don't play with my toys, and I won't mess in your sandbox.’.” CAs described the need

for more and better communication, both between sectors and within sectors, as a prerequisite for overcoming

the aforementioned perceived barriers. As one CA put it, “I think MABA, NRCS, and TNC at this level – a

higher-up level – have a great idea, they just put it all together, get it all done, [and] filter it down. [They need to]

filter down the information to the CCAs so they'd understand the opportunities that are available through this,

and also filter it down in NRCS so that they didn't feel like, ‘Oh, here we've got a bunch of CCA guys going to

come in who are going to want to privatize everything.’” Additionally, CAs identified the need to clearly define

roles and responsibilities for each entity engaging in the conservation promotion-adoption pipeline, including the

equitable assignment of credit for contributions. Suggestions for how to address challenges related to

territoriality included arranging opportunities for mutual learning, in which CAs, Extension personnel, and

NRCS staff would cooperatively organize and sponsor field days and demonstration opportunities. If mutually

organized in such a way that all parties felt like they had an equal ownership, such events, according to CAs,

would allow CAs to learn about existing and new conservation programs, provide Extension with an opportunity

to showcase the latest research on various conservation practices, allow CAs to earn soil and water continuing

education credits, and provide all with an opportunity to build mutual familiarity, relationships, and trust. “Oh, I

wouldn't be opposed to going to a meeting now and then to get updated on what they're doing or what they're ...


And maybe, if it's a two-way meeting – where they sometimes show things off – there's some people out there

that could probably maybe suggest some other ideas that might work better, or as well, for less money.”

5.8 Discussion

Cumulatively, CAs asserted that the foundation for increasing the rate of farmers’ adoption of conservation

practices and participation in conservation programs consists of farmers understanding the multifunctional value

– to their soil, to habitat and water quality, to on-farm resource concerns, and to their farm’s short- and long-term

economic viability – of specific conservation practices. CAs believe, furthermore, that they are most strategically

positioned, both in terms of on-farm contact frequency and trust/influence, to deliver this value proposition. CAs

consistently described themselves as salespeople who are both used to and adept at showing the value of

products/services to customers, and tend to view the delivery of conservation value proposition trough this

entrepreneurial sales lens. As potential conservation entrepreneurs, CAs see their role as intermediaries

consisting of (1) identifying on-farm needs and resource concerns; (2) providing information and

recommendations of conservation programs and practices that address farmers’ needs and resource concerns; (3)

helping farmers assemble records and other initial paperwork required for program participation; (4) either

providing themselves or identifying other entities that can provide services, inputs, and/or equipment necessary

for farmers to successfully implement conservation practices or satisfy program obligations; and (5) when

needed, provide farm management records and other related information to conservation program administrators.

Realizing the full potential of this conservation entrepreneurial role, however, will require both an appropriate

compensation scheme and more fertile cross-sector collaboration. Questions remain, for example, about (1) how,

when, and for what services CAs would be compensated; (2) whether and/or how there might be differences in

the conservation entrepreneurial role between independent and retail-affiliated CAs; (3) whether CAs would be

directly compensated themselves, or whether compensation would accrue to their employers; (4) what level of

compensation would be adequate to achieve desired engagement; and (5) what sorts of social norms and

communication (and from whom) would be required to successfully reach CAs who may not see active

conservation practices and programs as part of their occupational purview. Regarding the barriers to deeper and

more frequent cross-sector collaboration, questions remain about (1) how institutional differences (e.g. rule- and

paperwork-oriented vs. dynamic and fast-moving) between the public and private sector can be navigated; (2)

how operational differences and constraints can be bridged across sectors; and (3) how perceptual assumptions

about the credibility and legitimacy of opposing sectors can be meaningfully overcome. These latter cross-sector

challenges – including a clear definition of roles, responsibilities, and credit attribution – are essential

foundations for trust- and relationship-building, and thus constitute a necessary predicate for the development

and implementation of a new and more impactful conservation paradigm.

And it is towards this goal of cross-sector collaboration that TNC, in particular, has an opportunity to make a

significant contribution. Compared to farmers, CAs are significantly more trusting of or familiar with TNC,

including their mission and role in the conservation landscape. TNC’s designation as a private organization,

moreover, confers institutional and operational advantages – in terms of nimbleness, flexibility, and relative lack

of bureaucracy – over traditional conservation organizations like NRCS. According to interviewees, TNC carries

none of the perceived “baggage” that currently complicates CAs’ willingness to work hand-in-hand with NRCS.

As a result of these advantages, TNC is well-positioned to act as an intermediary between the Ag industry and

public-sector conservation entities.


6 NRCS-SWCD Survey Results


Survey respondents were split evenly between NRCS and SWCD affiliations. Among NRCS respondents, the

majority (70.8%) said that their position best aligns with the soil and water conservation group, followed by

those aligned with the soil science group (16.7%), and one individual from both engineering and biology. Almost

half (45.8%) of NRCS respondents’ positions were classified as entry- or mid-level, with 29.2% identifying as

managers, and the rest other classification levels. Among SWCD respondents, 65.2% self-identified as

technicians, 21.7% as district managers/administrators, and 8.7% as board members/directors. The average

employment tenure as a conservation professional for all respondents was 12.2 years. Our overall sample was

male-dominated, with 84.2% identifying as male, and 15.8% as female.

6.2 Water quality perceptions

Like farmers and CAs on previous surveys, all NRCS and SWCD respondents were asked about the degree to

which they perceive water quality pollutants to be problematic in the Saginaw Bay watershed. Respondents rated

phosphorus as the most problematic pollutant, followed by sediment, bacteria, nitrates/nitrogen, heavy metals,

and muck (Figure 29). With exception of muck, all pollutants were perceived to be moderate to moderate-to-

severe problems, on average.

Figure 29. Perceptions of the degree to which water quality pollutants are problematic in the Saginaw Bay watershed as

perceived by NRCS/SWCD respondents. Means (M) were calculated after excluding all “don’t know” responses, and reflect a

0-3 scale (0=not a problem, 3=severe problem).

Some variations in water quality pollutant perceptions were found between the samples of farmers, CAs, and

NRCS-SWCD staff surveyed as part of RCPP’s Year 1 evaluation, with NRCS/SWCD respondents generally

perceiving pollutants and more of a problem than the other either farmers or CAs (Figure 30). NRCS/SWCDs

perceived phosphorus, sediment, and nitrates as statistically significantly more problematic compared to both

CAs and farmers, and perceived bacteria and heavy metals as more of a problem compared to farmers. Mean

perceptions of the degree to which sediments and nitrates/nitrogen are problematic in the Saginaw Bay

watershed, however, were not statistically significantly different between farmers, CAs, and NRCS/SWCDs. No

statistically significant differences on any pollutant were observed between NRCS and SWCD respondents.

In addition to pollutants, NRCS/SWCD survey respondents were asked about the degree to which various

sources of water quality pollutants are problematic in the watershed. Urban and/or non-agricultural sources

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

"Muck"

Heavy metals

Nitrates/nitrogen

Bacteria

Sediment

Phosphorus


M=2.6 n=48

M=2.4 n=49

M=2.3 n=46

M=2.3 n=48

M=2.0 n=44

M=1.5 n=45


Figure 30. Results of an ANOVA comparison between groups (i.e. CAs, NRCS/SWCD staff, and farmers) regarding the degree

to which water quality pollutants are considered a problem in the Saginaw Bay watershed. Letters (a, b) signify differences in

means between two or more groups within a pollutant category.

predominate among the sources identified as most problematic, with all but two sources (farm

pesticides/herbicides, and illegal littering/dumping) rated as moderate to moderate-to-severe problems (Figure

31). On a scale from 0-10 (0=urban causes, 10=rural causes), respondents were almost exactly divided between

whether pollution originates mostly from urban or rural causes (M=5.3). Poorly maintained septic systems,

discharges from wastewater, removal of riparian vegetation, and lawn fertilizers/pesticides were rated as the four

most-problematic sources, followed by urban storm water runoff (7th) and discharges from industry into surface

waters (8th). Farm fertilizers and soil erosion from farm fields (5th and 6th, respectively), were the agricultural

sources deemed to be most problematic. No statistically significant differences in means were observed sources

between farmers and NRCS/SWCD respondents for any of foregoing water quality sources. Similarly, no

differences were found on any of these items between NRCS and SWCD respondents. Since comparable

questions were not asked on the CA survey, no comparison is possible between CAs and farmers or between

CAs and NRCS/SWCD staff.

Finally, all NRCS/SWCD survey respondents were asked about the degree to which they perceive impacts from

water quality pollution as problems (Figure 32). Like farmers and CAs, NRCS/SWCD respondents identified

wildlife consequences – e.g. the loss of desirable fish species, excessive aquatic plants/algae, and contaminated

fish – as the most problematic (and rater these three consequences as a moderate problem, on average). Adverse

recreational consequences were rated as slightly less problematic, while explicitly social consequences (e.g.

lower property values, odor, and contaminated drinking water) identified as the three least problematic,

respectively. Statistical difference in means were observed between NRCS and SWCD survey takers for two

items: NRCS staff perceived “reduced opportunities for water recreation” (mean difference=0.6, scale 0-3) and

“reduced quality of water recreation activities” (mean difference =0.6, scale 0-3) as more problematic compared

to SWCD respondents. No statistical difference were observed between farmers and NRCS/SWCD survey

respondents, and as with water quality pollution sources, CAs were not asked about water quality pollution

consequences.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

NRCS/SWCDs CAs Farmers

Bacteria

Phosphorus

Heavy metals

Sediment

Muck

Nitrates/ nitrogen

a and b indicate differences between groups, significant at p<.05

Slight problem Moderate problemNot a problem Severe problem

aa

aa

a

a

aa

a

a

b

b

b

b

a


Figure 31. Perceptions of the degree to which NRCS/SWCD respondents consider sources of water quality pollutants as

problematic. Means (M) were calculated after excluding all “don’t know” responses, and reflect a 0-3 scale (0=not a problem,

3=severe problem).

Figure 32. Perceptions of the degree to which NRCS/SWCD respondents consider water quality pollution consequences as

problematic. Means (M) were calculated after excluding all “don’t know” responses, and reflect a 0-3 scale (0=not a problem,

3=severe problem).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Littering/illegal dumping

Farm pesticides/herbicides

Animal feeding operations

Shorelines/streambank erosion

Manure from farm animals


Urban storm water runoff

Soil erosion from farm fields

Farm fertilizers/manure

Lawn fertilizers/pesticides

Removal of riparian vegetation

Discharges from wastewater

Septic systems


M=2.5 n=51

M=2.4 n=50

M=2.3 n=51

M=2.3 n=51

M=2.3 n=51

M=2.2 n=51

M=2.2 n=51

M=2.2 n=51

M=2.2 n=51

M=2.1 n=51

M=2.0 n=51

M=1.9 n=50

M=1.8 n=51

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lower property values

Odor

Contaminated drinking water

Fish kills

Reduced quality of water rec. activities

Reduced beauty of rivers and streams

Reduced opportunities for water rec.

Contaminated fish

Excessive aquatic plants or algae

Loss of desirable fish species


M=2.2 n=47

M=2.2 n=47

M=2.0 n=46

M=1.9 n=50

M=1.9 n=50

M=1.9 n=50

M=1.8 n=43

M=1.8 n=48

M=1.5 n=44

M=1.3 n=43


6.3 Attitudes towards regulation

Respondents were evenly split over whether they favor a regulatory or voluntary approach to fostering

conservation practices that improve water quality in the Saginaw Bay watershed. On a scale from 0 (government-

mandated) to 10 (completely voluntary), the mean (M) response was 5.4 (SD=2.3). CAs favored a comparatively

more voluntary approach (M=6.4), with the difference in means (=1.0) statistically significant. A slight majority

(56%) of NRCS/SWCD respondents said they were either somewhat or moderately supportive of future nonpoint

source (NPS) water quality regulations, while 14% said they were extremely supportive. About one fourth (24%)

of respondents were slightly supportive of future regulations, and only 6% were not supportive at all. Despite this

support for future NPS regulations, almost two in five (39.2%) reported feeling moderately or extremely

concerned, and one third somewhat concerned, that more stringent water quality regulations would be enacted in

the future. Although one might expect concern about future regulation to be associated with a lack of support for

future regulation, no such statistical association was observed for either this relationship or its inverse. A strong,

positive association was detected, however, between respondents’ concern about stringent future regulations and

the preference for completely voluntary approaches to fostering conservation practice adoption. A similar

relationship was found between respondents support of future regulations and a preference for a government-

mandated approach to fostering conservation practice adoption. Likewise, a strong, positive correlation was

observed between respondents’ support for future regulation and the degree to which select pollutants

(nitrates/nitrogen, bacteria, and heavy metals) are perceived as problematic in the watershed. No statistically

significant differences were observed between NRCS and SWCD respondents for any of the foregoing variables.

6.4 Conservation planning

All survey respondents were asked about the dynamics of conservation planning, including who NRCS/SWCD

staff typically work with when developing a conservation plan, and the conservation planning horizon that

farmers/landowners are typically thinking about when they talk with NRCS/SWCD staff about conservation

practices. Regarding the former, respondents reported that they work with landowners most of the time, with

tenants about half the time, and with CAs or farm management firms much more rarely (Figure 33). The majority

of respondents (60%) said that farmers are typically thinking on a weeks-to-months timescale when they inquire

with NRCS/SWCD about conservation practices, while 27.3% indicated farmers are thinking on a one-year-or

more scale, and just 12.7% reporting a days-to-weeks horizon. The mean time horizon of 2.2 on a 1-3 scale

(1=days-to-weeks, 3=more than one year) was somewhat longer than the mean time horizon reported by CAs

(M=1.7). This statistically significant difference may be the result of farmers seeking out information from

NRCS/SWCD on practices that are associated with longer-term contracts (e.g. buffer strips, grassed waterways,

conservation cover/set-aside), and approaching CAs about practices that occur over shorter, more seasonal

timespans such as cover crops or variable-rate nutrient applications. No statistically significant timescale

differences were observed between NRCS and SWCD respondents.

Figure 33. Frequency with which NRCS/SWCD staff work with various entities when developing a conservation plan. Means

(M) based on a 0-4 scale (0=never, 4=always).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Farm mgt. firms

CAs/consultants

Tenants

Landowners

Always Most of the time About half the time Sometimes Never

M=2.9 n=54

M=1.9 n=45

M=0.5 n=39

M=0.3 n=40


6.5 Conservation program effectiveness

Survey respondents were also asked to rate the relative effectiveness of Farm Bill conservation programs at

addressing water quality challenges. Respondents rated the Conservation Stewardship Program as the most

effective (mean=very effective), followed by the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP), Wetlands Reserve

Program, Water Bank Program (WBP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation

Reserve Program, respectively (Figure 6). Large majorities of respondents, however, were unfamiliar with both

the HFRP and WBP; even though programs’ mean effectiveness was calculated after excluding unfamiliar

respondents, the high percentage of unfamiliar respondents and corresponding low number of familiar responses

may have skewed the overall relative ranking of program effectiveness. No statistically significant differences

were found between NRCS and SWCD respondents.

Figure 34. Perceived effectiveness of Farm Bill conservation programs at addressing water quality challenges. Mean (M)

effectiveness was calculated after excluding “unfamiliar” responses, and reflects a 0-4 scale (0=not effective at all, 4=extremely

effective.

6.6 Knowledge and perceptions of RCPP

Three out of five NRCS/SWCD respondents said they were either slightly or moderately familiar with the

Saginaw Bay RCPP, with just over one third (34%) reporting that they were either very familiar or extremely

familiar with the program. Respondents most frequently cited the NRCS (n=41), a training event/conference

(n=15), TNC (n=10), or websites (n=9) as sources of information on RCPP. Of those who reported some degree

of familiarity with the program, almost three in four (72.7%) said the program’s procedures/policies were

moderately or extremely clear (M=1.8, scale=0-3). Respondents said they were, on average, moderately

knowledgeable about key RCPP characteristics, including: the farmer/landowner eligibility screening process;

how RCPP differs from other conservation programs; RCPP’s funding mechanism; eligibility criteria for

participation; RCPP’s schedule; and how to use the Great Lakes Watershed Management System (GLWMS)

online screening tool (Figure 7). Respondents reported the least knowledge about the role of CAs in the program.

When asked about the greatest hurdles preventing their participation in RCPP, participants most frequently cited

not knowing enough to answer the question, the difficulty of partnering with CAs, and a lack of

training/technical expertise (Table 2).When given the opportunity on the survey to elaborate on their responses,

several SWCD employees expressed strong dissatisfaction with the fact that SWCDs were not formally

consulted and included as a partner in RCPP. Compared to CA survey respondents, more NRCS/SWCD staff

cited a lack of training/technical expertise and the perception that farmers/landowners will not be interested as

barriers to respondents’ RCPP engagement. Relatively fewer NRCS/SWCD respondents identified RCPP’s lack

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Conservation StewardshipProgram

Healthy Forests Reserve Program

Wetlands Reserve Program

Water Bank Program

Envi. Quality Incentives Program

Conservation Reserve Program

Extremely effective Very effective Moderately effective Slightly effective Not effective at all Unfamiliar

M=2.9 n=55

M=2.9 n=55

M=2.6 n=54

M=2.1 n=54

M=2.1 n=54

M=2.1 n=54


Barrier NRCS/SWCD (n) CAs (n)

Don't know enough to answer 31.3% (15) 33.3% (27)

Other: please specify 29.2% (14) 6.2% (5)

Too difficult to partner with CAs 27.1% (13) N/A

Lack of training/technical expertise 22.3% (11) 9.9% (10)

RCPP does not create enough incentives for farmers/landowners 18.8% (9) N/A

RCPP does not create enough incentives for CAs 16.7% (8) N/A

Farmers/landowners will not be interested 16.7% (8) 4.9% (4)

Takes too much time 14.6% (7) 17.3% (14)

Lack of external funding for cost-share practices 12.5% (6) 8.6% (7)

Too difficult to understand 8.3% (4) 6.2% (5)

Conservation takes land out of production 8.3% (4) 3.7% (3)

Supervisor does not support it 4.2% (2) 1.2% (1)

The program does not create a profit 4.2% (2) 12.3% (10)

Table 2. Comparative share of barriers that NRCS/SWCD and CA survey respondents said would prevent them from engaging

with the Saginaw Bay RCPP.

of creating a profit as hurdles to engagement, while similarly low shares of both surveys’ respondents cited a

lack of supervisor support or the perception that conservation takes land out of production. NRCS/SWCD

respondents who selected “other” most frequently identified two common barriers: CAs’ lack of commitment to

program promotion and applicant screening process (12.5%, n=6); and a respondent being located in an office

that does not serve farmers/landowners in one of RCPP’s priority sub-watersheds (8.3%, n=4).

When asked about what barriers they thought would prevent farmers from engaging with RCPP, NRCS/SWCD

respondents most frequently cited farmers’ attitudes about Farm Bill programs, CAs lacking the proper

training/expertise to adequately support farmers’ RCPP enrollment and implementation, and not knowing enough

about RCPP to answer the question (Table 3).

Figure 35. Knowledge of key RCPP characteristics among NRCS/SWCD respondents. Means (M) calculated on a 0-4 scale

(0=not knowledgeable at all, 4=extremely knowledgeable).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The role of CAs in the program

GLWMS online tool

The schedule for the program

Farmer/landowner eligibility criteria

RCPP's funding mechanism

How RCPP differs from other programs

Eligibility screening process

Extremely knowledgeable Very knowledgeable Moderately knowledgeable

Slightly knowledgeable Not knowlegeable at all

M=1.9 n=46

M=1.9 n=46

M=1.8 n=46

M=1.8 n=46

M=1.7 n=46

M=1.6 n=46

M=1.3 n=46


Barrier NRCS/SWCD (n)

Farmers’ attitudes about Farm Bill programs 41.7% (20)

CAs lacking the proper training/expertise 35.4% (17)

Don't know enough to answer 35.4% (17)

Conservation takes land out of production 27.1% (13)

Ambiguity about financial support after RCPP funds expire 25.0% (12)

Too difficult for applicant to understand 22.3% (11)

Takes too much time to apply 22.3% (11)

Other: please specify 20.8% (10)

Farmers/landowners will not be interested 14.6% (7)

Table 3. Barriers that NRCS/SWCD respondents said would prevent farmers from engaging with the

Saginaw Bay RCPP.

When asked how influential RCPP could be at addressing water quality in the Saginaw Bay watershed,

approximately three in five (57.2%) of respondents thought the program might be either slightly or somewhat

influential, 18.3% said it might be very or extremely influential, and on in five (20.4%) said they did not know.

The mean level of perceived RCPP influence (M=1.8, scale=0-4) was not statistically different from that of CA

survey respondents, and did not differ between NRCS and SWCD respondents. However, like CAs,

NRCS/SWCD respondents most frequently identified ecological indicators (e.g. pounds of phosphorus and

sediment runoff reduced), followed by administrative indicators (e.g. RCPP applicants/referrals, and contracts

signed) as metrics for assessing the progress of RCPP (Table 4). Similar shares of both NRCS/SWCD and CA

respondents identified the number of agricultural retailers participating as another such metric.

Metric NRCS/SWCD (n) CAs (n)

Pounds of phosphorus runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 57.4% (27) 40.7% (36)

Tons of sediment runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 53.2% (25) 29.6% (33)

Pounds of nitrogen runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 51.1% (24) 13.6% (11)

Number of customers referred to NRCS from CAs for further information 48.9% (23) 19.8% (16)

Number of acres placed under conservation practices 46.8% (22) 44.4% (36)

Number of new customers that came to you for RCPP related reasons 44.7% (21) 4.9% (4)

Number of contracts signed 42.6% (20) 19.8% (16)

Number of applicants 38.3% (18) 27.2% (22)

Number of agricultural retailers participating 23.4% (11) 21.0% (17)

Dollars spent on conservation practices 21.2% (10) 17.3% (14)

Don’t know enough to answer 19.1% (9) N/A

Number of partnerships (e.g. with CAs) 19.1% (9) N/A

Table 4. Metrics for measuring RCPP progress as perceived by NRCS/SWCD and CA respondents.

Some farmers discontinue conservation practices once they stop receiving government funding. In order to

encourage greater maintenance of conservation practices post-funding, the overwhelming majority (90%) of

NRCS/SWCD respondents suggested that farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive

special legal protections (Table 5). A comparatively smaller majority of CA survey respondents selected this

option, though this was also the most frequently selected. NRCS/SWCD respondents who selected “other”

additionally suggested that conservation could be maintained by: making participation in other Farm Bill

programs contingent upon conservation maintenance; giving farmers property tax breaks; publicly shaming

farmers who pollute; and recovering cost-share monies from farmers who discontinue practices.


Metric NRCS/SWCD (n) CAs (n)

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive

special legal protections

90.0% (45) 63.0% (51)

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive public

recognition of their effort through signage or a certification process

56.8% 43.2% (35)

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive

immunity from future regulations

40.0% (20) 56.8% (46)

Other: please specify 16.0% (8) 7.4% (6)

Table 5. Comparative frequency of responses by NRCS/SWCD and CA respondents in answer to the question “How can the

conservation community best ensure that conservation practices continue to be implemented even after farmers stop receiving

government funding for the practices?”

6.7 Influence on conservation, collaboration with CAs, and the future of conservation

Multiple organizations in the agricultural community have a potential role to play in helping farmers identify

programs, information, and practices that meet their on-farm conservation needs and address watershed-scale

problems. When asked whom they thought could be the most influential in fulfilling this role, respondents listed

NRCS, SWCDs, farmers/landowners, and Michigan State Extension as the most influential, followed by the MI

Dept. of Ag and Rural Development, MI Farm Bureau, retail-affiliated CAs, sportsmen groups, and the Farm

services Agency, respectively (Figure 36). Retail-affiliated and independent CAs were rated as the seventh- and

fourteenth-most influential entity (out of 17 total). Michigan Agri-Business Association, commodity groups, and

fertilizer reps (12th, 15th, and 16th, respectively) were rated among the least potentially influential. The Nature

Conservancy (13th) was rated as potentially more influential than environmental groups in general (17th).

Figure 36. Perceived level of influence of various organizations in helping farmers identify programs, information, and

practices that meet their on-farm conservation needs and address watershed-scale problems. Means (M) were calculated after

excluding “not familiar” responses, and are based on a 0-3 scale (0=not influential at all, 3=very influential).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Fertilizer reps

Commodity groups

Independent CAs

TNC

MABA

MI-DNR

MI-DEQ

FSA

Sportsmen groups

Retail CAs

MI Farm Bureau

MI-DARD

MSU Extension

Farmers/landowners

SWCDs

NRCS

Very influential Moderately influential Slightly influential Not influential at all Not familiar

M=2.9 n=55

M=2.7 n=55

M=2.6 n=54

M=2.4 n=54

M=2.3 n=55

M=2.2 n=53

M=2.1 n=53

M=2.0 n=54

M=2.0 n=55

M=2.0 n=55

M=1.9 n=54

M=1.9 n=53

M=1.8 n=54

M=1.8 n=54

M=1.8 n=54

M=1.6 n=54

M=1.5 n=54


In a subsequent question, respondents were informed that some Great Lakes conservation initiatives, such as

RCPP, are partnering with CAs to deliver information on conservation programs and practices. When asked

about how influential they thought CAs would be in this capacity, approximately one in five (21.6%) thought

that CAs would be extremely influential, while the average response fell in between slightly and moderately

influential. Similarly, more respondents said they would be uncomfortable than said they would be comfortable

with CAs taking on this role (M=1.6 on a scale from 1 [extremely uncomfortable] to 5 [extremely comfortable]).

No statistically significant differences on these items were observed between NRCS and SWCD respondents.

A qualitative analysis of answers to an open-ended follow-up question about why respondents feel comfortable

or uncomfortable collaborating with CAs is summarized in Table 6. The most frequently cited reason for feeling

uncomfortable with CAs assuming this role is the perception that delivering advice/recommendations on

conservation practices and programs conflicts with CAs’ primary role of supporting crop production.

Respondents felt that this would lead to conflicts of interest (e.g. CAs providing advice on nutrient management

while simultaneously selling nutrient inputs), and thus would continue to be a low priority for CAs relative to

their more lucrative, production-oriented role. Others voiced the perception that CAs lack the necessary training

that would allow them to dispense adequate conservation advice/recommendations, and as a result would provide

farmers with misinformation about practices and programs (which would ultimately have to be rectified by

NRCS or SWCDs). Still others explained their discomfort by pointing out how CAs have (as of yet) not fulfilled

their role of program support/promotion, as was promised (to NRCS) when RCPP was initially rolled out.

Response Frequency

Delivering conservation information conflicts with CAs’ primary role 13

CAs lack the proper training/expertise in conservation 11

Conservation programs are a low priority for CAs 7

CAs could be influential if adequately trained 6

CAs have not yet delivered on their promised support role for RCPP 4

CAs could be influential if public-private sector collaborations barriers were lowered 1

Table 6. Frequency of stated reasons for why NRCS/SWCD respondents are comfortable (or not) with CAs

participating in programs like RCPP and delivering conservation advice to farmers.

NRCS/SWCD respondents largely expressed either uncertainty about or opposition to how CAs could/should be

compensated for delivering information and services for conservation practices and programs. A qualitative

analysis of answers to an open-ended question about CA compensation is summarized in Table 7. The minority

of responses indicated that CAs should receive some sort of compensation differ over whether compensation

should be made directly from a funding agency to the CA (i.e. after a successful farmer referral, or once a

contract has been implemented/fulfilled), or whether compensation should occur indirectly or take a non-

monetary form. Examples of indirect compensation include a funding agency providing a qualifying farmer with

cost-share money to implement cover crops, which s/he would purchase via the CA that recommended the

practice and program in the first place. Examples of non-monetary compensation include the benefit of increased

trust and longevity in farmer-CA relationships as a result of CAs providing conservation advice and information.

Response Frequency

Unsure/other 15

CAs should not be financially compensated 10

CAs should receive some form of indirect compensation 7

CAs should receive some form of direct compensation 4

…after a farmer’s application has been funded 1

…from their employer 1

CAs should be compensated based on conservation performance 3

CAs should receive some sort of non-monetary compensation 3

Table 7. Frequency of NRCS/SWCD respondents’ stated reasons for means of compensating CAs for providing

information on conservation practices and programs.


No matter what form it takes, compensating CAs for supporting conservation practices and programs would

require some sort of verification and/or monitoring of CA performance. A qualitative analysis of answers to an

open-ended question about how CA performance could be verified is summarized in Table 8.

Response Frequency

Monitored by NRCS 9

Via documentation (e.g. receipts, applications, products sold, etc.) 6

CAs formally becoming certified Technical Service Providers (TSPs) 5

CAs should receive some form of direct compensation 4

Monitored by a third-party auditor 3

Field checks to assure practices are actually implemented 3

Table 8. Frequency of NRCS/SWCD respondents’ stated preference for monitoring and verifying CA performance.

Finally, NRCS/SWCD survey takers were asked about how they see the role of conservation organizations,

including their own, changing over the coming decade with respect to translating conservation policy into on-

the-ground implementation of conservation practices. Almost all respondents provided an answer, an analysis of

which is summarized in Table 9. The most frequent responses addressed the perception that conservation

organizations – particularly NRCS – are badly underfunded and understaffed in Michigan, and as a result are

unable to maximize their impact. Respondents described how, in addition to funding and staff shortages, staff

turnover (in part due to an inability to match the private sector’s rates of compensation) has considerably

diminished their organizational capacity. As a result, application processing times increased and the overall

quality of customer service has decreased in some counties, frustrating farmers and CAs alike (when the latter

have been involved) and leading to a lack of trust. While some anticipated that the current funding trajectory

would persist, others noted that fully funding/staffing NRCS and SWCDs would increase their influence. Several

anticipated that NRCS in particular would take on an increasingly administrative role, leaving the work of

program promotion and conservation contract implementation to CAs and technical service providers.

Others, however, were less sanguine, observing that the future relevance and influence of organizations like

NRCS depends on how well they adapt to long-occurring trends in the agricultural community – particularly

trends associated with changing farm demographics, technologies, and practices. These respondents advocated

for fuller and more integrated partnerships with CAs, and for conservation organizations to create more flexible

and financially responsive conservation programs that would be more attractive to particularly younger farmers

and those who operate increasingly larger acreages. Echoing these sentiments, two NRCS respondents even

called for a complete institutional overhaul of NRCS – not only to the programs they administer, but to the

organizational culture, knowledge and expertise of staff, and willingness to bridge public-private sector

differences to build more effective partnerships.

Response Frequency

Increased influence if adequately funded/staffed 10

Need to adapt to changing farm demographics, technology and practices 7

Need for increased on-the-ground farmer contact 6

Increased administrative/regulatory role 5

Decreased funding and influence 4

Need for more financially attractive and adaptive programs 4

Need for additional public-private collaboration and partnerships 4

Need for increased farmer education 3

Need to regain farmers’ trust 2

Need for an institutional overhaul (at NRCS) 2

Need for increased public demand for conservation 1

No change(s) anticipated 1 Table 9. Frequency of emergent themes for how NRCS/SWCD respondents see the role of conservation

organizations (e.g. NRCS, SWCDs) changing in the next decade.


6.8 Discussion

Considerable heterogeneity exists among respondents’ perceptions of water quality problems, conservation

challenges, and the state (and future) of conservation practices and programs in the Saginaw Bay watershed.

Disagreement remains, for example, over the contribution to water quality problems in the watershed from urban

versus agricultural sources, as well as over the consequences of these problems. Perhaps more significantly,

respondents remain divided in their anticipation of how the role of conservation organizations will change in the

coming decade, with some envisioning diminished influence, some seeing hope for increased effectiveness if

provided adequate funding/staffing, and others viewing NRCS and SWCDs as out of touch with the pace of

change in the agricultural community. Similar heterogeneity was observed among respondents’ knowledge and

understanding of RCPP. Some of this likely is attributable to the fact that some respondents are located or serve

customers in sub-watersheds that do not qualify for RCPP money. Likewise, some lack of knowledge may be

due to the relatively low engagement of potential farmers and CAs with the program, and perceived overlap with

other similar incentive programs.

Respondents generally agreed in their skepticism of and discomfort with CAs participating as conservation

partners. Both retail-affiliated and independent CAs were viewed as relatively uninfluential with regard to their

capacity to provide farmers with needed information on conservation programs and practices. With few

exceptions, CAs were viewed as having (thus far) not fulfilled their delegated role in RCPP – that of using the

GLWMS tool to screen farmers, refer eligible clients to NRCS, and assist in the program application and

implementation process. This lack of engagement with RCPP, combined with preconceptions of CAs’ role as

primarily production-oriented, likely contributed to NRCS/SWCD respondents’ perceptions of participating as

conservation advisers and entrepreneurs.

Despite this agreement over the general ineffectiveness of CAs vis-à-vis conservation, additional uncertainty

persists with regard to how, if at all, CAs could/should be compensated if they were to more formally and

effectively engage as conservation partners on initiatives like RCPP. Some respondents registered support for

paying CAs – either directly through NRCS, or indirectly through a CA’s farmer-client – for their conservation

services, while others expressed that the customer-relation benefits of providing objective conservation advice

should suffice, and be self-evident to CAs. The greatest number of responses to the question of compensation,

however, were best characterized as “unsure.” This reflects results from the survey of CAs, in which respondents

expressed a similar uncertainty about they should be compensated for disseminating information about

conservation practices and programs.

NRCS/SWCD skepticism about CAs participating in conservation, and uncertainties about compensation,

underscore several key themes that will have to be addressed in future years of RCPP and in subsequent, similar

programs. First, the relative newness of considering CAs as partners in conservation – including a lack of

established collaborative models in Saginaw Bay or other watersheds, and a lack of clear expectations of what

exactly CAs’ role could or should be – likely contributes to much of the observed hesitation and discomfort on

the part of survey respondents. Second, the gap between what respondents were told by RCPP program managers

CAs would do, and the apparent lack of engagement that respondents have observed thus far, has created

considerable frustration with RCPP for some, and reinforced among these respondents and others the traditional

division of labor within the agricultural community (i.e. CAs help farmers with production, and conservation

organizations help farmers with conservation). Third, the issue of fair attribution – that is, which organizations

and/or individuals receive credit for assisting farmers with conservation information and services – has arisen

repeatedly (albeit anecdotally) throughout the first year of evaluating RCPP, as well as in other watersheds where

the NRSS lab has studied agricultural conservation and organizations. Given the lack of role clarity for CAs and

the current trajectory of diminishing funding/staffing of NRCS and SWCDs statewide, some staff perceive the

entry of CAs into the conservation “marketplace” as a threat that could potentially crowd out traditional

conservation organizations’ role, and further undermine their reason for existence. While some of challenges

may be based in part on misperceptions or misunderstandings, and indeed vary from office to office in the

watershed, taking seriously and addressing these perceptions will be essential for improving opportunities for

cross-sector collaboration – particularly with CAs – and for realizing the potential of RCPP.


This page intentionally left blank. <use if printing document so it flips correctly>

Purdue University, Saginaw Bay RCPP Evaluation Year-End Report A-1

Appendix A – Farmer Survey Summary Statistics

Section 1 Background

1. In a typical year, how frequently do you visit Saginaw Bay itself?

Percent

Never (n=495) 35.0%

Once (n=250) 17.7%

2 – 5 times (n=369) 26.1%

More than 5 times (n=299) 21.2%

2. In the last 12 months, have you recreated (e.g. fishing, boating, swimming, or hiking) in any of the

following water bodies?

I’m not sure (n=23)

None (n=701)

Cass River (n=134)

Chippewa River (n=70)

Kawkawlin River (n=56)

Pigeon River (n=53)

Pine River (n=71)

Pinnebog River (n=45)

Saginaw River (n=189)

Sebewaing River (n=82)

Shiawassee River (n=110)

Tittabawassee River (n=113)

Saginaw Bay (n=439)

3. Do you own or rent land in any of the following watersheds?

I’m not sure (n=270)

Cass River (n=227)

Chippewa River (n=65)

Kawkawlin River (n=74)

Pigeon River (n=80)

Pine River (n=114)

Pinnebog River (n=74)

Saginaw River (n=201)

Sebewaing River (n=80)

Shiawassee River (n=156)

Tittabawassee River (n=93)

4. Does the property you own, manage, or farm in the Saginaw Bay watershed touch a stream, river, lake,

or wetland?

Percent

Yes (n=767) 54.1%

No (n=549) 38.7%

Not Sure (n=101) 7.1%


5. How familiar are you with the Saginaw Bay Watershed Regional Conservation Partnership Program

(RCPP)?

Percent

Never heard of it (n=720) 49.4%

A little familiar (n=465) 32.7%

Somewhat familiar (n=203) 14.3%

Very familiar (n=530) 3.5%

6. Where have you heard about the Saginaw Bay RCPP?

My retail agronomist/crop advisor (n=46)

Local NRCS office or conservation district (n=430)

Farm management firm (n=37)

Neighbors or other farmers (n=169)

Radio or newspaper (n=170)

Other (n=53)

7. Gender

Percent

Male (n=1,228) 86.2%

Female (n=196) 13.8%

8. What is the highest level of school you completed?

Percent

Some formal schooling (n=53) 3.8%

High school diploma/GED (n=539) 38.1%

Some college (n=342) 24.2%

2 year college degree (n=189) 13.4%

4 year college degree (n=193) 13.7%

Post-graduate degree (n=97) 6.9%

9. What year were you born?

Minimum Maximum Mean

Age 27 97 64.3


1. What is the total acreage of farmland you own?


1 5,265 255

11. Do you own farmland that you rent to someone else?

Percent

Yes (n=720) 52.6%

No (n=649) 47.4%

How many acres do you rent to someone else?


2 2,200 131.17

12. Who is responsible for making decisions about the following agricultural practices on the land you rent

to others?

Primarily

tenant

Landowner

and tenant

Primarily

landowner

Farm mgmt.

firm and

landowner

Farm

mgmt. firm

and tenant

Primarily

farm

mgmt. firm

Does not

apply

Crops

grown or

rotation

(n=712)

67.4% 20.1% 2.9% 1.7% 1.4% 4.1% 2.4%

Tillage

practices

(n=699)

69.4% 15.9% 4.6% 1.3% 1.9% 4.0% 3.0%

Fertilizer

application

(n=700)

76.0% 11.1% 2.7% 1.1% 2.1% 4.3% 2.6%

Installation

of

structures

(n=682)

18.3% 23.5% 38.0% 1.6% 0.9% 1.8% 16.0%

Question: Are you an agricultural producer?

Percent

Yes (n=892)

61.1%

No (n=569) 38.9%


Results from this point forward only reflect responses from the 892 agricultural producers.

13. Do you rent farmland from someone else?

Percent

Yes (n=475) 52.4%

No (n=432) 47.6%

How many acres do you rent from someone else?


2 12,500 536

How many landlords do you rent farmland from?


1 125 6


Section 2 Water Quality

14. Below is a list of water quality pollutants that can become a problem when present in excessive

amounts. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following pollutants in the Saginaw Bay

watershed?

Not a

problem

(1)

Slight

problem

(2)

Moderate

problem

(3)

Severe

problem

(4)

Don't

know

(5)

Mean

(without

5)

Sedimentation silt

(n= 863)

7.0% 25.7% 29.9% 8.0% 29.4% 2.55

(n=254)

Nitrate nitrogen

(n=860)

9.2% 26.2% 24.1% 6.5% 34.1% 2.42

(n=567)

Phosphorus

(n=860)

8.4% 23.8% 25.5% 7.6% 34.8% 2.49

(n=561)

Bacteria in the

water (e.g., E. coli)

(n=854)

8.2% 18.6% 24.1% 15.8% 33.3% 2.71

(n=570)

"Muck"

(n=858)

11.8% 21.7% 19.6% 10.1% 36.8% 2.44

(n=542)

Heavy metals or

contaminants (e.g.,

dioxins) (n=859)

12.1% 17.1% 14.7% 11.5% 44.6% 2.46

(n=476)


15. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In your opinion, how

much of a problem are the following in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

Not a

problem

(1)

Slight

problem

(2)

Moderate

problem

(3)

Severe

problem

(4)

Don't

know

(5)

Mean

(without

5)


into streams and lakes

(n=866)

7.9% 23.2% 27.9% 16.9% 24.1% 2.71

(n=209)

Discharges from

wastewater (n=861) 5.6% 19.6% 30.9% 20.9% 23.0%

2.87

(n=198)

Soil erosion from farm

fields (n=863) 10.2% 41.1% 24.2% 7.0% 17.5%

2.34

(n=151)

Soil erosion from

shorelines and/or stream

banks

(n=858)

8.7% 38.0% 22.7% 5.9% 24.6% 2.34

(n=211)

Lawn fertilizers and/or

pesticides (n=867) 10.1% 24.7% 30.2% 13.8% 21.1%

2.61

(n=183)

Fertilizers or manure

used for crop production

(n=865)

12.7% 36.1% 23.8% 8.9% 18.5% 2.35

(n=160)

Improperly maintained

septic systems (n=863) 13.1% 30.5% 19.1% 11.2% 26.1%

2.39

(n=225)

Manure from farm

animals (n=866) 17.7% 35.5% 18.0% 9.4% 19.5%

2.24

(n=169)


of trash

(n=867)

8.4% 32.8% 25.8% 11.8% 21.2% 2.52

(n=184)

Pesticides or herbicides

used for crop production

(n=865)

18.2% 37.9% 16.9% 5.7% 21.4% 2.13

(n=185)

Animal feeding

operations (n=865) 21.8% 31.0% 15.8% 6.4% 25.0%

2.09

(n=216)

Urban storm water runoff

(e.g. highways, rooftops)

(n=862)

7.4% 27.3% 27.5% 15.4% 22.4% 2.66

(n=193)

Removal of stream bank

vegetation (n=863) 14.5% 33.6% 16.9% 7.8% 27.2%

2.25

(n=235)


16. Poor water quality can lead to a variety of consequences for communities. In your opinion, how much of

a problem are the following issues in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

Not a

problem

(1)

Slight

problem

(2)

Moderate

problem

(3)

Severe

problem (4)

Don't

know

(5)

Mean

(without

5)

Contaminated

drinking water

(n=862)

24.5% 27.3% 17.2% 8.6% 22.5% 2.13

(n=194)

Contaminated fish

(n=861)

13.8% 31.5% 22.9% 10.9% 20.9% 2.39

(n=180)

Loss of desirable

fish species

(n=858)

15.9% 24.2% 22.1% 12.0% 25.8% 2.41

(n=221)

Reduced beauty of

rivers and streams

(n=858)

20.0% 30.2% 22.4% 7.3% 20.0% 2.21

(n=172)

Reduced

opportunities for

water recreation

(n=860)

25.9% 27.9% 19.1% 7.0% 20.1% 2.09

(n=173)

Reduced quality of

water recreation

activities (n=855)

24.0% 29.7% 18.5% 6.9% 20.9% 2.11

(n=179)

Excessive aquatic

plants or algae

(n=862)

9.0% 28.3% 27.7% 12.5% 22.4% 2.56

(n=193)

Fish kills

(n=859)

21.7% 27.5% 15.0% 5.7% 30.2% 2.07

(n=259)

Odor

(n=864)

23.5% 30.4% 15.0% 5.8% 25.2% 2.04

(n=218)

Lower property

values

(n=857)

30.6% 25.1% 13.2% 4.1% 27.1% 1.87

(n=232)


17. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the statements below.

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither

Agree or

Disagree (3)

Agree

(4)

Strongly

Agree (5) Mean

Using recommended

management practices

on farms improves

water quality.

1.5% 1.8% 13.4% 61.2% 22.1% 4.0

(n=865)

It is my personal

responsibility to help

protect water quality.

0.8% 0.5% 8.3% 60.8% 29.6% 4.2

(n=864

It is important to

protect water quality

even if it slows

economic development.

1.0% 2.7% 21.8% 54.9% 19.6% 3.9

(n=858)

My actions have an

impact on water

quality.

1.4% 2.6% 15.3% 59.6% 21.1% 4.0

(n=861)

It is important to

protect water quality

even if it costs me

more.

2.5% 7.4% 33.3% 45.0% 11.9% 3.6

(n=856)

I would be willing to

pay more to improve

water quality (for

example: through local

taxes or fees).

14.2% 27.5% 37.3% 16.5% 4.5% 2.7

(n=861)


change my


to improve water

quality.

2.4% 4.6% 34.4% 49.5% 9.1% 3.6

(n=861)

The quality of life in

my community

depends on good water

in local

streams/rivers/lakes.

2.1% 5.0% 25.4% 53.0% 14.6% 3.7

(n=859)


change my


because I am concerned

about the quality of

water for my

downstream neighbors.

2.1% 5.6% 35.0% 47.7% 9.7% 3.6

(n=860)



change my


because I am concerned

about the impact of

water quality in

Saginaw Bay on the

people who lived and

work around the Bay.

2.0% 5.2% 36.7% 46.3% 9.8% 3.6

(n=859)

Section 3 About Your Farming Operation

18. In 2015, how many total acres of each of the following did you manage in the Saginaw Bay

watershed?


Corn (n=585) 1 4,600 265

Soybean (n=557) 1 4,500 236

Sugar beet (n=142) 10 3,300 265

Wheat (n=343) 1 1,200 147

Dry bean (n=194) 1 1,400 236

Canning crop (n=17) 1 2,800 298

Clover/alfalfa (n=231) 1 1,436 98

Pasture (n=132) 1 206 28

Forest/woodland (n=330) 1 600 43

Non-row crop for energy (n=13) 5 400 79

Total acres tile drained (n=446) 1 5,100 584

Total conservation acres set aside (n=201) 1 1,000 55

Total conservation acres – CRP (n=307) 1 1,000 36

Total conservation acres – WRP (n=41) 1 250 42

Total conservation acres – HFRP (n=3) 2 25 10

Other (n=71) 1 1,300 93

19. Which of the following animals are part of your farming operation? Check all that apply.

None (n=632)

Dairy cattle (n=57)

Beef cattle (n=129)

Hogs (n=17)

Poultry (n=31)

Horses (n=32)

Others (n=27)

20. Which best characterizes your method for applying phosphorus (both and manures) to the soil?

Frequency

Surface-applied (broadcast) and incorporated with tillage (n=575) 75.5%

Surface-applied (broadcast) without incorporation (n=75) 9.8%

Sub-surface-applied (n=112) 14.7%


Section 4 Management Practices

21. Practices to Improve Water Quality, please indicate which statement most accurately describes your

level of experience with each practice listed below.

Never

heard of it

(1)

Somewhat

familiar

with it (2)

Know how to

use it, not using

it (3)

Currently

using it

(4)

Mean

Grass/tree riparian buffers or

filter strips

(n=824)

8.4% 23.2% 20.1% 48.3% 3.1 (n=824)

Saturated buffers

(n=790) 40.0% 30.9% 21.1% 8.0%

2.0

(n=790)

Grassed waterways

(n=811) 12.1% 28.7% 29.2% 30.0%

2.8

(n=811)

Windbreaker/shelterbelt

establishment

(n=797)

12.9% 31.4% 32.9% 22.8% 2.7

(n=797)

Drainage water management

(n=803) 19.8% 32.4% 36.5% 11.3%

2.4

(n=803)

Variable rate application of

phosphorus (n=803) 13.3% 23.8% 22.7% 40.2%

2.9

(n=803)

Gypsum application

(n=805) 19.3% 22.95 24.5% 33.4% 2.7 (805)


(n=822) 4.0% 12.9% 11.1% 72.0%

3.5

(n=822)

Conservation cover

(establishment and maintenance

of permanent vegetative cover)

(n=813)

5.3% 19.8% 26.7% 48.2% 3.2 (813)

Treatment wetland

(n=796) 43.8% 29.9% 23.7% 2.5%

1.9

(n=796)

Grade stabilization structures

(n=804) 37.8% 28.6% 21.8% 11.8% 2.1 (n=804)

Farm Bill Programs

22. Which of the following Farm Bill Programs have you participated in? (Including past and current

participation.)

None (n=292)

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) (n=36)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (n=477)

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) (n=84)

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) (n=160)

Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) (n=4)

Water Bank Program (WBP) (n=7)

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) (n=39)


Cover Crops

23. Cover crops are planted for erosion protection, soil improvement, and water quality

improvement. Please select one option that best describes your experience with cover crops.

Percent

Not relevant

(n=192)

23.0%

Never heard of it and not willing to try it

(n=2)

0.2%

Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it

(n=8)

1.0%

Heard of it and not willing to try it

(n=12)

1.4%

Heard of it and might be willing to try it

(n=130)

15.6%

Used it in the past and not willing to try it again

(n=10)

1.2%

Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again

(n=149)

17.8%

Currently use it

(n=333)

39.8%

24. On what percentage of your following crop acres do you use cover crops?


Corn

(n=95)

5% 100% 56.7%

Soybeans

(n=98)

5% 100% 53.5%

Dry beans

(n=86)

10% 100% 77.1%

Sugar beets

(n=70)

5% 100% 71.5%

Wheat

(n=147)

10% 100% 89.9%

Other

(n=77)


25. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement cover crops?

Not at all

(1)

A little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don't

know

(5)

Mean

(without

5)

Don't know how to do

it

(n=568)

66.9% 11.1% 13.4% 2.8% 5.8% 1.49

(n=33)

Time required

(n=586)

26.1% 22.2% 31.9% 15.2% 4.6% 2.38

(n=27)

Cost

(n=599)

18.0% 17.0% 34.2% 26.0% 4.7% 2.72

(n=28)

Hard to use with my

farming operation

(n=596)

25.2% 23.5% 28.5% 17.8% 5.0% 2.41

(n=30)

Lack of equipment

technology

(n=580)

41.9% 21.9% 20.9% 10.5% 4.8% 2.00

(n=28)

My agronomist/crop

advisor has never

mentioned this practice

(n=568)

63.2% 7.4% 9.7% 3.3% 16.4% 1.44

(n=93)

My agronomist/crop

advisor suggests not

doing this practice

(n=566)

74.7% 2.8% 3.9% 1.1% 17.5% 1.17

(n=99)

Reduced Tillage

26. Reduced Tillage (e.g., no-till, strip-till, ridge-till) is a practice that leaves crop residue from the previous

year on the fields, while limiting soil-disturbing activities to only those necessary to place nutrients,

condition residue and plant crops. Please select one option that best describes your experience with

reduced tillage.

Percent

Not relevant (n=163) 19.2%

Never heard of it and not willing to try it (n=2) 0.2%

Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it (n=6) 0.7%

Heard of it and not willing to try it (n=28) 3.3%

Heard of it and might be willing to try it (n=61) 7.2%

Used it in the past and not willing to try it again (n=21) 2.5%

Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again (n=117) 13.8%

Currently use it (n=451) 53.1%


27. On what percentage of your following crop acres do you use reduced tillage?


Corn

(n=287)

5% 100% 85.4%

Soybeans

(n=338)

5% 100% 86.5%

Dry beans

(n=71)

15% 100% 81.6%

Sugar beets

(n=52)

10% 100% 80.8%

Wheat

(n=205)

8% 100% 92.1%

Other

(n=23)

28. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement reduced tillage?

Not at all

(1)

A little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don't

know

(5)

Mean

(without

5)

Don't know how to do

it

(n=591)

74.5% 7.8% 8.1% 2.4% 7.3% 1.34

(n=43)

Time required

(n=593)

65.1% 11.6% 12.5% 5.1% 5.7% 1.55

(n=34)

Cost

(n=603)

52.6% 12.8% 17.4% 11.8% 5.5% 1.88

(n=33)

Hard to use with my

farming operation

(n=608)

45.4% 13.5% 17.9% 17.1% 6.1 2.07

(n=37)

Lack of equipment

technology

(n=608)

50.2% 11.3% 16.9% 16.1% 5.4% 1.99

(n=33)

My agronomist/crop

advisor has never

mentioned this

practice

(n=589)

71.3% 4.6% 6.3% 1.9% 16.0% 1.27

(n=94)

My agronomist/crop


doing this practice

(n=585)

73.7% 3.1% 4.8% 0.9% 17.6% 1.18

(n=103)


Nutrient Management

29. A nutrient management plan (e.g., Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan, Manure Management

Plan, or Fertilizer Action Plan) is a customized document that describes a farm's production practices and

outlines strategies for addressing its potential water quality impacts. It includes plans for the amount,

source, placement, form and timing of the application of nutrients and soil amendments. Please select

one option that best describes your experience with a nutrient management plan.

30. Who helped you develop your nutrient management plan?

Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCS) (n=84)

Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) (n=35)

Michigan State University Extension (n=35)

Retail agronomist/Crop advisor (n=130)

Independent agronomist/Crop advisor (n=104)

Other (n=22)

31. What is included in your nutrient management plan?

Commercial nutrients (n=254)

Livestock manure (n=133)

Septic waste (n=2)

Municipal sludge (n=5)

Industrial sludge (n=2)

Don't know (n=4)

Other (n=16)

32. How many of the guidelines set forth in your nutrient management plan do you follow?

Percent

Some (n=12) 4.0%

Most (n=115) 38.7%

All (n=153) 51.5%

I’m not sure (n=17) 5.7%

Percent

Not relevant (n=257) 30.9%

Never heard of it and not willing to try it (n=20) 2.4%

Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it (n=64) 7.7%

Heard of it and not willing to try it (n=19) 2.3%

Heard of it and might be willing to try it (n=129) 15.5%

Used it in the past and not willing to try it again (n=5) 0.6%

Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again (n=43) 5.2%

Currently use it (n=294) 35.4%


33. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement a nutrient management plan?

Not at all

(1)

A little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don't

know

(5)

Mean

(without

5)

Don't know how to do it

(n=435) 62.3% 12.6% 12.9% 3.7% 8.5%

1.54

(n=37)

Time required

(n=444) 42.8% 19.1% 22.5% 8.1% 7.4%

1.96

(n=33)

Cost

(n=446) 37.7% 17.9% 22.6% 14.6% 7.2%

2.15

(n=32)

Hard to use with my

farming operation

(n=439)

46.2% 20.5% 17.8% 7.5% 8.0% 1.85

(n=35)

Lack of equipment

technology

(n=445)

46.7% 18.9% 16.0% 11.0% 7.4% 1.91

(n=33)

My agronomist/crop

advisor has never

mentioned this practice

(n=430)

70.7%% 5.1% 7.2% 3.5% 13.5% 1.35

(n=58)

My agronomist/crop


doing this practice

(n=432)

74.3% 4.9% 4.6% 2.3% 13.9% 1.24

(n=60)

Conservation Plans

34. A conservation plan is a customized document that outlines the resource concerns and solutions for the

natural resources on your farm. A conservation plan is required before a landowner can receive federal

payments under Farm Bill conservation programs. Plans are developed free of charge by county NRCS

offices. Do you have a conservation plan for your farm?

Percent

Yes (n=335) 40.2%

No (n=350) 42.0%

I’m not sure (n=149) 17.9%

35. How willing would you be to develop a conservation plan for your farm?

Percent

I’m not sure (n=168) 35.4%

Not willing (n=67) 14.1%

A little willing (n=74) 15.6%

Somewhat willing (n=133) 28.1%

Very willing (n=32) 6.8%


Section 5 – Sources of Information

36. People get information about conservation from a number of different sources. To what extent do you

trust the organizations listed below as a source of information about conservation practices?

Not at all

(1)

Slightly

(2)

Moderately

(3)

Very

Much

(4)

Not

Familiar

(5)

Mean

Farm Service Agency (FSA) 4.2% 8.4% 36.7% 46.2% 4.4% 3.4

(n=833)

Soil and Water Conservation

District (SWCD) 5.6% 12.8% 32.2% 32.3% 17.1%

3.4

(n=823)

Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) 7.1% 16.2% 29.8% 32.6% 14.3%

3.3

(n=821)

Michigan Department of

Natural Resources (MDNR) 17.3% 26.6% 29.5% 17.1% 9.4%

2.8

(n=826)


Environmental Quality

(MDEQ)

27.6% 27.1% 21.9% 10.8% 12.5% 2.5

(n=822)


Agriculture and Rural

Development (MDARD)

12.8% 20.7% 28.3% 16.0% 22.2% 3.1

(n=814)

Michigan State University

Extension 4.6% 11.4% 32.6% 43.7% 7.6%

3.4

(n=821)

Environmental groups (e.g.,

Sierra Club, Audubon Society) 49.3% 17.5% 9.4% 2.2% 21.5%

2.3

(n=815)

The Nature Conservancy

(TNC) 32.0% 16.7% 14.0% 3.0% 34.3%

2.9

(n=813)

Sportsmen groups (e.g., Ducks

Unlimited, Pheasants Forever) 24.0% 22.4% 26.0% 13.4% 14.2%

2.7

(n=818)

Michigan Farm Bureau

11.6% 18.2% 31.9% 28.7% 9.6%

3.1

(n=819)

Michigan Agri-Business

Association (MABA) 13.9% 19.1% 25.5% 13.1% 28.3%

3.2

(n=815)

Commodity groups (corn, dry

beans, sugar beets, wheat,

soybeans)

10.1% 19.2% 36.1% 17.7% 16.9% 3.1

(n=823)

Retail agronomists/Crop

advisors 9.4% 16.4% 34.3% 23.5% 16.3%

3.2

(n=816)

Independent agronomists/Crop

advisors

9.2% 13.3% 34.6% 23.6% 19.4% 3.3

(n=819)

Fertilizer representatives

14.0% 25.4 35.2% 14.5% 10.9%

2.8

(n=819)

Other

landowners/friends/farmers 4.6% 18.9% 45.3% 25.0% 6.2%

3.1

(n=821)


Section 6 - Management Information

Crop Advisors or Agronomists

37. Do you currently use a crop advisor or agronomist?

I have never used a crop advisor (n=283)

I do not currently use a crop advisor, but have used one in the past (n=65)

Yes - I currently use an independent crop advisor (n=123)

Yes - I currently use The Anderson's (n=75)

Yes - I currently use Brown Milling (n=30)

Yes - I currently use Cooperative Elevator Company (n=107)

Yes - I currently use Crop Production Services (n=223)

Yes - I currently use Helena Chemical Co. (n=45)

Yes - I currently use Michigan Agricultural Commodities (n=24)

Yes - I currently use Star of the West Milling Co. (n=77)

Yes - I currently use Wilbur Ellis (n=43)

Yes - Other (n=64)


38. When thinking about crop advisors, please select the answer choice that best represents your opinion.

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither

agree nor

disagree

(3)

Agree

(4)

Strongly

agree

(5)

Mean

It is important to me that

my crop advisor is certified. 2.0% 5.7% 27.4% 47.7% 17.2%

3.7

(n=493)

I would not be able to

manage my farm without

my crop advisor.

12.3% 29.1% 32.8% 21.7% 4.1% 2.7

(n=488)

I am reluctant to change

crop advisors. 3.5% 13.8% 41.3% 34.3% 7.1%

3.3

(n=492)

I trust my crop advisor with

most of my farm

management decisions.

3.1% 9.2% 29.1% 50.3% 8.4% 3.5

(n=491)

I follow my crop advisor's

recommended rates for

phosphorus application.

0.8% 2.0% 17.2% 65.9% 14.0% 3.9

(n=493)

I would like my crop

advisor to help me apply to

Farm Bill conservation

programs.

5.9% 17.2% 55.4% 18.8% 2.7% 3.0

(n=489)

I would like my crop

advisor to provide

farm/field-specific

conservation

recommendations.

3.5% 7.8% 49.5% 35.0% 4.3% 3.3

(n=489)

I would not trust my crop

advisor to make

conservation practice

recommendations.

11.2% 30.0% 45.9% 11.8% 1.2% 2.6

(n=484)

I am willing to pay my crop

advisor for conservation

practice recommendations.

10.7% 21.6% 51.3% 13.8% 2.5% 2.8

(n=485)

My crop advisor will most

likely only provide basic

information about

conservation practices.

5.3% 10.1% 52.2% 30.8% 1.6% 3.1

(n=487)

I think crop advisors will

have the information and

answers about conservation

practices that I will need.

3.7% 7.4% 49.3% 36.6% 3.1% 3.3

(n=489)


Willingness to pay crop advisor

39. How much would you be willing to pay your crop advisor to help you enroll in Farm Bill conservation

programs?

Percent

I would not pay my crop advisor to help me apply for Farm Bill

conservation programs

(n=335)

71.0%

$0.25/acre

(n=67)

14.2%

$0.50/acre

(n=26)

5.5%

$1/acre

(n=28)

5.9%

$2/acre

(n=8)

1.7%

More than $2/acre

(n=8)

1.7%

40. How influential is your crop advisor's advice on recommendations for the following services and/or

decisions?

Not at all

(1)

Slightly

(2)

Somewhat

(3)

Very

(4)

Essential

(5) Mean

Seed type 13.9% 12.9% 35.9% 30.5% 6.8% 3.0

(n=488)

Fertilizer type 2.7% 6.6% 26.6% 51.8% 12.3% 3.7

(n=488)

Fertilizer timing 3.9% 8.2% 31.9% 45.5% 10.5% 3.5

(n=486)

Fertilizer placement 5.6% 9.1% 34.8% 40.4% 10.1% 3.4

(n=485)

Fertilizer rate 3.1% 5.3% 22.4% 53.5% 15.6% 3.7

(n=486)

Manure application 47.4% 10.5% 21.1% 15.4% 5.7% 2.2

(n=456)

Soil testing 1.9% 5.8% 19.4% 49.0% 24.0% 3.9

(n=484)

Crop disease 0..8% 3.7% 18.4% 56.2% 20.9% 2.6

(n=484)

Crop rotation 24.3% 17.5% 34.2% 19.6% 4.3% 2.6

(n=485)

Pesticide/herbicide

application 3.7% 6.0% 21.7% 50.2% 18.4%

3.7

(n=484)

Installation of new

conservation practices 23.8% 21.1% 38.6% 13.4% 3.1%

2.5

(n=484)

Maintenance of current

conservation practices 25.5% 22.8% 34.0% 14.3% 3.5%

2.5

(n=483)


41. When thinking about adopting a new conservation practice or applying to a conservation program, how

strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither Agree

or Disagree

(3)

Agree

(4)

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Mean

It is important for me to visit

other farms to look at their

practices and strategies.

2.4% 6.7% 42.5% 43.3% 5.1% 3.4

(n=804)

Other farmers tend to look to me

for advice. 6.6% 21.8% 53.9% 16.% 1.4%

2.8

(n=799)

I consider myself to be a role

model for other farmers. 5.9% 21.8% 54.6% 16.3% 1.4%

2.9

(n=802)

It is important for me to talk to

other farmers about new

farming practices and strategies.

3.0% 7.5% 36.2% 48.0% 5.4% 3.5

(n=802)

Other farmers tend to look to me

for ideas about conservation

practices.

6.0% 25.8% 54.0% 12.7% 1.5% 2.8

(n=802)

If I was guaranteed funding due

to the environmental condition

of my farm, I would be more

likely to apply to a program.

3.0% 6.0% 40.4% 39.8% 10.8% 3.5

(n=806)

Conservation funding should be

higher for land that is most

vulnerable to soil and water

quality problems.

1.9% 3.2% 27.6% 50.8% 16.5% 3.8

(n=805)

Targeted conservation is a good

idea because limited resources

should be spent where they have

the most impact.

1.9% 2.2% 27.8% 55.2% 12.9% 3.8

(n=801)

Crop insurance program

requirements have prevented me

from adopting conservation

practices.

14.0% 24.8% 54.0% 6.0% 1.3% 2.6

(n=800)

Crop insurance influences my

interest in conservation

practices.

15.8% 21.8% 54.8% 6.6% 1.1% 2.6

(n=800)

42. In the last year, how many days did you work at least 4 hours off-farm? (Includes work on someone

else’s farm for pay.)

Percent

None (n=455) 55.2%

1-49 days (n=113) 13.7%

50-99 days (n=33) 4.0%

100-199 days (n=31) 3.8%

200 days or more (n=192) 23.3%


Appendix B – CA Survey Summary Statistics

2. Do you work with farmers located within the Saginaw Bay watershed indicated as the beige area on the

image on the previous page?

Yes 63.3% n=50

No 36.7% n=29

3. In a typical year, approximately how many times do you visit the actual Saginaw Bay?

Mean = 8.3 visits/year n=43

4. In the past 12 months, indicate if and how you have recreated in any of the following waterways.

Please check all that apply.

n=81

I have not

recreated in

this

waterway

Swimming Fishing Enjoyed

Views Hunting Boating/Canoeing

Cass River 43.2% 0% 7.4% 6.2% 3.7% 3.7%

Chippewa

River 45.7% 0% 2.5% 2.5% 0% 4.9%

Kawkawlin

River 48.1% 2.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 3.4%

Pigeon River 44.4% 0% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 2.5%

Pine River 38.5% 2.5% 4.9% 4.9% 1.2% 6.2%

Pinnebog

River 45.7% 0% 2.5% 3.7% 0% 2.5%

Sebewaing

River 48.1% 0% 2.5% 1.2% 0% 0%

Shiawassee

River 48.1% 1.2% 3.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Saginaw Bay 18.5% 12.3% 24.7% 7.4% 8.6% 18.5%

Saginaw

River 39.5% 0% 6.2% 3.7% 0% 1.2%

Titabawassee

River 32.1% 1.2% 14.8% 2.5% 0% 9.9%


5. Have you heard of the Saginaw Bay Watershed Regional Conservation Partnership Program

(otherwise known as the Saginaw Bay RCPP)?

Yes 73.6% n=39

No 26.4% n=14

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Q8: The goal of the Saginaw Bay Watershed...

6. Where do you recall hearing about the Saginaw Bay RCPP? Please check all that apply.

MABA 39.5% n=32

TNC 16% n=13

Training Event/Conference 11.1% n=9

Local NRCS office 11.1% n=6

Newspaper 9.9% n=8

Local SWCD office 7.4% n=6

My coworkers 7.4% n=6

My customers 7.4% n=6

Website 6.2% n=5

My boss 6.2% n=5

Other farmers/landowners 2.5% n=2

Farm Management firm 1.2% n=1

7. How familiar are you with the Saginaw Bay RCPP?

Not familiar at

all

Slightly

familiar

Moderately

familiar

Very familiar Extremely

familiar

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

2.6% 35.9% 30.8% 23.1% 7.7% M=2.0 n=39


8. The goal of the Saginaw Bay Watershed Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), co-led

by The Nature Conservancy and the Michigan Agri-Business Association, is to increase the amount of

certain conservation practices implemented across the region and maximize the environmental benefits

from such practices to ensure clean, safe water for generations to come. The project relies on crop

advisors to assist growers in the watershed to implement conservation practices including nutrient

management, drainage water management, filter strips, reduced tillage, no till, cover crops and others.

Crop advisors will: 1) recruit farmers via relationships with local agribusinesses, 2) employ a pre-

screening process that ensures the funding is utilized to get the greatest environmental benefits, and 3)

use an online mapping system to help target outreach to highly qualified farmers and track long term

progress.

9. Traditionally, to access this type of federal funding, farmers had to visit their county National

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office to inquire about available programs and to fill out an

application. Roughly how many times have you or a farmer you have worked with applied for

conservation funding via an NRCS program in the past 10 years?

Never 1-3 times 4-9 times 10 times or more Scale = 1-4

21.6% 33.3% 23.5% 21.6% M=2.5 n=51

If Never Is Selected, Then Skip To Q12: Do you anticipate any hurdles in engaging in ...

10. How satisfied have you been with the application process under NRCS programs?

Extremely

dissatisfied

(1)

Somewhat

dissatisfied

(2)

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied (3)

Somewhat

satisfied

(4)

Extremely

satisfied

(5)

No

experience

with the

process (6)

Mean/n

7.1% 23.8% 28.6% 16.7% 4.8% 19.0% Mean w/o

(6) =2.9

n=34

11. How satisfied have you been with the funding process under NRCS programs?

Extremely

dissatisfied

(1)

Somewhat

dissatisfied

(2)

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied (3)

Somewhat

satisfied

(4)

Extremely

satisfied

(5)

No

experience

with the

process (6)

Mean/n

19.0% 31.0% 23.8% 0% 4.8% 21.4% Mean w/o

(6) = 2.2

N=33


12. Do you anticipate any hurdles in engaging with the Saginaw Bay RCPP conservation program? Please

check all that apply.

Don't know enough to answer 33.3% n=27

Takes too much time 17.3% n=14

The program does not create a profit 12.3% n=10

Crop advisor role is unnecessary due to other support/resources available 12.3% n=10

Perceived attitude of farmers about conservation practices 11.1% n=9

Lack of training/technical expertise 9.9% n=10

Lack of external funding for cost-share practices 8.6% n=7

Too difficult to understand 6.2% n=5

Perceived attitude of farmers about Farm Bill programs 6.2% n=5

Customers will not be interested 4.9% n=4

Conservation takes land out of production 3.7% n=3

Supervisor does not support it 1.2% n=1

Other: please specify 6.2% n=5

13. Because the Saginaw Bay RCPP is just beginning to roll out, what are your early expectations

regarding its potential ability to influence farmers and/or local agricultural practices?

Will not be

influential

at all (0)

May be

slightly

influential (1)

May be

somewhat

influential (2)

May be very

influential

(3)

May be

extremely

influential (4)

Don't

know

(5)

Scale = 0-4

n=53

19.0% 31.0% 23.8% 0% 4.8% 21.4% Mean w/o

(5) =1.8

14. Have you attended a training session demonstrating how to use the Great Lakes Watershed

Management System (GLWMS), the online mapping system used in the RCPP?

Yes 17.3% n=14

No 45.7% n=37

Unsure 2.5% n=2

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Q17: How likely are you to use GLWMS in th...

15. How comfortable do you feel using the GLWMS to run the pre-screening process?

Extremely

uncomfortable

Somewhat

uncomfortable

Neither

comfortable nor

uncomfortable

Somewhat

comfortable

Extremely

comfortable

Mena/n

Scale = 1-5

6.7% 33.0% 26.7% 20% 13.3% M = 3.0 n=15

16. Do you feel that you need more training on how to use the GLWMS?

Yes 40% n=6

Maybe 33.3% n=5

No 26.7% n=4

17. How likely are you to use GLWMS in the future?

Extremely

unlikely

Somewhat

unlikely

Neither likely nor

unlikely

Somewhat

likely

Extremely

likely

Mean/n

Scale = 1-5

7.7% 13.5% 30.8% 32.7% 15.4% M = 3.35 n=52


18. At the END OF THE FIRST YEAR of the Saginaw Bay RCPP program, how important do you

think the following attributes will be in helping you assess the progress of the program? Please select all

that apply.

Number of acres placed under conservation practices 44.4% n=36

Pounds of phosphorus runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 40.7% n=33

Tons of sediment runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 29.6% n=24

Number of applicants 27.2% n=22

Number of agricultural retailers participating 21.0% n=17

Number of contracts signed 19.8% n=16

Number of customers referred to NRCS from crop advisors for further information 19.8% n=16

Dollars spent on conservation practices 17.3% n=14

Pounds of nitrogen runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 13.6% n=11

Number of new customers that came to you for RCPP related reasons 4.9% n=4


19. The Nature Conservancy plans to conduct training seminars about conservation practices and the

Saginaw Bay RCPP. How much of a priority will it be for you to attend these training seminars?

Not a priority Low priority Medium

priority

High

priority

Essential

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

7.7% 19.2% 42.3% 25.0% 5.8% M = 2.0

n=52

20. Would you be more likely to attend such training (as described above) if CCA continuing education

credits were provided?

Yes 59.6% n=31

Maybe 23.1% n=12

No 17.3% n=9

21. How can the Saginaw Bay RCPP project team best help you engage in the project (i.e., talk to your

customers about conservation needs and help them apply for funding)? Please check all that apply.

Offer group training sessions on the costs and benefits of conservation practices you

may be unfamiliar with

37% n=30

Provide a guide to help you start the conversation with your customers about

implementing conservation on the farm

28.4% n=23

Advertise funding opportunities directly to producers and encourage them to contact

their ag retailer for more information

18.5% n=15

Evaluate any digital boundary layers you have for your customer's farms and tell you

which ones are highly qualified for funding

16.0% n=13

Provide rewards or professional recognition to those who do extremely well in

recruiting farmers into the Saginaw Bay RCPP project

7.4% n=6

Meet individually with you to explain the program and answer your questions 7.4% n=6

None of above, don't know enough to respond 6.2% n=5

Accompany you on initial meetings with growers to help you explain the program

and funding opportunities

3.7% n=3

Meet individually with your manager to explain the program and answer their

questions

1.2% n=1

None of above, don't want to engage 1.2% n=1



22. What types of rewards or professional recognition would most motivate you to engage with the

Saginaw Bay RCPP? Please check all that apply

Invitations to participate in unique field events n=15

Ability to obtain a special certification n=15

Promotional thank-you items n=11

Monetary awards for top recruiters n=8

Public recognition of top recruiters n=7

Other: please specify n=7

23. How concerned are you that more stringent water quality regulations may be enacted in the future to

protect or improve water quality in the Saginaw Bay Watershed?

Not at all

concerned

Slightly

concerned

Somewhat

concerned

Moderately

concerned

Extremely

concerned

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

4.9% 3.7% 11.1% 23.5% 16.0% M = 2.7 n=52

24. Below is a list of water quality pollutants from urban and rural areas that can become a problem when

present in excessive amounts. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following in the Saginaw

Bay watershed.

Not a

problem (1)

Slight

problem (2)

Moderate

problem (3)

Severe

problem (4)

Don't

know (5)

Mean

(M)

without 5

Sediment 0% 33.3% 47.9% 14.6% 4.2% M=1.8

n=48

Nitrate/Nitrogen 4.3% 44.7% 34.0% 12.8% 4.3% M=1.6

n=47

Particulate

Phosphorus 0% 41.7% 31.3% 25.0% 2.1%

M=1.8

n=48

Dissolved

Reactive

Phosphorus

2.1% 29.2% 37.5% 25.0% 6.3% M=1.9

n=48

Bacteria in the

water (e.g., E

coli)

6.3% 20.8% 31.3% 37.5% 4.2% M=2.0

n=48

"Muck" 6.3% 29.2% 37.5% 14.6% 12.5% M=1.7

n=48

Heavy metals or

contaminants

such as dioxins

0% 33.3% 33.3% 18.8% 14.6% M=1.8

n=48


25. When thinking about regulatory approaches and how to foster conservation programs, what do you

feel represents the best approach as measured along this continuum?

0

(government-

mandated)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

(completely

voluntary)

Mean

0% 0% 6.7% 5.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 22.7% 24.0% 6.7% 6.7% M=6.5

n=75

26. Do you foresee any of the following as a benefit from helping a customer get funding to install

conservation practices? Please check all that apply.

Improved water quality 77.8% n=63

Enhanced environmental stewardship 67.9% n=55

Potentially prevents further regulation of the agricultural community 65.4% n=53

Protection of drinking water 56.8% n=46

Enhanced loyalty with customers 45.7% n=37

Improved fishing or boating opportunities 43.2% n=35

Provides another reason to contact customers 30.9% n=25

Potential referral from customers 29.6% n=24

Improved hunting opportunities 24.7% n=20

Sense of pride/self-esteem for me 23.5% n=19

Professional achievement/recognition for me 13.6% n=11

Financial benefit for me 12.3% n=10

I see no potential benefits 2.5% n=2


27. Are you aware of an increase in regulation in any of the following areas due to poor water quality

issues?

Not at all

aware

Slightly

aware

Somewhat

aware

Moderately

aware

Extremely

aware

Mean/n

scale= 0-4

Chesapeake

Bay 10.8% 4.1% 28.4% 29.7% 27.7%

M=2.6

n=74

Des Moines,

Iowa 32.9% 17.8% 19.2% 13.7% 16.4%

M=1.6

n=73

Albemarle-

Pamlico

Sound

68.1% 15.9% 8.7% 1.4% 5.8% M=0.6

n=69

Lake Erie 0% 10.8% 13.5% 31.1% 44.6% M=3.1

n=74


28. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements regarding

conservation practices including filter strips, cover crops and conservation tillage but NOT including

nutrient management activities?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Mean/n

scale = 1-5

Conservation practices

have a role to play in

addressing water quality

issues

0% 1.4% 2.8% 36.1% 59.7% M=4.5

n=72

Incorporating

discussions about

conservation is a natural

extension of my job as a

crop advisor

1.4% 1.4% 16.7% 55.6% 25.0% M=4.0

n=72

I am knowledgeable

enough to talk about


with farmers

1.4% 5.6% 15.3% 41.7% 36.1% M=4.1

n=72

I am comfortable

talking about


with farmers

2.4% 2.8% 19.4% 34.7% 41.7% M=4.1

n=72

The procedures/policies

for the Saginaw Bay

RCPP program are clear

to me

13.9% 33.3% 43.1% 6.9% 2.8% M=2.5

n=72

Incorporating


into my business makes

financial sense for me

4.2% 12.7% 29.6% 36.6% 16.9% M=3.5

n=71

My organization

supports conservation 0% 2.8% 6.9% 33.3% 56.9%

M=4.4

n=72

My organization

supports innovation 4.2% 0% 1.4% 32.4% 62.0%

M=4.5

n=71

My direct supervisor

supports promoting


0% 4.2% 18.1% 29.2% 48.6% M=4.2

n=72

29. How frequently do farmers initiate conversations with you about utilizing conservation practices (NOT

including nutrient management activities) on their land?

Never Sometimes About half the

time

Most of the

time

Always Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

6.9% 65.3% 18.1% 6.9% 2.8% M=2.3

n=72


30. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statement. Crop advisors

should have an important role to play regarding the following services/decisions.

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Mean/n

Scale = 1-5

Maintenance of

current conservation

practices

4.2% 8.3% 12.5% 47.2% 27.8% M=3.9

n=72

Installation of new

conservation

practices

4.2% 8.3% 13.9% 47.2% 26.4% M=3.8

n=72

Seed type 2.8% 4.2% 18.1% 36.1% 38.9% M=4.0

n=72

Fertilizer type 0% 1.4% 4.2% 31.9% 62.5% M=4.6

n=72

Fertilizer timing 0% 1.4% 1.4% 30.6% 66.7% M=4.6

n=72

Fertilizer placement 0% 0% 5.6% 27.8%. 66.7% M=4.6

n=72

Manure application 2.8% 1.4% 8.5% 32.4% 59.2% M=4.4

n=71

Soil testing 0% 1.4% 1.4% 23.6% 73.6% M=4.7

n=72

Crop disease 0% 2.8% 8.3% 27.8% 61.1% M=4.5

n=72

Crop rotation 1.4% 4.2% 11.3% 33.8% 49.3% M=4.3

n=71

Pesticide/herbicide

application 1.4% 0% 7.0% 29.6% 62.0%

M=4.5

n=71


31. Please indicate how likely you are to recommend the following conservation practices.

Extremely

unlikely

Somewhat

unlikely

Neither

likely nor

unlikely

Somewhat

likely

Extremely

likely

Mean/n

Scale = 1-

5

Grass/tree riparian

buffers or filter strips 5.6% 14.1% 22.5% 45.1% 12.7%

M=3.5

n=71

Cover crops 8.5% 5.6% 5.6% 29.6% 50.7% M=4.1

n=71

Reduced tillage 7.1% 17.1% 14.3% 38.6% 22.9% M=3.5

n=70

Conservation cover 5.7% 12.9% 28.6% 40.0% 12.9% M=3.4

n=70

Drainage water

management 7.0% 9.9% 21.1% 42.3% 19.7%

M=3.6

n=71

Saturated buffers 2.8% 7.0% 47.9% 35.2% 7.0% M=3.4

n=71

Grassed waterways 4.2% 16.9% 21.1% 43.7% 14.1% M=3.5

n=71

Windbreaks/shelterbelt

establishment 7.5% 10.4% 46.3% 25.4% 10.4%

M=3.2

n=67

Variable rate application

of phosphorus 15.7% 1.4% 5.7% 22.9% 54.3%

M=4.0

n=70

Gypsum application 8.5% 7.0% 16.9% 28.2% 39.4% M=3.8

n=71

Regular soil testing 14.3% 1.4% 1.4% 8.6% 74.3% M=4.3

n=70

Treatment wetland 8.5% 16.9% 56.3% 9.9% 8.5% M=2.9

n=71

Grade stabilization

structures 7.0% 16.9% 52.1% 15.5% 8.5%

M=3.0

n=71

Nutrient Management

Plans 9.9% 5.6% 5.6% 28.2% 50.7%

M=4.0

n=71

Forage and Biomass

Establishment 5.6% 11.3% 45.1% 25.4% 12.7%

M=3.3

n=71


32. In your opinion, how effective do you feel each of the following conservation practices can be in

addressing water quality issues?

Not

effective

at all

Slightly

effective

Moderately

effective

Very

effective

Extremely

effective

Don’t

know

Mean (w/o

“don’t know”)

Scale = 0-4

Grass/tree

riparian buffers

or filter strips

2.9% 7.1% 34.3% 27.1% 22.9% 5.7% M=2.6 n=66

Cover crops 2.9% 4.3% 14.5% 44.9% 33.3% 0% M=3.0 n=69

Reduced tillage 1.5% 10.3% 23.5% 39.7% 22.1% 2.9% M=2.7 n=66

Conservation

cover 0% 5.7% 22.9% 37.1% 28.6% 5.7% M=2.9 n=66

Drainage water

management 0% 2.9% 30.0% 35.7% 30.0% 1.4% M=2.9 n=69

Saturated buffers 05 5.95 29.4% 35.3% 11.8% 17.6% M=2.6 n=56

Grassed

waterways 1.4% 5.8% 18.8% 46.4% 27.5% 0% M=2.9 n=69

Windbreaks/shelt

erbelt

establishment

2.9% 7.2% 43.5% 24.6% 14.5% 7.2% M=2.4 n=64

Variable rate

application of

phosphorus

0% 2.9% 18.6% 34.3% 42.9% 1.4% M=3.2 n=69

Gypsum

application 2.9% 11.4% 22.9% 32.9% 24.3% 5.7% M=2.7 n=66

Regular soil

testing 0% 1.4% 10.1% 31.9% 56.5% 0% M=3.4 n=69

Treatment

wetland 1.5% 9.0% 35.8% 20.9% 16.4% 16.4% M=2.5 n=56

Grade

stabilization

structures

1.4% 13.0% 31.9% 27.5% 15.9% 10.1% M=2.5 n=62

Nutrient

Management

Plans

0% 2.9% 8.7% 43.5% 44.9% 0% M=3.3 n=69

Forage and

Biomass

Establishment

0% 8.7%% 30.4% 37.7% 20.3% 2.9% M=2.7 n=67


33. How could the conservation community best ensure that conservation practices (such as the ones listed

above) continue to be implemented even after farmers stop receiving government funding for the

practices? Please check all that apply.

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive special legal

protections

63.0% n=51

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive immunity from

future regulations

56.8% n=46



43.2% n=35


34. When considering your needs in regards to making decisions about conservation practices which, if

any, of the following items do you feel you need more information about? Please check all that apply.

Information on types of eligible practices 64.2% n=52

Information on funding support by practice 56.8% n=46

Information on implementation costs by practice 54.3% n=44

Information about where to go to get answers 50.6% n=41

Information on how to identify resource concerns and make conservation

recommendations to customers

42.0% n=34

None of the above 8.6% n=7



35. Please select the answer choice that best represents your opinion.

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

agree nor

disagree

Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Mean/n

Scale = 1-5

It is important that I

am professionally

certified as a crop

advisor

7.4% 4.4% 16.2% 27.9% 44.1% M=4.0 n=68

Farmers I work with

seem to trust me

with most of their

farm management

decisions

4.4% 1.5% 14.7% 35.3% 44.1% M=4.1 n=68

I help farmers apply

to Farm Bill

conservation

programs

13.4% 25.4% 43.3% 9.0% 9.0% M=2.8 n=67

I provide farm/field

specific

recommendations

regarding

conservation

practices

2.9% 14.7% 16.2% 45.6% 20.6% M=3.7 n=68

I only provide

general information

about Farm Bill

conservation

programs

13.4% 14.9% 38.8% 28.4% 4.5% M=3.0 n=67

I have the

information and

answers about

conservation

practices that

farmers will most

likely need

13.4% 25.4% 22.4% 26.9% 11.9% M=3.0 n=67

Regulations are

necessary to protect

water quality

9.0% 22.4% 25.4% 26.9% 16.4% M=3.2 n=67

Regulations are too

complex 5.9% 4.4% 20.6% 35.3% 33.8% M=3.9 m=68

Regulations are

inflexible 4.4% 7.4% 22.1% 39.7% 26.5% M=3.8 n=68

36. In your opinion, do you think crop advisors should receive compensation for discussing conservation

programs/practices regardless of whether a farmer enrolls in a program or not?

Yes 26.5% n=18

No 27.9% n=19

I’m not sure 45.6% n=31


37. In your opinion, should crop advisors receive compensation to help farmers enroll in Farm Bill

Conservation programs?

Yes 42.6% n=29

No 29.4% n=20

I’m not sure 27.9% n=19

38. Which of the options below do you think represents the best way to compensate crop advisors for

discussing conservation practices?

Per acre compensation 46.7% n=28

Flat fee compensation 46.7% n=28


If Flat fee compensation Is Selected, Then Skip To Q39: What do you feel represents a fair fl...If Other: please

specify is selected, then skip to Q40: To what extent do you trust the organ...

39. Which of the following do you feel represents an appropriate amount of compensation?

$0.25/acre 27.6% n=8

$0.50/acre 3.4% n=1

$1/acre 51.7% n=15

$2/acre 6.9% n=2

More than $2/acre 10.3% n=3


40. To what extent do you trust the organizations listed below as a source of information about

conservation practices?

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Not familiar Mean/n

Scale = 0-3

FSA 1.5% 20.05 56.9% 18.5% 3.1% M=2.0

n=63

SWCD 1.5% 10.4% 35.8% 49.3% 3.0% M=2.4

n=65

NRCS 3.0% 13.4% 26.9% 53.7% 3.0% M=2.4

n=65

MDNR 10.4% 22.4% 40.3% 26.9% 0% M=1.8

n=67

MDEQ 23.1% 29.2% 38.5% 7.7% 1.5% M=1.3

n=64

MDARD 7.5% 23.9% 35.8% 23.9% 9.0% M=1.8

n=61

MSU EXT 1.5% 13.6% 34.8% 45.5% 4.5% M=2.3

n=63

Environmental

Groups 54.5% 27.3% 16.7% 1.5% 0%

M=0.7

n=66

TNC 21.2% 24.2% 34.8% 12.1% 7.6% M=1.4

n=61

Sportsmen

groups 10.8% 30.8% 44.6% 1-.8% 3.1%

M=1.6

n=63

Michigan

Farm Bureau 1.5% 12.3% 43.1% 40.0% 3.1%

M=2.3

n=63

MABA 4.6% 9.2% 18.5% 58.5% 9.2% M=2.4

n=659

Commodity

groups 6.2% 12.3% 36.9% 43.1% 1.5%

M=2.2

n=64


41. Are you concerned at all about working with conservation personnel or organizations?

Not at all

concerned

Slightly

concerned

Somewhat

concerned

Moderately

concerned

Extremely

concerned

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

47.8% 32.8% 10.4% 4.5% 4.5% M=0.9 n=67

42. Are you certified by the American Society of Agronomy (ASA) as a Certified Crop Adviser (CCA)?

Yes 89.7% n=61

No 10.3% n=7

43. Do you plan to become certified?

Yes 42.9% n=3

Maybe 42.9% n=3

No 14.3% n=1

44. What is your area of professional expertise?

Agronomy/Crop Production 50% n=24

Fertility & soil health 18.8% n=9

Chemical/fertilizer sales 10.4% n=5

Specialty crops production 8.3% n=4

Pest management 6.3% n=3

Research & Development 4.2% n=2

Conservation adviser 2.1% n=1

45. Below are two certifications offered by the American Society of Agronomy do you plan to pursue either

of these certifications?

Yes Maybe No

I have

started the

program

I have

completed

the program

Sustainability

Specialty 12.1% 53.0% 30.3% 3.0% 1.5% n=66

4R

Certification 22.1% 45.6% 22.1% 1.5% 8.8% n=68

46. Which of the following planning horizons best represents the time frame for the

advice/recommendations you provide?

Days to

weeks

Weeks to

months

More than 1

year out

40.3%% 44.8% 14.9% n=67


47. How frequently do you communicate with your farmers through each of the following methods?

Never Rarely Occasionally Most of the

time Always

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

In person 0% 2.9% 22.1% 61.8% 13.2% M=2.9

n=68

By telephone 1.5% 1.5% 29.9% 49.3% 17.9% M=2.8

n=67

By email 1.5% 19.4% 56.7% 17.9% 4.5% M=3.0

n=67

48. How many minutes on average do you spend with a farmer each time you meet with them?

Mean = 36 Std. Dev. = 21 Min. = 0 Max = 120

49. What is your gender?

Male 84.2% n=48

No 15.8% n=9

50. What is the highest level of school you completed?

Some

formal

schooling

High school

diploma/GED

Some

college

2 year

college

degree

4 year

college

degree

Post-

graduate

degree

Mean/n

Scale = 1-6

1.5% 6.2% 13.8% 16.9% 44.6% 16.9% M=4.5 n=65

51. What is your age?

Mean = 48.7 Std. Dev. = 12.0 Min. = 24 Max = 70


Appendix C – NRCS-SWCD Survey Summary Statistics

2. Based on your experience, which of the following time-frames best represents the conservation

planning horizon that landowners/farmers are thinking about when they talk with you about


Days to

weeks

Weeks to

months

More than 1

year out

Mean/n

Scale: 1-3

12.7% 60.0% 27.3% M=2.2 n=55

3. Who do you typically work with when developing a conservation plan?

Never Sometimes About half the

time

Most of the

time

Always Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

Farm mgt. firm 75.0% 20% 0% 5.0% 0% M=0.4

n=40

Landowners 1.9% 7.4% 14.8% 46.3% 29.6% M=2.9

n=54

Tenants 11.1% 33.3% 24.4% 17.8% 13.3% M=1.9

n=45

Crop advisers 53.8% 46.2% 0% 0% 0% M=0.5

n=39

4. How effective are the following Farm Bill conservation programs at addressing water quality

challenges?

Not

effective

at all

Slightly

effective

Moderately

effective

Very

effective

Extremely

effective

Don’t

know

Mean w/o

“don’t know”

Scale = 0-4

CRP 1.9% 3.7% 20.4% 48.1% 22.2% 3.7% M=2.1 n=54

EQIP 0% 3.7% 20.4% 55.6% 16.7% 3.7% M=2.1 n=54

WRP 1.9% 13.2% 30.2% 43.4% 5.7% 5.7% M=2.6 n=53

CSP 1.9% 24.5% 37.7% 26.4% 5.7% 3.8% M=2.9 n=53

HFRP 3.7% 1.9% 24.1% 14.8% 0% 55.6% M=2.7 n=54

Water Bank

program

1.9% 1.9% 5.6% 13.0% 5.6% 72.2% M=2.1 n=54


5. Multiple organizations in the agricultural community have a potential role in helping farmers identify

programs, information, and practices that meet their on-farm conservation needs and address

watershed-scale problems. How influential do you think the following organizations could be in

fulfilling this role?

Not at all

influential

Slightly

influential

Moderately

influential

Very

influential

Not

familiar

Mean w/o

“not familiar”

Scale = 0-3

FSA 1.8% 32.7% 30.9% 32.7% 1.8% M=2.0 n=55

SWCD 1.8% 7.3% 12.7% 76.4% 1.8% M=2.7 n=55

NRCS 0% 1.8% 12.7% 83.6% 1.8% M=2.9 n=55

Retail-affiliated CAs 1.9% 32.1% 35.8% 18.9% 11.3% M=2.1 n=53

Independent CAs 9.3% 35.2% 29.6% 14.8% 11.1% M=1.8 n=54

Farmers/landowners 1.9% 5.6% 20.4% 70.4% 1.9% M=2.6 n=54

MABA 9.4% 28.3% 34.0% 15.1% 13.2% M=1.9 n=54

Commodity groups 13.0% 35.2% 20.4% 20.4% 11.1% M=1.8 n=54

Fertilizer reps 18.5% 35.2% 22/2% 18.5% 5.6% M=1.6 n=54

MSU EXT 1.9% 14.8% 31.5% 50.0% 1.9% M=2.4 n=54

MI-DNR 1.9% 37.0% 27.8% 31.5% 1.9% M=1.9 n=54

MI-DEQ 5.5% 27.3% 34.5% 30.9% 1.8% M=2.0 n=55

MI-DARD 0% 16.4% 43.6% 38.2% 1.8% M=2.3 n=55

Environmental

groups 20.4% 33.3% 25.9% 14.8% 5.6% M=1.5 n=54

TNC 3.7% 37.0% 35.2% 20.4% 3.7% M=1.8 n=54

Sportsmen groups 1.9% 27.8% 38.9% 27.8% 3.7% M=2.0 n=54

MI Farm Bureau 3.8% 17.0% 34.0% 43.4% 1.9% M=2.2 n=53


6. Ten years from now, how do you see the role of conservation organizations (e.g. NRCS, SWCDs)

changing with respect to translating conservation policy into on-the-ground implementation of


See Full Report for qualitatively analyzed answers

7. Because of the frequency with which they interact with farmers, some Great Lakes conservation

initiatives are partnering with CAs to deliver information on conservation programs and practices.

How comfortable are you with CAs fulfilling this role?

Not comfortable

at all

Slightly

comfortable

Somewhat

comfortable

Moderately

comfortable

Extremely

comfortable

Mean/n

Scale = 1-5

27.5% 23.5% 19.6% 21.6% 7.8% M=1.6 n=51

8. Please describe the main reason(s) for your rating in the question above.


9. How influential do you think these crop advisors will be in promoting on-farm conservation practices

and programs?

Not at all Slightly

influential

Somewhat

influential

Very

influential

Extremely

influential

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

13.7% 35.3% 29.4% 21.6% 0% M=1.6 n=51

10. How should CAs be compensated, if at all, for promoting on-farm conservation practices and

programs?


11. If crop advisors were to receive compensation for this work, what structures would need to be in place

to verify that conservation services that crop advisors say they provide (e.g. writing a nutrient

management plan) are actually implemented on the ground?


12. Broadly speaking, where along the continuum below do you think the majority of the water quality

impairments throughout the Saginaw Bay watershed originate?

0 (urban

causes) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 (rural

causes) Mean

0% 2.0% 5.9% 3.9% 11.8% 39.2% 17.6% 7.8% 5.9% 5.9% 0% M=5.3

n=51

13. Broadly speaking, where along the continuum below do you think represents the best way to foster

conservation practices that improve water quality in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

0 (gov’t-

mandated) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 (totally

voluntary) Mean/n

2.0% 2% 5.9% 11.8% 9.8% 23.5% 15.7% 9.8% 5.9% 9.8% 3.9% M=5.4

n=51


14. How concerned are you that more stringent water quality regulations may be enacted in the future to

improve water quality in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

Not at all

concerned

Slightly

concerned

Somewhat

concerned

Moderately

concerned

Extremely

concerned

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

11.8% 15.7% 33.3% 23.5% 15.7% M = 2.2 n=51

15. How supportive would you be of future regulations that improve water quality by mitigating

agricultural nonpoint source pollution in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

Not at all

supportive

Slightly

supportive

Somewhat

supportive

Moderately

supportive

Extremely

supportive

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

6.0% 24.0% 32.0% 24.0% 14.0% M = 2.2 n=50

16. Below is a list of water quality pollutants from urban and rural areas that can become a problem when

present in excessive amounts. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following in the Saginaw

Bay watershed.

Not a

problem

Slight

problem

Moderate

problem

Severe

problem

Don't

know

Mean w/o

“don’t know”

Scale = 0-3

Sediment 0% 9.8% 41.2% 45.1% 3.9% M=1.4 n=51

Nitrates/Nitrogen 0% 11.8% 45.1% 47.3% 5.9% M=1.4 n=51

Phosphorus 0% 0% 33.3% 60.8% 5.9% M=1.7 n=51

Bacteria in water 0% 14.8% 38.0% 40.0% 8.0% M=1.4 n=50

"Muck" 9.8% 31.4% 37.3% 9.8% 11.8% M=1.0 n=46

Heavy metals 0% 19.6% 45.1% 21.6% 13.7% M=1.3 n=51


17. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In your opinion, how

much of a problem are the following in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

Not a

problem

Slight

problem

Moderate

problem

Severe

problem

Don't

know

Mean w/o

“don’t know”


into streams and lakes 0% 23.5% 45.1% 23.5% 7.8% M=2.2 n=51

Discharges from

wastewater 0% 16.0% 34.0% 42.0% 8.0% M=2.4 n=50

Soil erosion from farm

fields 0% 9.8% 62.7% 23.5% 3.9% M=2.2 n=51

Soil erosion from

shorelines and/or stream

banks

0% 21.6% 51.0% 23.5% 3.9% M=2.1 n=51

Lawn fertilizers and/or

pesticides 0% 11.8% 49.0% 37.3% 2.0% M=2.3 n=51

Fertilizers or manure

used for crop production 2.0% 9.8% 52.9% 31.4% 3.9% M=2.3 n=51

Improperly maintained

septic systems 0% 9.8% 35.3% 49.0% 5.9% M=2.5 n=51

Manure from farm

animals 2.0% 7.8% 66.7% 19.6% 3.9% M=2.2 n=51


of trash 0% 41.2% 39.2% 17.6% 2.0% M=1.8 n=51

Pesticides or herbicides

used for crop production 2.0% 26.0% 54.0% 14.0% 4.0% M=1.9 n=50

Animal feeding

operations 3.9% 21.6% 54.9% 13.7% 5.9% M=2.0 n=51

Urban storm water

runoff (e.g. highways,

rooftops)

0% 21.6% 41.2% 33.3% 3.9% M=2.2 n=51

Removal of stream bank

vegetation 0% 21.6% 31.4% 41.2% 5.9% M=2.3 n=51


18. Poor water quality can lead to a variety of consequences for communities. In your opinion,

how much of a problem are the following issues in the Saginaw Bay watershed?

Not a

problem

Slight

problem

Moderate

problem

Severe

problem

Don't

know

Mean w/o

“don’t know”

Contaminated

drinking water 3.9% 37.3% 25.5% 27.5% 5.9% M=1.8 n=51

Contaminated fish 2.0% 28.0% 34.0% 28.0% 8.0% M=2.0 n=50

Loss of desirable

fish species 0% 15.7% 39.2% 37.3% 7.8% M=2.2 n=51

Reduced beauty of

rivers and streams 2.0% 33.3% 35.3% 27.5% 2.0% M=1.9 n=51

Reduced

opportunities for

water recreation

3.9% 25.5% 45.1% 23.5% 2.0% M=1.9 n=51

Reduced quality of

water recreation

activities

3.9% 29.4% 41.2% 23.5% 2.0% M=1.9 n=51

Excessive aquatic

plants or algae 2.0% 9.8% .47.1% 33.3% 7.8% M=2.1 n=51

Fish kills 9.8% 21.6% 25.5% 27.5% 15.7% M=1.8n=51

Odor 7.8% 37.3% 27.5% 13.7% 13.7% M=1.5 n=51

Lower property

values 13.7% 35.3% 27.5% 7.8% 15.7% M=1.3 n=51

19. How could the conservation community best ensure that conservation practices (such as the ones listed

above) continue to be implemented even after farmers stop receiving government funding for the

practices? Please check all that apply.

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive special legal

protections

90.0% n=45



78.0% n=39

Farmers who continue to implement conservation practices receive immunity from

future regulations

40.0% n=20


20. What do you know about the Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in

terms of its goals, who is involved, and how it has gone in its first year?


21. How familiar are you with the Saginaw Bay Watershed RCPP?

Not familiar at

all

Slightly

familiar

Moderately

familiar

Very familiar Extremely

familiar

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

6.0% 36.0% 24.0% 18.0% 16.0% M=2.0 n=50

If NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR is selected, skip to Q25.


22. Where did you first hear about the Saginaw Bay RCPP?

NRCS 89.1% n=41

Training Event/Conference 32.6% n=15

TNC 21.7% n=10

Website 19.6% n=9


MABA 2.2% n=1

Newspaper 2.2% n=1

Other farmers/landowners 2.2% n=1

Farm Management firm 0% n=0

23. How clear are the procedures/policies for the Saginaw Bay RCPP?

Not clear at all Slightly clear Moderately

clear

Very clear Extremely

clear

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

6.8% 20.5% 54.5% 18.2% 0% M=1.8 n=44

24. How knowledgeable are you about the following components of the RCPP?

Not

knowledge-

able at all

Slightly

knowledge-

able

Moderately

knowledge-

able

Very

knowledge-

able

Extremely

knowledge-

able

Mean/n

Scale = 0-4

Landowner

eligibility

screening

process

10.9% 28.3% 28.3% 21.7% 10.9% M=1.9 n=46

GLWMS tool 17.4% 39.1% 23.9% 8.7% 10.9% M=1.6 n=46

Qualifying

limitations for

farmer

participation

13.0% 30.4% 30.4% 15.2% 10.9% M=1.8 n=46

Role of CAs

in the program 30.4% 28.3% 28.3% 4.3% 8.7% M=1.3 n=46

Funding

mechanism

for program

15.2% 28.3% 28.3% 15.2% 13.0% M=1.8 n=46

Schedule of

program 19.6% 23.9% 30.4% 15.2% 10.9% M=1.7 n=46

How RCPP

differs from

other

programs

10.9% 28.3% 34.8% 15.2% 10.9% M=1.9 n=46


25. The goal of the Saginaw Bay Watershed Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), co-led

by The Nature Conservancy and the Michigan Agri-Business Association, is to increase the amount of

certain conservation practices implemented across the region and maximize the environmental benefits

from such practices to ensure clean, safe water for generations to come. The project relies on crop

advisors to assist growers in the watershed to implement conservation practices including nutrient

management, drainage water management, filter strips, reduced tillage, no till, cover crops and others.

Crop advisors will: 1) recruit farmers via relationships with local agribusinesses, 2) employ a pre-

screening process that ensures the funding is utilized to get the greatest environmental benefits, and 3)

use an online mapping system to help target outreach and track long term progress.

26. Which barriers, if any do you think present the greatest hurdles to you engaging with the Saginaw Bay

RCPP conservation program? Please check all that apply.



Too difficult to partner with CAs 27.1% n=13

Lack of training/technical expertise 22.3% n=11

RCPP does not create enough incentives for farmers/landowners 18.8% n=9

RCPP does not create enough incentives for CAs 16.7% n=8

Farmers/landowners will not be interested 16.7% n=8

Takes too much time 12.5% n=6

Lack of external funding for cost-share practices 12.5% n=6

Too difficult to understand 8.3% n=4


Supervisor does not support it 4.2% n=2

The program does not create a profit 4.2% n=2

27. Which barriers, if any do you think present the greatest hurdles to farmers engaging with the Saginaw

Bay RCPP conservation program? Please check all that apply.

Farmers’ attitudes about Farm Bill programs 41.7% n=20

CAs lack the proper training/expertise 35.4% n=17



Ambiguity about financial support after RCPP funds expire 25.0% n=12

Too difficult for applicant to understand 22.3% n=11

Takes too much time to apply 22.3% n=11


Farmers/landowners will not be interested 14.6% n=7

28. Do you feel that you need any additional information on the items listed below regarding the Saginaw

Bay RCPP? Please check all that apply.

Eligible practices 57.1% n=16

Eligible watersheds 42.9% n=12

Where to advise farmers/landowners to turn for additional information 42.9% n=12

Landowner cost-share rates 39.3% n=11

Project eligibility 35.7% n=10

GLWMS tool 32.1% n=9

Administrative costs to NRCS 21.4% n=6

NRCS administrative support for program 21.4% n=6



29. Please describe the main reason(s) for your answer to the question above.


30. Because the Saginaw Bay RCPP is just beginning to roll out, what are your early expectations

regarding its potential ability to influence farmers with respect to the increased adoption of


Will not be

influential

at all

May be

slightly

influential

May be

somewhat

influential

May be very

influential

May be

extremely

influential

Don't

know

Mean w/o

“don’t know

Scale = 0-4

4.1% 24.5% 32.7% 16.3% 2.0% 20.4% M=1.8 n=49

31. At the end of Year 1 of the Saginaw Bay RCPP program, how important do you think the following

attributes will be in helping you assess the progress of the program? Please select all that apply.

Pounds of phosphorus runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 57.4% n=27

Tons of sediment runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 53.2% n=25

Pounds of nitrogen runoff reduced annually by implemented practices 51.1% n=24

Number of customers referred to NRCS from CAs for further information 48.9% n=23

Number of acres placed under conservation practices 46.8% n=22

Number of new customers that came to you for RCPP related reasons 44.7% n=21

Number of contracts signed 42.6% n=20

Number of applicants 38.3% n=18

Number of agricultural retailers participating 23.4% n=11

Dollars spent on conservation practices 21.2% n=10

Don’t know enough to answer 19.1% n=9

Number of partnerships (e.g. with CAs) 19.1% n=9

Other: please specify 0% n=0

32. With which of the following organizations are you most closely affiliated?

NRCS 50.0% n=24

SWCD 50.0% n=24

33. [For NRCS only] Which of the following groups best aligns with your current position at NRCS?

Soil & water conservation 70.8% n=17

Engineering 4.2% n=1

Soil science 16.7% n=4

Biology 4.2% n=1


34. [For NRCS only] Which of the following classification levels best aligns with your current position at

NRCS?

Entry 12.5% n=3

Mid 33.3% n=8

Senior 4.2% n=1

Supervisor 29.2% n=7

Discipline specialist 4.2% n=1

Manager 4.2% n=1

Other 12.5% n=3


35. [For SWCDs only] Which of the following best describes your CD role?

Technician 65.2% n=15

District manager/administrator 21.7% n=5

Board member/director 8.7% n=2


36. Overall, how many years have you been working as a conservation professional (including employment

with NRCS or SWCDs)?

Mean=12.2 years n=48

37. What is your gender?

Male 84.2% n=48

Female 15.8% n=9

Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program ......Year 1 Summative Report Prepared March...

Documents

Transcript of Saginaw Bay Regional Conservation Partnership Program ......Year 1 Summative Report Prepared March...