social science portfolio - purdue university...mar 21, 2017 · social science portfolio beargrass...

Social Science Portfolio Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project: 2014 -2016

Prepared January 2017 by: Belyna Bentlage, Linda 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:

Bentlage, Belyna and Prokopy, Linda S. (2017). Social Science Portfolio Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project: 2014-2016. West Lafayette: Purdue University.

Purdue University, Beargrass Creek Social Science Portfolio

Annotated Table of Contents PDF Page Numbers

Project Background ........................................................................................................................... 4 Explains origins and goals of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project.

Project Partners ................................................................................................................................ 4 Lists all government agencies, universities, and other partners involved with the project.

Project Portfolio ................................................................................................................................ 4 Describes the collection of materials in this document.

Meeting Notes: July 15th 2014 ........................................................................................................... 5 Details the proceedings of the first group meeting where the project was introduced. This document was not written by the NRSS Lab, but by Bev Schomburg of Watershed Recovery LLC.

Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2014) ................................... 8 First report developed by the NRSS Lab for the project. Includes findings from surveys mailed to

producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed, as well as findings from interviews with producers and agency staff members. Provides recommendations for the current project.

Beargrass Creek 2014 Survey Results ............................................................................................... 27 Summary of survey data mailed to producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed. Included in the

original version of the preceding report as “Appendix A – Full Survey Summary.”

Flowers Creek 2014 Survey Results .................................................................................................. 43 Summary of survey data mailed to producers in the Flowers Creek watershed, which served as a

comparison watershed to the survey data collected in the Beargrass Creek watershed.

Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Landowner and Producer Meeting and On-farm Visits, Dec 18th, 19th 2014 ........................................................................................................ 61

Includes findings from observations of the first producer and landowner meeting as well as observations from on-farm visits. Survey data from participants are also included in this report.

Beargrass Creek Landowner and Producer Meeting Follow-up Survey ............................................. 70 Survey used to collect data presented in the preceding report.

Meeting Review: June 25th 2015 ...................................................................................................... 73 Details the proceedings of a meeting between project partners and key producers within the watershed.

Meeting Review: August 26th 2015 .................................................................................................. 76 Details the proceedings of a meeting between project partners on past performance and plans for the future of the project.

Meeting Review: January 25th 2016 ................................................................................................. 81 Details the proceedings of the second producer and landowner meeting.

Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2016) ................................. 89 Final report developed by the NRSS Lab. Includes findings from surveys mailed to producers in the Beargrass watershed, as well as findings from interviews with producers and agency staff members. Provides recommendations for ongoing conservation efforts in the watershed and for future projects in general. Original table of contents has been updated to match PDF page numbers of the portfolio.

Beargrass Creek 2016 Survey Results ............................................................................................. 111


Summary of survey data mailed to producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed. Included in the original version of the Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2016) as “Appendix B.”

Beargrass Creek Pre-Post Survey Results: 2014-2016 ..................................................................... 128 Summary of survey data comparing responses from producers who completed the surveys in both years. Included in the original version of the Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2016) as “Appendix C.”

Flowers Creek 2016 Survey Results ................................................................................................ 157 Summary of survey data mailed to producers in the Flowers Creek watershed. Included in the original version of Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2016) as “Appendix D.”

Flowers Creek Pre-Post Survey Results: 2014-2016 ........................................................................ 172 Summary of survey data comparing responses from producers who completed the surveys in both years. Included in the original version of the Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2016) as “Appendix E.”

Meeting Review: December 5th 2016 ............................................................................................. 202 Details the proceedings of the final producer and landowner meeting.

Appendix I: Interview Guides 2014 ................................................................................................ 208 Producers .............................................................................................................................................. 208

Document used to guide interviews conducted with producers in the Beargrass Creek Watershed

Agency Staff........................................................................................................................................... 210

Document used to guide interviews conducted with agency staff involved with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project

Appendix II: Surveys 2014 ............................................................................................................. 214 Beargrass Creek ..................................................................................................................................... 214

Survey distributed to producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed before the implementation of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project.

Flowers Creek ........................................................................................................................................ 230

Survey distributed to producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed before the implementation of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project.

Appendix III: Interview Guides 2016 .............................................................................................. 246 Producers .............................................................................................................................................. 246

Document used to guide interviews conducted with producers of varying degrees of involvement with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project

Agency Staff........................................................................................................................................... 250

Document used to guide interviews conducted with agency staff involved with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project

Appendix IV: Surveys 2016 ............................................................................................................ 252 Beargrass Creek ..................................................................................................................................... 252

Survey distributed to producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed after the implementation of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project.

Flowers Creek ........................................................................................................................................ 268

Survey distributed to producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed after the implementation of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project.


Project Background

In 2014, Dr. Linda Prokopy’s Natural Resource Social Science (NRSS) Lab in Purdue University’s Department of Forestry and Natural Resources joined a collaboration between multiple universities and government agencies to provide social science evaluations for the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. Beargrass Creek is a sub-watershed of the Middle Eel River watershed and is located in Wabash County in northcentral Indiana. The overarching goal of the project, led by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), was to demonstrate the effectiveness of programs that promote voluntary adoption of conservation practices among agricultural producers. In 2014, the NRSS Lab described the “goal-oriented, science-based and locally-adapted approach to voluntary conservation” (Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed, 2014) as an alternative approach to increased calls for prescriptive and regulatory mandates directed at farmers to improve water quality. To meet ambitious water quality goals, such as the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient (Hypoxia) Task Force’s call for a 45% reduction in nutrient loading, the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project promoted voluntary adoption of conservation practices in conjunction with targeted conservation. Targeted conservation is the concept of placing the “right practices” in the “right places” to most efficiently reduce nutrient loading from agricultural fields.

Project Partners

The Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project was formed as part of a Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG). Funding for the project came from NRCS and EDF. A full list of project partners follows:

EDF

Indiana NRCS (state and regional office)

Wabash County SWCD

Wabash County NRCS

Manchester University

National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, USDA ARS

University of Minnesota

National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, USDA ARS

Miami County NRCS

Kosciusko County NRCS

Miami County SWCD

Kosciusko SWCD

Agronomic Solutions LLC

Purdue University

Project Portfolio

Over the course of three years, the NRSS Lab has created a portfolio of project documents through observations of various types of meetings, collection of survey and interview data, and authorship of social science evaluation reports. All of the documents created by the NRSS Lab for the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project have been assembled in the current portfolio. The documents appear in their original form and are presented in chronological order. The portfolio begins with notes from the first group meeting where the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project was introduced. These notes were written by Bev Schomburg of Watershed Recovery LLC and are included to provide orientation for the start of the project. All following documents were written by members of the NRSS Lab, beginning with the review of the first producer and landowner meeting in 2014 and concluding with the NRSS Lab’s final report in 2016. An annotated table of contents describing each document follows the cover page.


Meeting Notes: July 15th 2014

Middle Eel/Beargrass Creek Project Demonstrating a Watershed Approach to Conservation

Partners Meeting

Flory Auditorium/Room 204, Manchester University, Science Center, Second Floor Tuesday, July 15th

Meeting Notes 10:30 Introductions

Attending:

Joe Magner, Bev Schomburg Watershed Recovery LLC

Karen Chapman, Eileen McLellan(by phone) EDF

Terri Michaelis Watershed Coordinator, Middle Eel River Watershed Initiative/Manchester U

Jerry Sweeten, Dave Kreps – Students: Breegan, Kyle, Nathan, Mitchell, Billy, Carley, Trisha-Environmental scholar, Herb Manifold-Env Scholar-soon graduate student

Manchester University

Linda Prokopy, Nick Babin, Mike Dunn, Jessica Schad,

Social Science Team – Purdue University

Melissa Lehman Agronomist, Agronomic Solutions LLC

Scot Haley, Adam Jones (filling in for Joe Updike),

Area NRCS and Acting Wabash County D.C.

Susi Stephan Wabash County SWCD

Kevin Cordes, Rob Shellhamer, Bobby Hettmansperger

On Board of Supervisors, Wabash County SWCD

Rick Duff NRCS-Miami County District conservationist

10:40 Recap Environmental Defense Fund's CIG objectives and goals, EDF role in project: Karen Chapman, EDF Karen reviewed the overall project and started with background on previous demonstration project that had was started in three watersheds. (Iowa, Minnesota, and Indiana) It is now wrapping up, but was only a one year demonstration. The basic goal of this project is to reduce nutrients leaving the watershed by 45%. EDF’s role will be primarily in coordinating. Question was asked about whether the 45% was of run off from fields or what was in the creek – would they be counting legacy phosphorus? Eileen said –the goal was really to reduce the nutrients leaving the creek by 45%. Joe Magner took this opportunity to talk briefly about how important it was to find the baseline, so that we have a starting point. Some of that work is already being done by Manchester U. 10:50 Wabash SWCD review and update on tasks and deliverables: Susi Stephan, Wabash SWCD


Susi said that the team at Wabash County SWCD have begun to set up an advisory board of 5 producers. Two of them are already on the County SWCD board, Kevin Cordes and Jim Erickson. In addition, they have identified 3 additional producers that will serve on the board, as well as, Cheri Slee-County Surveyor, Curt Campbell-Purdue Cooperative Extension and Jon Lawyer-with CFS. Susi said she needs more direction before calling the first meeting, so that she can direct the board and explain their role. At this point, Linda said, in general, the advisory board’s role will be to review activities that are planned and let the larger group know about what will “work” and what won’t. Linda also said that the social science team needs to first do their initial surveys before too much conversation about the grant work is started in the watershed. This is similar to the baseline for monitoring- it is a baseline for the attitudes and practices. Linda said they will try to do surveys (short- simple) of all producers in the watershed and “in depth” interviews of 9 producers- 3 producers already using some practices and working with SWCD programs; 3 producers that have worked with SWCD programs in the past, but are not currently; and 3 producers that are new to SWCD programs. Susi asked exactly how Melissa Lehman can fit in to the work. It was discussed that when Joe Updike brought this possibility up in a June meeting with Watershed Recovery and SWCD, it was a suggestion that an agronomist’s “services” could be an incentive to get participation. Discussion followed about services that an agronomist (Melissa) could provide, and the fact that information about a producer’s practices would not necessarily be available to the project if that information is between a producer and the consulting agronomist. Also it is not desirable to have multiple people asking the same questions – about animal units for example. There was a question about whether we wanted to engage owners VS operators. It was determined it should be “decision makers”. In the watershed there are about 80 landowners, but some are for duplicate parcels and some are very small parcels. Karen mentioned that funds from the grant should not be used for services that could be covered by existing cost share programs. Nick said they are ready to go with surveys as early as next week.

Joe asked Melissa if they ever do any analysis of Nitrogen source, using N14, N15 technology. Answer- “not necessarily”. Joe summed up some of the issues that the project will involve. Manure management alone or upland practices alone will not accomplish 45% reduction and it will take many different, specialized, targeted techniques to do this. 11:15 Social Science Team role & update/time frame for interviews: Linda’s report was included in the discussion above. They are ready to go and only need a list of practices from Joe to put into the survey and they can get it out next week. (Joe sent Nick a list of practices) 12:00 Break for lunch and Mark Tomer presentation via Iowa State Learning Farms archived webinar (Q&A follows) (https://connect.extension.iastate.edu/) 1:15 Monitoring Team review and update on tasks and deliverables: Herb Manifold, Manchester University- Herb showed some of the ongoing work in the watershed and the additional sampling that they have started; including mapping of tile-line locations entering Beargrass Creek.


1:20 Discuss next steps and deliverables for July – September Linda and Susi will talk - get going on baseline survey and interviews. Susi will also discuss with Linda how to get animal units- possibly on the survey. Agronomist role is not yet clarified. The nine interviews should be done by Sept. 30. Joe will work with Mark and Sarah on the maps for targeting. Linda suggests that perhaps we should have a “control” for the social science work. Rick might be able to help with that in Miami County. 1:30 Set next meeting date and adjourn- an actual date was not set. Discussion included comments that we

should only meet when we need to meet

should be after harvest

discussion of whether we should meet when Mark Tomer and his group have LIDAR maps are ready

also discussion about using “Go to Meeting” type technology to meet

discussion will be continued by phone and email


Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2014)

Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed

Prepared Fall 2014 by: Dr. Mike Dunn, Dr. Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad, Dr. Nick Babin & Dr. Linda S. Prokopy Natural Resources Social Science Lab Department of Natural Resources Purdue University


Key findings

Most agricultural producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed use regular soil tests and grassed

waterways. Nutrient management plans and cover crops have been adopted to a lesser extent,

while few use conservation practices such as denitrifying bioreactors, saturated buffers,

controlled drainage, two stage ditches, or stream channel restoration.

Key factors that encourage the adoption of conservation practices among producers in the

Beargrass Creek include: desire to maintain or improve the quality of the land they own for

future generations; positive identity as stewards of their land; visibility of problems; improved

quality of soils; and financial incentives.

Key factors that discourage the adoption of conservation practices among producers in the

Beargrass Creek include: costly past experiences; not wanting to “lose” farmable land (e.g.,

lower resale values, less productivity); cost of new equipment and duplication of equipment;

age; appearance of farmland; lack of information regarding novel practices; uncertainty about

how certain conservation practices will work on their land; lack of trust in some information

sources.

Producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed generally focused on the positive relationships that

they have with local Soil and Water Conservation District and Natural Resources Conservation

Service staff. They expressed more skepticism towards organizations such as the

Environmental Protection Agency and regulation in general.

It is essential to stress the voluntary nature of the project, who will be using the data collected

and how, and use clear and regular communication throughout the process.

Background Growing public concern over nutrient related problems such as algal blooms in Lake Erie and dead

zones in the Gulf of Mexico has led to intensifying pressure for agricultural producers to reduce losses

of nutrients from agricultural watersheds. Increasingly this concern is expressed through calls for

regulatory and prescriptive approaches to achieving water quality goals – approaches that threaten the

continued viability of agricultural production. However, a joint project of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) aims to demonstrate that there is

another way of achieving nutrient reductions: a goal-oriented, science-based and locally-adapted

approach to voluntary conservation. A critical goal is to show that it is possible to achieve ambitious

water quality goals, and maximize the effectiveness of conservation funding, through locally-led

conservation that focuses on implementing the “right practices” in the “right places.” Achieving a 45%

reduction in nutrient load – as advocated by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient

(Hypoxia) Task Force – is expected to require a combination of in-field practices (such as improved

nutrient management, conservation tillage and cover crops) and practices that intercept and treat

nutrients at the edge of a field, at a tile outlet, at the edge of a stream or drainage ditch, or within a


stream or drainage ditch. Equally important is targeting these practices to the “right places” in the

landscape where they can most effectively intercept and treat the greatest nutrient loads. Through a

partnership approach, it is envisioned that scientists can determine where nutrients are coming from

and how they move across the landscape, while farmers and other local stakeholders provide input on

resource concerns, watershed needs and opportunities, past and current conservation efforts, and

integrating conservation with agricultural production (and other) goals. All of this information can

then be used to indicate how water quality goals can be met, and how conservation funding can be

used most effectively and efficiently.

Beargrass Creek

Beargrass Creek is a sub-watershed of the Middle Eel River watershed in Wabash County, Indiana. In

2009 Manchester College (now Manchester University) spearheaded the Middle Eel River Watershed

Initiative, described as a collaborative, community-wide effort to protect and enhance water resources

through education and implementation of soil and water conservation practices. In 2010 the Initiative

received a Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) grant from NRCS. Project

partners have focused efforts on a set of paired watersheds in the eastern portion of the watershed,

with Beargrass Creek serving as an experimental (practice implementation) watershed and PawPaw

Creek as the reference watershed. In 2014, project partners, including Manchester University and the

Wabash County Soil & Water Conservation District, agreed to work with EDF as part of a Conservation

Innovation Grant from the NRCS to demonstrate the watershed approach, a systemic and strategic

approach to reducing nutrient losses from agricultural landscapes. Scientists at Manchester University

have begun testing the effectiveness of a number of conservation practices, while USDA Agricultural

Research Service staff are exploring the use of remote sensing technology to better understand where

the practices could be located to provide the greatest benefit. An important component of this project

is to assess the views of Beargrass Creek’s producers whose support will be vital to the project’s overall

success.

This report details the findings from in-depth interviews with the decision makers of 13 farm

operations and 5 conservation agency staff within the Beargrass Creek watershed. With the insight

and assistance of the local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the selection of the decision

makers was designed to be reflective of the diversity of farm type, size, conservation attitudes (open to

adopting conservation practices, unsure about adopting, hesitant to adopt), and inclination to


participate in collaborative initiatives. Most interviews with staff were conducted in April of 2014 and

all of the interviews with producers were conducted in August and September of 2014 at conservation

offices and producers’ homes or farm buildings, and typically lasted about 45 minutes.

A survey of all agricultural producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed was also conducted during the

fall of 2014 using an address list provided by the local Soil and Water Conservation District. Those on

the list were contacted up to four times (advance letter, 1st mailing of paper survey, reminder postcard,

drop off and pick up of 2nd paper survey with a reminder postcard) which achieved a response rate of

73% (n=60). Surveys were developed based upon the Social Indicators Planning and Evaluation System

(SIPES). Questions on the survey included characteristics of the farming operation and farmer,

opinions about water quality and sources of pollution, and usage and opinions about various

conservation practices.

The findings from the interviews and surveys provide insight into: current use of agricultural

conservation practices, factors which encourage and discourage the adoption of these practices,

relationships between project partners and producers, and recommendations for effective outreach.

Current use of agricultural conservation practices

Interviewees noted that nutrient management, grassed waterways, filter/buffer strips, no-till, and

cover crops are conservation practices that they currently use, however, the survey data provides a

clearer picture of overall practice adoption levels within the Beargrass Creek watershed. A high

percentage use regular soil tests and grassed waterways (82% and 77%, respectively), followed by

about one-half (45%) using nutrient management plans, and 35% using cover crops. Of those who

conduct regular soil tests, most (98%) conduct them on 76-100% of their land. They frequently use

such tests to determine the application rates of phosphorus fertilizer (100%), potassium fertilizer

(100%), agricultural lime (100%), nitrogen fertilizer (84%), and manure (53%). Of the 77% who

currently use grassed waterways, most do so extensively, with 87% applying the practice to the

majority of their waterways (76-100% of their waterways. Many (40%) of those who do not have a

nutrient management plan, do not own livestock, and thus see the usage of such a plan as not relevant

to their operation. A high percentage of those with nutrient management plans had help from a

private sector agronomist or crop consultant when developing their plans. While about one-third of

respondents are currently using cover crops, many don’t use them on all of their land. Only 40% use


them on 76-100% of their land while 30% only use them on 0-25% of their land. About one-third of

respondents also indicated that they had heard of cover crops and were open to trying them.

Less than five percent of producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed currently use denitrifying

bioreactors, saturated buffers, controlled drainage, two stage ditches, or stream channel restoration.

Many had never heard of these practices. However, producers were much more likely to express that

they might be willing to try the practices than to dismiss the possibility. This finding indicates the

potential for outreach and demonstrations pertaining to these relatively unknown and novel practices.

Factors which encourage adoption A number of those interviewed identified themselves as stewards of the land, and expressed a desire

to conserve or improve the environment through the way they manage their farms. However, there

was also a belief that these motivations contrasted with perceptions of the wider population, leading

producers to believe they faced unwarranted blame for environmental problems. When asked about

the sources of water problems in their area, survey respondents felt that discharges from sewage

treatment plants, improperly managed septic systems, urban stormwater runoff, lawn fertilizers, and

littering/illegal dumping of trash, all represented a more severe problem than on-farm sources

(fertilizers or manure used for crop production, soil erosion from farm fields, pesticides or herbicides

used for crop production, and animal feeding operations). Despite these views, there is recognition of

a need to take responsibility for their own actions. Referring to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, one

respondent remarked:

“Have we caused that problem? We’ve probably had a finger in causing it, but it was

because at the time no one knew any different. That’s the way things were done. And

now we realize it’s our responsibly to try to, to try to help heal the problem.” –

Hesitant to adopt

Motivations for stewardship are varied but are perhaps most strongly referenced with an intention to

leave a farm in an improved condition from when it was acquired. The notion of a family farm in which

the land and business would be inherited by a family member also underpinned stewardship values for

some producers:

“I sure would like to hand my farm down to my boys in better shape than I found it.

And most of the farms that I have acquired over the years were rented properties for

years and where the farmers that had them were not takin’ real good care of it. And it


takes years to get ‘em back in good shape, and so I guess that would be part of my

legacy I guess is to leave it better than I found it.” – Unsure about adoption

“I told him […] if he wants to have ground for his son to farm someday, then he’s

gotta take care of, keep it on the land and not have it washing down the streams you

know? So I’m pretty adamant about that.” – Hesitant to adopt

Others believed that being a good steward formed part of their identity, and that they had a moral

obligation to care for the land. One such example demonstrates the role religion can play in shaping

one’s stance:

“When I said ‘roots’ I mean my Biblical faith and said that we need to be stewards and such, and so I don’t care if it affects me directly or not. I need to do the right thing…” – Hesitant to adopt

While these examples provide some insight into reasons for why a producer may be willing to consider

the adoption of agricultural conservation practices, it is also useful to consider how they identify a

need for such practices. Responses strongly suggest that the visibility of a problem is an important

factor in motivating change:

“The [environmental issue] that we see the most is probably erosion. That’s what we see because we drive the tractors across it, trucks across it. The next one, which we’re slowly learning appears to be a water quality issue. That’s one that as we’ve said numerous times, it’s a problem. And we’re figuring out how to help make this better, but for us it’s erosion. […] ‘Oh there’s a whole bunch of phosphorus going down the creek.’ Well you don’t, you can’t see that. You can see the washouts in the field if that’s the problem.” – Unsure about adoption

“If the land is susceptible to a lot of erosion, I would [be willing to take it out of production] just because I think that it needs to be controlled. I’m a stickler for not having water go across. Like I said, when we had the water go across the road here in the spring a couple times, I about pulled my hair out.” – Hesitant to adopt

Levels of erosion are not only helpful in highlighting the need for particular conservation measures,

they also help to confirm whether an adopted practice designed to reduce the problem has been

effective. Two of the interviewees made specific reference to the obvious benefits of grassed

waterways installed as a result of visible erosion issues:

"You can drive across the field now [that grassed waterways have been installed]." – Open to adopt “We don’t lose ground. We can drive across with the tractors without…tearing nothing up because there’s no new washouts there.” – Unsure about adoption


Erosion is therefore not only an important motivator because of its high visibility, it can also have very

tangible implications for how a producer is able to function on their operation. While the need for

practices targeting erosion are easily identified, conservationists may have a greater challenge in

convincing producers of the need to deal with those issues that are less visually apparent, and less

detrimental to everyday operations. Furthermore, the survey data shows that on the whole, the

watershed’s producers are particularly receptive to the problem of sedimentation/silt relative to other

impairments (nitrate/nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria). Asked how much of a problem the

impairments are in their area, respondents demonstrated greater levels of uncertainty from the less

visible impairments (24%, 26% and 37% selecting ‘don’t know’ for nitrate/nitrogen, phosphorus, and

bacteria, respectively) in comparison with sedimentation/silt (12%). Notably, none of the interviewees

reported observing issues pertaining to nutrient accumulation. If these issues are not recognizable,

there is likely to be less enthusiasm for enacting change.

At present it appears that the primary consideration given to managing nutrients derives from the

desire to reduce the amount of chemicals and/or manure being applied. Thus, while producers may

not regard water impairments resulting from runoff to be a severe problem, their desire to reduce

input costs and retain the nutrients they have invested in is helping to curtail this issue. Practices

which achieve this goal can be attractive to a wide range of producers because they help to meet both

conservation and economic goals. The survey data shows that more than four-fifths of Beargrass creek

producers currently use soil tests, and that of these, all use the tests to determine the application rate

of phosphorus, with 85% doing the same for nitrogen.

“We like the buffer strips. So, I’m gonna keep, my goal is to keep my fertilizer on my

farm. If it washes down the river it does me no good. So, I want that placed right

where it’s supposed to be, same with herbicide, too. But I want my fertilizer, I’m

paying a lot of money for that fertilizer. I want it to stay put.” – Hesitant to adopt

“That’s our money goin’ down the river.” – Unsure about adoption

A number of interviewees see the adoption of conservation practices as a means of improving the

quality of their soils. In some cases producers have been encouraged to adopt and continue using a

practice because of an expectation that improved soil health would eventually lead to increased

productivity:

“To have that root system down in there and keep the soil cut because my soil just got too tight that when I did plow it, it was like pavement, really, really hard. I think cover crops could be a stepping stone toward that.” – Unsure about adoption


“As long as individuals feel like, ‘Hey, I’ve got an opportunity here to go ahead and just, to […] possibly enhance my farming operation but also improve what’s going into the water there,’ I think it’s a win-win.” – Open to adopt “I think the longer you do it, the more benefits you have. […] So are we going to stop

cover crops? Probably not.” – Unsure about adoption

Of course the cost to install and maintain conservation practices remains a prominent consideration

for the Beargrass Creek’s producers. Without a financial incentive many farmers are unlikely to risk

investing in the resources necessary to implement a practice, especially if no discernible increase in

profit would result. However, some producers remarked that they would be open to adopting a

practice if any loss of income would be compensated for:

“I don’t know if we’ll be able to keep spending the money on stuff, all the conservation stuff that we’re on ‘cause, like I said, that [funding] made this cover crop thing a lot easier. We were making money, so we were able to, you know, go ahead and spend some money on cover crop stuff. And I’m kind of scared, a lot of farmers probably cut back on that if their income goes down.” – Unsure about adoption I think it's like 30 dollars an acre to have the grass seed and the airplane put it on. So we need to get somewhere along the line some type of benefit, monetarily from it even…to help cover. We know it's going to help on the soil and erosion and things like that. But we also as producers, hopefully that it will give us some money.” – Unsure about adoption

“If they’re willing to pay me what I would lose, then yeah, I wouldn’t have any trouble

with that at all.” – Hesitant to adopt

A number of interviewees had first-hand experience using cost share programs to make the adoption

of conservation practices viable. By accessing funding, producers are better able to purchase cover

crop seeds, invest in new equipment, employ the use of external labor/services and test various

practices on their land. Those funds promoted and distributed as a result of the Middle Eel Initiative

were regarded as crucial for launching a variety of conservation practices now being applied.

“There's been quite a bit of money through the college. They've got some pretty sizable grants and they're using those grants in helping with the no-till, the cover crops." […] "We've been able to purchase some equipment and get a cost share on some equipment and for us it was a 25-foot tool bar and it's, we were always big sweep injection, big ridges and so, I mean there was no way to no-till with that. And that was my hold back on no-till for several years.” – Open to adopt “If it wouldn’t have been for the cost share, [installing filter strips] might not have got done […].That was a big benefit." – Unsure about adoption

Continued access and promotion of cost share programs will likely remain one of the critical factors in

successfully encouraging adoption across the Beargrass Creek watershed.


Factors which discourage adoption

The results of our survey show that perceived cost is the principal limiting factor for the

implementation of a number of conservation practices, including; cover crops, grassed waterways, and

controlled drainage. It is also an important factor for two stage ditches and denitrifying bioreactors.

Although cost share can demonstrably encourage change by increasing the viability of adoption, it is

also important to recognize that costly experiences have caused some producers to reconsider their

continuing use of conservation practices. An element of risk is an intrinsic part of a progressive

approach, but negative experiences can be hard to forget. For example, whereas the use of no-till

practices in combination with soybeans was typically reported to be neutral, if not profitable, within

the watershed, attempts to combine no-till practices with corn have been unsuccessful for a number of

producers. Not only do these experiences stay with the individual, there is also a risk that negative

perceptions become more widespread:

“I bought a no-till drill […] and then the first year was good. I had normal yields from

them, and every year after that, they continued to fall. Then in the fourth year, I had

lost probably 75% off of my yields. And it was either quit no-till or, or go bankrupt. I

mean the nineties were kind of tough anyway, and it was right at that point. I know a

lot of no-tillers were telling me, ‘Hang in there. Things will get better.’ I couldn’t wait.

I had to go back. As soon as I dropped the plow in the ground, yields went up, and I

haven’t looked back since.” – Unsure about adoption

“It’s so much different than conventional.’ But yields were just, I never had good corn

in the three or four years I no-tilled. So I quit no-tilling corn.” – Unsure about adoption

“There is like one big farmer out east that put cover crops out one year, and he really hurt the program because he didn't do a very good job of it and it didn't work, and 'I'll never do that again,' you know?" – Open to adopt

Such experiences lead producers to question whether participation in a cost share program could

result in a contract which prevents a return to more familiar and trusted practices. Similarly, concerns

were expressed that if land was to be removed from production it could be extremely difficult, if not

impossible, to reverse the process. As a result, the resale value of the farm could be negatively

impacted. Many of the interviewees expressed that they simply cannot afford to risk any change that

involves taking land out of production. Even those who expressed a desire to safeguard the

environment struggled with the prospect of reducing their farmable land:

“I’m politically extremely on the left on a lot of issues, not just this. When it comes to

farming, and putting into practice some of those things, my economic side rises up


and says, ‘Well how’s this gonna make me more money or not?’ So there’s some

cognitive dissonance there that troubles me.” – Unsure about adoption

"The thing is, I don't plow enough now to do, you know, take a substantial

[reduction], right now anyway." – Open to adopt

“We wanna be conservationists […]. We wanna take care of the dirt, you know. That

ultimately is what pays our bills, but I ain’t going broke” – Unsure about adoption

“Once they do a wetland like that you never get it back. You know that don’t ya? […]

Once it’s done as a wetland, you can’t farm it ever again.” – Hesitant to adopt

While these comments reinforce the somewhat predictable importance of economic factors in

farmers’ decision to commit to conservation practices, producers also mentioned a less obvious

implication of trialing certain practices. Aside from the costs implied through the acquisition of new

equipment, producers warned of the unfavorable prospect of acquiring excessive amounts of

machinery. For example, those who wished to mix conventional tillage with newly adopted no-till

practices (as was the case where no-till proved workable with soybeans but not with corn) found

themselves with two sets of specialized equipment. Thus, the need to change or duplicate equipment

also represents a discouraging factor:

“The kind of equipment now that I have isn’t no-till. And it would take a really big

investment to go back into it.” – Unsure about adoption

“And when you change from conventional tillage to no-till, it cost us money […]. Now we have two sets of equipment almost! […] We have some extra stuff now because we’re no-till, and we still have our other stuff because we haven’t completely gotten rid of conventional tillage.” – Unsure about adoption

“I don’t think [I’d convert more acres to no-till]. I got so much equipment, it would

just sit or I’d have to sell it […] You know I wouldn’t need my tractors, my cultivators,

my, all that kind of stuff. So you know, that’s where I’m at on that. I mean even for

fall tillage, I wouldn’t even need to fall till anything. So but I don’t think, I don’t think I

will, I would ever change over to go complete.” – Hesitant to adopt

Resistance to change in behavior was frequently explained with reference to a producer’s age,

whereby older farmers were typically said to be – or self-identified – as being less likely to consider

novel approaches, preferring to farm more traditionally and using practices most familiar to them. In

contrast, the younger generation were identified as being more receptive to a need for change and

subsequent opportunities:


“As far as just going out in a field of corn stalks and planting your beans or going out

in a field of cover crops and planting corn, twenty years ago people would have

thought you were really loony. But today that's getting to be more acceptable. And as

people like my age, my generation leaves the farm and, and the newer generations

come in, I think that will be more and more acceptable as time goes along." – Unsure

about adoption

“That’s one thing about old-school, old-time farmers, the old, I mean and even I grew

up with it being my dad and stuff like that, the less the government, we had to deal

with the paperwork and all the government and all that kind of stuff and certifying

the acres and, the better off, you know? And even when it was where we were getting

paid to for set-aside programs, stuff like that, they don’t want that. […] it felt like a

handout. And they never wanted that.” – Hesitant to adopt

“[There’s] quite a bit of conservation, implemented especially in the last year, in 2013, and that has to do with – I’ll just say succession of farmers – Grandpa and Dad getting off the farm, and the grandson coming onto the farm and really changing farming practices…” – Agency Staff

On this basis it is plausible that as the new generation begins to gain control in multi-generation

farming operations, willingness to consider the adoption of unconventional conservation practices will

increase. However, the detrimental impact on a farm’s appearance is a concern that may span the

generational divide. As a result, practices which threaten these qualities may prove unappealing:

"Good looking crops. That's number one. I mean, you can do all the practices you

want but if the neighbors think your crops look like crap... ‘What are they doing?’ I

mean, that's, so you know, you got to get good looking crops." – Open to adopt, aged

38

“Everyone perceives, when you're using a cover crop and you plant, you maybe don't

get a beautiful stand at some. That's why some people I think, 'Oh, I don't want to do

that.' But yet, our corn will yield better than what theirs [does]. So I think that's the

hardest part there, for people to want to try it or do the no-till and the cover crop, is,

'Oh well, it just doesn't look the best', [they] consider doing it all by looks." – Open to

adopt, aged 54

As the second quote suggests, it may be possible to overcome the issue of appearance for some

producers if a demonstrable benefit results. The aforementioned testimonies have shown that

producers may frame benefits as economic gain, improvement to the functionality of a farm operation,

or the belief/knowledge that they as an individual are ‘doing the right thing’. As with the soil erosion

example, the need for evidence able to support the existence of benefits is extremely important.

Producers from 7 of the 13 operations articulated that uncertainty over if and how a practice could be


applied to their operation served to discourage adoption or continuation of its use. In some instances

producers looked to the experiences of their neighbors in an attempt to predict whether or not a

practice should be adopted. Yet for the many of the interviewees, identifying that a practice has been

successfully applied elsewhere is insufficient to remove the uncertainty over whether the same

methods and results could be replicated on their farms:

“[There’s] a lot of trial and error." […] Right, because it doesn't matter what everyone

else is doing; it's probably not going to work on your ground. It just seems like people

figure out what works on theirs and, you know, why it is, if it's the way they do it. I

think tillage, soil types makes a big difference, how well it's going to work." –

Open to adopt

In addition, there is a fundamental need to raise awareness of the most novel conservation practices,

their purpose and how they may be applied. More than half of the survey respondents had never

heard of two stage ditches (51%), denitrifying bioreactors (60%), saturated buffers (62%), and stream

channel restoration (65%), although of these, roughly two-thirds were willing to consider the practices.

While some interviewees pointed to the need for further information to be made more readily

available, others expressed their reluctance to believe that a practice is guaranteed to work until it is

tested in the very location it is intended to remain:

“There’s right ways and wrong ways to implement them and make them work. So

that’s where we need some assistance sometimes, I think, to help with those,

whatever the practice that we might want to do. Whether it's more no-till or whether

its help with the cover crops, there’s just a lot of education involved on knowing when

to do it, how to do it and what mistakes not to make. So I would say that is probably

the top of my list would be information on how each of those practices would affect

us or how we can best implement them." – Unsure about adoption

“When people who’ve done the research—whether it be Purdue or Manchester University or anyone else—as farmers we are a relatively what’s the word? Pessimistic. We’re gonna question whether [the university] actually got 250 bushels. We’re gonna have to prove it to ourselves. In all reality [the university] probably did a ten-acre test or a strip test. Now we’ve got two thousand acres we’re supposed to treat like this. There’s a little difference…” – Unsure about adoption

The final comment also introduces the role a lack of trust can play in discouraging adoption. In this

instance, a lack of trust serves to undermine the evidence deemed so important in persuading

producers to adopt conservation practices, yet the concept can also extend to a wider context. When

presented with maps designed to evidence how and why practices could be targeted to a suitable


location, reactions included recognition of the maps’ value, but also concern about who was behind

the project and how data relating to their operation would be used.

“I'd be interested to see […] what are the most good to do? Because sometimes, you

know, maybe our ground isn't the best place to do some things." – Open to adopt

“Where is this coming from? Through the government or through...?" – Unsure about

adoption

The survey data generated from questions on the use of satellite imagery for targeted conservation

demonstrates that these sentiments extend to the watershed’s producers as a whole. A majority of

producers (66.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that satellite imagery, GIS and other technologies can be

valuable tools to help farmers improve their farm’s environmental performance, in comparison with

13.8% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Yet, respondents were more likely to agree than disagree

that government use of such tools to map the characteristics of private land would be an invasion of

privacy (36.2% in comparison with 20.7%). While maps will likely have a key role in evidencing why and

where conservation practices would be of value, this value may not be realized without considering

how producers view their relationships with the project’s partners. In doing so, it is possible to

consider how these relationships can be improved, how outreach can be administered, and how

interest in the project can be enhanced.

Relationships and outreach Producers’ attitudes towards NRCS and SWCD staff were universally positive. Responses made clear

that personnel from these agencies are respected for their knowledge and passion for both the

watershed, and conservation practices. The staff’s willingness to assist at any stage of a conservation

scheme, from the identification of possible practices to the completion of paperwork, received

particular praise. The fact that a number of agency staff are personally connected to the watershed,

farm themselves or are from a farming family, also appears to have cemented their reputations:

“He carries a lot of clout because he's a farmer, he's doing the practices that he promotes here, and that's a huge influence on the rest of us. And he just, you can always tell, he believes in what he's talking about, and he's been a big help and for us especially on the filter strips, waterways, cover crops, no-till, all those things.” – Open to adopt “We’ve worked with […] Soil and Water for a long time. We got along really well with them and they present things to us I think really well, if there’s new things coming around. Since the Beargrass Creek project started I think we’ve been probably more in touch with them than we had in the past. I mean, every year we, we'd visit with [him] and go over


some things at the office, but since this project has started they, we’ve communicated more often." – Unsure about adoption “You have to have the grassroots approach – number one. Hence the Soil and Water Conservation District. If they are not behind you, you got nothing. You have to have the right people at the right place at the right time. And I’m not going to say that’s luck, I’m going to say if you have the right people doing what they need to be doing, they can tailor things so that you are at the right place at the right time” – Agency Staff

Of all the partners involved in the project, it was individuals from SWCD that were most frequently

singled out for praise. The relative lack of familiarity with individuals from other project partner

organizations resulted in few additional opinions being offered. One producer noted that a degree of

caution and skepticism has resulted from past attempts by unfamiliar individuals or organizations to

learn about their farm operations. However, with the case of Manchester University it appears that

positive relationships have begun to develop as the Middle Eel Watershed project has progressed:

“My brothers still, they haven't been involved in this as heavily as I have and they still, you know, there's no question that if they're letting too much information flow that way, and you know, where does it stop? Does it stop right there? Does it move right on down through their own people? And from the farming side of it, I don't know what you guys' background is, but that's a real concern that we don't, don't let too much information, too negative information out that comes back and bites us later on.” - Open to adopt “He's been a heck of good guy. And there's two or three we've worked with there, they had protected the stakes out here as far as there's a little manure spill, you know? 20 years ago, they'd be the first ones down here, and he's going to jail, and all this. Their perspective now is to help us fix that situation.” – Open to adopt

Gaining the trust of producers remains a particular challenge when government agencies are thought

to be driving a project or setting its goals. Cynicism directed towards agencies such as the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is typically a result of the power they hold and the associated

threat to producers’ freedoms. The potential for government to interfere with how an operation

functions through regulation is a serious issue for many producers. Some interviewees believe that the

EPA considers producers to be disproportionally responsible for environmental problems, and that

their reporting may erroneously reflect an agenda designed to assign blame:

“Now I’m speaking for farmers in general […] but I think there is a real distrust of the

EPA. […], I guess you’d say distrust that EPA’s really not trying to work with common

sense. […] I think farmers by nature get a bad rap that they’re trying, that they’re

shooting all this fertilizer in. So I think in general farmers are open to projects that can

address you know, any kind of reduction of fertilizer or anything that, or runoffs that


may go into the waterways. I really generally think they are, but they just want to make

sure that they’re not going to be left a scapegoat.” – Open to adopt

“Even if you would get a report, I’m not sure that I would believe it 100% depending

on who’s putting it out.” – Hesitant to adopt

As these comments contrast starkly with the objectives laid out by partners of the Beargrass Creek

watershed project, there is a clear need to communicate to producers that they may participate

without fear of reprisal. It is essential to effectively convey that a goal of the project is actually to

demonstrate that regulation could be unnecessary, and also that participation in the project is

completely voluntary. Outlining what kind of data will assist the project and exactly how it is used (and

by whom) will likely help to build trust. Who is charged with conveying this information could also help

to influence producers’ acceptance of the project. Such factors may allow the project to be framed in a

way which emphasizes how producers stand to benefit:

"Well, I guess we'd be open-minded to hear what someone else's thoughts would be.

Sometimes we get kinda narrow vision when we're dealing with it every day. And so

sometimes it's good to see someone or hear someone else's side of thoughts, what

they think might be good, what would work. But I guess we would just have to take

that into consideration and see if it was feasible or we thought it was the appropriate

thing to do for our way we farm." – Unsure about adoption

By allowing producers to understand how the project represents an opportunity, without undertones

of blame, it is hoped that producers throughout the watershed will become increasingly familiar and

accepting of the project. The need to promote and subsequently disseminate information throughout

the watershed will likely have implications for how successful the project will ultimately become.

Some farmers viewed the adoption of certain practices as a risk or sacrifice that they would not be

prepared to accept alone. Recognizing that in-stream issues are a result of the aggregation of practices

within a watershed, one producer noted that any meaningful improvement would necessitate a

commitment from producers as a whole:

“Well I would wanna know how many other people, like say this is you, and you say,

‘Okay I’m good. Let’s do it.’ But this guys says, ‘No, no, no, no.’ And then is that, is

that gonna, I mean like, ‘Okay I did it.’ Now… but there’s really no benefit if you can’t

get everybody on board. That would be, I would wanna know what my neighbors are

think[ing] about it.” – Hesitant to adopt

While this suggestion highlights the value of bringing the watershed’s producers together so that the

overarching concept and project aims can be communicated, the opportunity to discuss on-site what


the project could mean for an individual’s operation was also espoused. By allowing producers to

interact with project partners on a one-on-one basis, discussions on the need for conservation

practices can be discussed more privately. In addition, on-farm dialogue can help to make practices

more conceivable to producers:

“What would be nice, we think would be nice is to have someone in this area who has

a lot of experience in this area that’s a phone call away. I mean that’s just where

we’re at. ‘Come over here in this field at 2 o’clock, and tell us what you see. Tell us

what you think.’ We don’t have that. […] NRCS would say, ‘Well here’s what, here’s

what we recommend.’ That’s fine. I like an agronomist for a better word, someone, a

no-till specialist to say, ‘Yes, I’ll meet you at [a conservation agent’s] field at 2 o’clock,

and we’ll walk his field. And we’ll talk about what this cover crop would do and what I

see and how deep to plant it and how much to put on and work with us. We don’t

have that. […]. You go to the meetings, and there’s 250 other farmers.” – Unsure

about adoption

“You can have all the meetings you want, you can send all the newsletters, emails,

but a phone call or a visit is worth 100 times what those will do” – Agency Staff

Recommendations

Clearly articulate the goals of the project. While it is necessary to outline the environmental

issues which underline the need for action, it is also important to acknowledge that producers

are not solely responsible for these issues. They are however an important piece of the puzzle

and the project must be portrayed as a means of demonstrating that if producers have access

to adequate support and information, voluntary positive change can ensue.

Emphasize how the project represents an opportunity for producers. Despite a degree of

unfamiliarity, many producers are willing to consider novel conservation practices.

Implementing creative cost share programs would allow for adoption with reduced financial

risk – thus helping to overcome the single most important discouraging factor. Additionally, it

should be emphasized that the project’s success would lessen the likelihood of future

regulation.

Alleviate fears about the project. There is a need to stress that participation is voluntary and to

clarify what might be expected of the producers if they are to participate. Flexibility to opt out

would help to ease producers’ concerns about being tied to a plan that may not be working on


their land or with their operation. With fear of further regulation, producers’ concerns over

privacy and information/data use also need to be addressed. Specifically, there is a need to

explicitly explain what type of data would benefit the project, how and by whom it would be

collected, who would have access to it, and what it would (and would not) be used for.

Provide evidence of the environmental problems resulting from agriculture. There is much

uncertainty among producers about the impact of agricultural practices on water quality.

Although producers often recognize issues pertaining to erosion and sedimentation,

impairments resulting from nutrient loss are less well appreciated – partly because they are

relatively more difficult to observe. Producers already have an economic incentive to efficiently

apply and retain nutrients, but lack the capacity to accurately measure flows and losses. In lieu

of an observable impact in the environment, the provision of accessible scientific data,

presented as tables, charts or graphs, may help producers to understand the extent of their

nutrient losses. Maps are also recognized to be a valuable tool in this process, so long as

concerns over privacy can be resolved. If evidence of nutrient accumulation was effectively

presented to producers they would be better able to understand the impact of their

operations, and thus more willing to consider practices designed to address the problem.

Evidence provided at the farm scale would be most compelling as it would allow producers to

recognize their specific contributions, as oppose to feeling as if they are being asked to treat

problems that have originated elsewhere.

Familiarize producers with the range of conservation practices and their purpose. Although

certain practices such as no-till, cover crops and grassed waterways are commonplace in the

watershed, a large proportion of producers are currently unaware of more novel approaches.

Without the knowledge of what a practice is designed to achieve, whether it will require land to

be removed from production, and how costly it will be in terms of time and money, producers

are unlikely to move towards adoption. Our study introduced producers to a number of new

practices through a brief description (in the surveys) and diagrams (during the interviews), yet

there remains a clear need to enhance awareness and understanding. Owing to this

unfamiliarity there are a series of unwarranted and disproportionate concerns. For example,

fears over a loss of farmable land and reduced resale value could be lessened if producers were

aware that a number of novel practices require very little land to be taken out of production.


Similarly, familiarity with the mapping process for targeted conservation could help producers

to recognize that practices would not be extensively mandated, but rather suggested for select

localities where a significant environmental benefit can be expected to result.

Provide evidence that practices work. In addition to raising awareness of conservation

practices it is essential that producers be provided with evidence of their effectiveness. A

number of producers within the watershed have personally experienced reduced yields as a

result of adopting conservation practices (cover crops) in the past, which others are also likely

to be aware of. Furthermore, there exists a perception that just because a practice works on

one farm does not mean that it will work on another. Relationships are likely to be

strengthened if these experiences and challenges are acknowledged rather than dismissed.

Evidence for individual practices is likely to be most persuasive in an individual’s decision

making process if its effectiveness can be demonstrated in a scenario closely resembling one’s

operation (including soil type and topography), or is effective across a range of very different

operations. Again, such evidence should be presented in a way that is easy to interpret and

understand.

Have trusted individuals help to convey or back messages and findings. NRCS and SWCD staff

have established good relations with a number of producers within the watershed. Their

reputations – built on trust, a local connection, and first-hand experience of farming practices –

represent an extremely important resource. Producers will be more inclined to consider

participating in the project if these staff are present when findings are communicated, and are

able and willing to reiterate to producers the intricacies of the available practices. Other local

champions including individuals from Manchester University, well-respected local farmers and

the county surveyor also have a role to play in promoting the value of the project, ideally as an

active advisory committee. In addition, news of the project’s progress should be

communicated to producers regularly. Those participating in the Middle Eel Initiative

bemoaned irregular communication which threatens producers’ sense of involvement and

ownership in the project.

Provide multiple opportunities for dialogue. Since the project will only be a success if

participation is widespread throughout the watershed, it is important to generate a sense of


togetherness and collaboration. Introducing the project in a group setting can help to achieve

this goal without conveying that individuals are being singled out or targeted. While a group

setting is appropriate for explaining the concept of the project, producers would also benefit

from one-on-one meetings to discuss issues and opportunities specific to their operation. A

flexible approach to meeting producers, including through on-site visits, minimizes their

inconvenience and helps to ensure details of their operation remain private.


Beargrass Creek 2014 Survey Results

Appendix A – Full Survey Summary

I. Methods

Mail Survey

82 Surveys distributed

0 Bad addresses

60 (73%) Completed (% not including bad addresses)

II. Water Impairments

Below is a list of water pollutants and conditions that are generally present in water bodies to

some extent. The pollutants and conditions become a problem when present in excessive amounts.

In your opinions, how much of a problem are the following water impairments in your area?

Not a

Problem

(1)

Slight

Problem

(2)

Moderate

Problem

(3)

Severe

Problem

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without

9)

(n)

a. Sedimentation/silt (n=57) 22.8% 26.3% 33.3% 5.3% 12.3% 2.2

(n=50)

b. Nitrate/nitrogen (n=59) 22.0% 25.4% 23.7% 5.1% 23.7% 2.2

(n=45)

c. Phosphorus (n=58) 25.9% 20.7% 25.9% 1.7% 25.9% 2.0

(n=43)

d. Bacteria in the water (such as

E. coli) (n=59) 27.2% 20.3% 11.9% 3.4% 37.3%

1.9

(n=37)

III. Sources of Water Pollution The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In your opinion,

how much of a problem are the following sources in your area?

Not a

Problem

(1)

Slight

Problem

(2)

Moderate

Problem

(3)

Severe

Problem

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)

a.

Discharges from industry

into streams and lakes

(n=59)

32.2% 25.4% 17.0% 6.8% 18.6% 2.0 (n=48)

b. Discharges from sewage

treatment plants (n=57) 35.1% 15.8% 17.5% 19.3% 12.3% 2.2 (n=50)

c. Soil erosion from farm

fields (n=57) 17.5% 33.3% 40.4% 7.0% 1.8% 2.4 (n=56)


d.

Soil erosion from

shorelines and/or

streambanks (n=58)

25.9% 31.0% 20.7% 8.6% 13.8% 2.1 (n=50)

e. Lawn fertilizers and/or

pesticides (n=58) 37.9% 22.4% 12.1% 12.1% 15.5% 2.0 (n=49)

f.

Fertilizers or manure

used for crop production

(n=58)

31.0% 31.0% 24.1% 3.5% 10.3% 2.0 (n=52)

g. Improperly maintained

septic systems (n=58) 24.1% 27.6% 12.1% 15.5% 20.7% 2.2 (n=46)

h. Manure from farm

animals (n=58) 36.2% 39.7% 12.1% 0.0% 12.1% 1.7 (n=51)

i. Littering/illegal dumping

of trash (n=59) 25.4% 45.8% 11.9% 10.2% 6.8% 2.1 (n=55)

j.

Pesticides or herbicides

used for crop production

(n=59)

28.8% 37.3% 18.6% 1.7% 13.6% 1.9 (n=51)

k. Animal feeding

operations (n=58) 39.7% 32.8% 12.1% 0.0% 15.5% 1.7 (n=49)

l.

Urban stormwater runoff

(e.g. highways, rooftops,

parking lots) (n=57)

38.6% 22.8% 17.5% 12.3% 8.8% 2.0 (n=52)

m. Removal of streambank

vegetation (n=58) 36.2% 31.0% 8.6% 8.6% 15.5% 1.9 (n=49)

IV. Management Practices

1. Conducting regular soil tests (at least every 4 years)

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with conducting regular soil

tests. (n=56)

3.6% Not relevant – don’t have pasture or crops

0.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it

0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it

1.8% Heard of it and not willing to try it

0.0% Heard of it and might be willing to try it

3.6% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again

8.9% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again

82.1% Currently use it

b. On what percentage of your agricultural land do you conduct regular soil tests? (n=47)

0.0% 0-25%

0.0% 26-50%

2.1% 51-75%

97.9% 76-100

c. I use the results of my soil tests to determine the application rate of: (check all that

apply) (n=46) (percent of those currently using)


53.3% Manure (n=25)

100% Phosphorus fertilizer (n=47)

100% Potassium fertilizer (n=47)

84.4% Nitrogen fertilizer (n=39)

100% Agricultural lime (n=47)

0.0% None (n=0)

15.5% Other (please specify): See Appendix A (n=7)

How much do the following factors limit your ability to conduct regular soil tests?

Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)

d. Don’t know how to do it (n=51) 90.2% 3.9% 2.0% 3.9% 0.0% 1.2 (n=51)

e. Time required (n=51) 80.4% 11.8% 5.9% 2.0% 0.0% 1.3 (n=51)

f. Cost (n=52) 65.4% 17.3% 13.5% 3.9% 0.0% 1.6 (n=52)

g. The features of my property make it

difficult (n=52) 92.3% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 1.0 (n=50)

h. Insufficient proof of water quality

benefit (n=50) 76.0% 8.0% 4.0% 0.0% 12.0% 1.2 (n=44)

i. Desire to continue traditional

farming practices/methods (n=52) 82.7% 9.6% 1.9% 3.9% 1.9% 1.3 (n=51)

j. Disapproval from others (n=52) 92.3% 3.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 1.1 (n=51)

k. Hard to use with my farming system

(n=52) 92.3% 3.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 1.1 (n=51)

l. Lack of equipment (n=52) 82.7% 7.7% 3.9% 3.9% 1.9% 1.3 (n=51)

2. Nutrient Management Plan

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with nutrient management

plans. (n=58)

39.7% Not relevant – don’t own livestock








b. Who helped you to develop your nutrient management plan? (check all that apply)

(n=26) (percent of those currently using)


7.7% SWCD or NRCS (n=2)

0.0% University Extension (n=0)

88.5% A private sector agronomist or crop consultant (n=23)

26.9% I created my own plan (n=7)

0.0% Don’t know (n=0)

0.0% Other (n=0)

c. What is included in your nutrient management plan? (check all that apply) (n=26)

(percent of those currently using)

69.2% Commercial nutrients (n=18)

88.5% Livestock manure (n=23)

0.0% Septic waste (n=0)

3.8% Municipal sludge (n=1)

3.8% Industrial sludge (n=1)

0.0% Don’t know (n=0)

0.0% Other (n=0)

d. I follow all the guidelines set forth by my nutrient management plan. (n=26)

38.5% Strongly agree

57.7% Agree

3.9% Neutral

0.0% Disagree

0.0% Strongly disagree

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

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)

e. Don’t know how to do it (n=31) 67.7% 19.4% 9.7% 0.0% 3.2% 1.4 (n=30)

f. Time required (n=32) 40.6% 31.3% 18.8% 6.3% 3.1% 1.9 (n=31)

g. Cost (n=33) 45.5% 21.9% 12.1% 9.1% 9.1% 1.8 (n=30)

h. The features of my property make it

difficult (n=31) 80.7% 6.5% 6.5% 3.2% 3.2% 1.3 (n=30)

i. Insufficient proof of water quality

benefit (n=32) 65.6% 12.5% 6.3% 3.1% 12.5% 1.4 (n=28)

j. Desire to continue traditional


k. Disapproval from others (n=33) 84.9% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 1.1 (n=31)

l. Hard to use with my farming system

(n=33) 66.7% 6.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 1.6 (n=30)

m. Lack of equipment (n=33) 57.6% 18.2% 12.1% 6.1% 6.1% 1.6 (n=31)

3. Cover Crops


a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with cover crops. (n=55)

9.1% Not relevant – don’t have row crops








b. On what percentage of your cropland do you use cover crops? (n=20)

30.0% 0-25%

20.0% 26-50%

10.0% 51-75%

40.0% 76-100%

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

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)

c. Don’t know how to do it (n=48) 68.8% 18.8% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4 (n=48)

d. Time required (n=49) 42.9% 32.7% 20.4% 4.1% 0.0% 1.9 (n=49)

e. Cost (n=49) 32.7% 20.4% 26.5% 20.4% 0.0% 2.3 (n=49)

f. The features of my property make it

difficult (n=49) 73.5% 18.4% 6.1% 0.0% 2.0% 1.3 (n=48)

g. Insufficient proof of water quality

benefit (n=49) 69.4% 20.4% 8.2% 0.0% 2.0% 1.4 (n=48)

h. Desire to continue traditional


i. Disapproval from others (n=48) 87.5% 6.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 1.2 (n=47)

j. Hard to use with my farming system

(n=51) 41.2% 29.4% 11.8% 15.7% 2.0% 2.0 (n=50)

k. Lack of equipment (n=50) 42.0% 16.0% 28.0% 12.0% 2.0% 2.1 (n=49)

4. Grassed Waterways

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with grassed waterways.

(n=60)










b. What percentage of your waterways are grassed waterways? (n=46)

4.4% 0-25%

2.2% 26-50%

6.5% 51-75%

87.0% 76-100%

How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement grassed waterways?

Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=50) 46.0% 22.0% 10.0% 22.0% 0.0% 2.1 (n=50)


difficult (n=50) 80.0% 8.0% 4.0% 6.0% 2.0% 1.4 (n=49)


benefit (n=49) 81.6% 10.2% 4.1% 0.0% 4.1% 1.2 (n=47)





(n=51) 80.4% 13.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.2 (n=50)


5. Denitrifying Bioreactors

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with denitrifying

bioreactors. (n=59)









b. What percentage of your cropland is drained by denitrifying bioreactors? (n=1)

100% 0-25%


0.0% 26-50%

0.0% 51-75%

0.0% 76-100%

How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement denitrifying bioreactors?

Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=16) 31.3% 0.0% 12.5% 18.8% 37.5% 2.4 (n=9)


difficult (n=16) 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 56.3% 1.4 (n=7)


benefit (n=16) 50.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 43.8% 1.1 (n=9)





(n=16) 25.0% 12.5% 6.3% 6.3% 50.0% 1.9 (n=8)


6. Saturated Buffers

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with saturated buffers.

(n=59)









b. What percentage of your cropland is drained by saturated buffers? (n=0)

0.0% 0-25%

0.0% 26-50%

0.0% 51-75%

0.0% 76-100%

How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement saturated buffers?


Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=14) 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 2.3 (n=8)


difficult (n=15) 33.3% 6.7% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 1.8 (n=9)


benefit (n=14) 42.9% 7.1% 14.3% 0.0% 35.7% 1.6 (n=9)





(n=15) 26.7% 26.7% 0.0% 6.7% 40.0% 1.8 (n=9)


7. Controlled Drainage

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with controlled drainage.

(n=60)









b. What percentage of your cropland is subject to controlled drainage? (n=2)

0.0% 0-25%

0.0% 26-50%

0.0% 51-75%

100.0% 76-100%


How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement controlled drainage?

Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=29) 10.3% 6.9% 20.7% 34.5% 27.6% 3.1 (n=21)


difficult (n=29) 31.0% 6.9% 13.8% 13.8% 34.5% 2.2 (n=19)


benefit (n=29) 48.3% 13.8% 10.0% 0.0% 27.6% 1.5 (n=21)





(n=29) 27.6% 17.2% 10.3% 10.3% 34.5% 2.1 (n=19)


8. Two Stage Ditch

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with two stage ditches.

(n=57)









b. What percentage of your ditches have you installed a two stage ditch? (n=1)

100.0% 0-25%

0.0% 26-50%

0.0% 51-75%

0.0% 76-100%


How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement two stage ditches?

Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=18) 22.2% 0.0% 22.2% 22.2% 33.3% 2.7 (n=12)


difficult (n=17) 29.4% 17.7% 0.0% 29.4% 23.5% 2.4 (n=13)


benefit (n=17) 58.8% 5.9% 11.8% 0.0% 23.5% 1.4 (n=13)





(n=17) 41.2% 17.7% 0.0% 11.8% 29.4% 1.8 (n=12)


9. Stream Channel Restoration

c. Please select the option that best describes your experience with stream channel

restoration. (n=55)









d. What percentage of your streams have undergone stream channel restoration? (n=4)

50.0% 0-25%

0.0% 26-50%

25.0% 51-75%

25.0% 76-100%


How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement stream channel restoration?

Not at

all (1)

A

little

(2)

Some

(3)

A lot

(4)

Don’t

Know

(9)

Mean

(Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=13) 38.5% 7.7% 23.1% 0.0% 30.8% 1.8 (n=9)


difficult (n=12) 58.3% 0.0% 8.3% 16.7% 16.7% 1.8 (n=10)


benefit (n=13) 61.5% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% 23.1% 1.3 (n=10)





(n=12) 41.7% 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% 16.7% 1.8 (n=10)


V. Targeted Conservation

Targeted conservation refers to soil and water conservation activities that use techniques such as

satellite imagery and geographic information systems (GIS) to identify the areas of the landscape

that are most vulnerable so soil erosion of water quality impairment. Targeted conservation

approaches are seen by some as a way to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of soil and water

conservation activities by focusing resources on areas of the landscape that would provide the most

environmental benefit. We are interested in learning about what you think regarding targeted

conservation programs.

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither

(3)

Agree

(4)

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Mean

a.

Conservation funding should be higher

for land that is most vulnerable to soil

and water quality problems. (n=58)

6.9% 6.9% 15.5% 51.7% 19.0% 3.7

b.

Targeted conservation is a good idea

because limited resources should be

spent where they have the most impact.

(n=57)

7.0% 5.3% 10.5% 56.1% 21.0% 3.8

c.

Satellite imagery, GIS and other

technologies can be valuable tools to

help farmers improve their farm’s

environmental performance. (n=58)

6.9% 6.9% 22.4% 53.5% 10.3% 3.5


d.

If a conservation professional contacted

me about a potential natural concern on

my land, I would allow them to come

assess it. (n=58)

6.9% 6.9% 34.5% 43.1% 8.6% 3.4

e.

Targeted conservation programs are

needed because current programs are

not effective enough. (n=58)

5.2% 12.1% 55.2% 22.4% 5.2% 3.1

f.

Government use of satellite imagery and

GIS to map characteristics of private

land is an invasion of privacy. (n=58)

5.2% 15.5% 43.1% 20.7% 15.5% 3.3

g.

If a conservation professional contacted

me about a potential natural resource

concern on my land, I would feel

unfairly singled out. (n=59)

1.7% 28.8% 54.2% 10.2% 5.1% 2.9

VI. Community

Please respond to the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree

(1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither

(3)

Agree

(4)

Strongly

Agree

(5)

Mean

a.

I plan to continue living in this

community even if I am no longer

working here. (n=59)

0.0% 3.4% 17.0% 52.5% 27.1% 4.0

b. I feel a strong sense of attachment to the

land I farm. (n=58) 0.0% 1.7% 10.3% 40.0% 48.3% 4.3

c. I identify strongly with the community I

live in. (n=59) 0.0% 1.7% 17.0% 61.0% 20.3% 4.0

d. I really depend on my community for

the important things in my life. (n=58) 3.5% 8.6% 34.5% 34.5% 19.0% 3.6

e. The way I manage my farm says very

little about who I am. (n=59) 32.2% 35.6% 17.0% 8.5% 6.8% 2.2

f.

I plan to continue living on my land

even if I can’t make money from

farming it. (n=58)

3.5% 5.2% 27.6% 41.4% 22.4% 3.7

g. No other place can compare to this area

for the farming I do. (n=59) 1.7% 20.3% 49.2% 15.3% 13.6% 3.2

h. The community I live in says a lot about

the type of person I am. (n=59) 1.7% 8.5% 50.9% 28.8% 10.2% 3.4

i. Farming in another place would be

better. (n=59) 11.9% 28.8% 47.5% 10.2% 1.7% 2.6

j.

I do not feel a strong sense of

attachment to this particular community.

(n=59)

20.3% 42.4% 30.5% 3.4% 3.4% 2.3


k. Living in another community would be

better. (n=59) 20.3% 47.5% 30.5% 1.7% 0.0% 2.1

l. I identify strongly with the land I farm.

(n=59) 0.0% 0.0% 20.3% 42.4% 37.3% 4.2

VII. Farming Operations

10. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation

this year.

a. Owned (n=48)

Range: 0-1700

Mean: 412.7

b. Rented (n=42)

Range: 0-4400

Mean: 521.0

c. Total (n=53)

Range: 0-5800

Mean: 808.2

11. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation

this year that is located within the Beargrass Creek watershed.

a. Owned (n=46)

Range: 0-1700

Mean: 214.6

b. Rented (n=44)

Range: 0-2200

Mean: 192.0

c. Total (n=52)

Range: 5.3-2750

Mean: 352.0

12. How many acres of the following did you manage in the Beargrass Creek watershed? If

none, please enter a zero.

a. Corn (n=36)

Range: 5.3-1600

Mean: 217.5

1. How many corn acres were no-till, strip-till or ridge till? (n=12)

Range: 20-350

Mean: 128.1

b. Soybeans (n=31)

Range: 20-1200

Mean: 183.5

1. How many soybean acres were no-till, strip-till or ridge till? (n=17)

Range: 35-470

Mean: 149.9


2. How many soybean and corn acres were in cover crops? (n=10)

Range: 7-800

Mean: 207.7

c. Small grains (n=11)

Range: 3-250

Mean: 74.4

d. Canning crops (n=0)

Range: 0

Mean: 0

e. Clover/Alfalfa (n=9)

Range: 3-120

Mean: 56.4

f. Pasture (n=6)

Range: 0.5-18

Mean: 6.4

g. Conservation set aside/CRP (n=4)

Range: 2.4-13

Mean: 8.9

h. Forest/woodland (n=17)

Range: 3-80

Mean: 20.9

i. Non-row crops for energy (n=2)

Range: 9-500

Mean: 254.5

j. Other (n=0)

Range: 0

Mean: 0

13. Over how many of these acres in the Beargrass Creek watershed was manure spread?

(n=19)

Range: 5-417

Mean: 104.1

14. What proportion of manure originated inside the Beargrass Creek watershed? (n=14)

Range: 25%-100%

Mean: 90.4%

15. How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please

enter a zero.

a. Dairy cattle, including heifers and young stock (n=1)

Range: 20.0

Mean: 20.0

b. Beef cattle, including young stock (n=4)

Range: 3-14

Mean: 7.5

c. Hogs (n=5)

Range: 50-50,000

Mean: 12,510


d. Poultry (n=0)

Range: 0

Mean: 0

e. Other livestock (specify): See Appendix A (n=1)

Range: 6.0

Mean: 6.0

16. How many years have you been farming? (n=48)

Range: 2-70

Mean: 33.7

17. Does the property you manage touch a stream, river, lake, or wetland? (n=56)

64.3% Yes

35.7% No

18. Do you plan to improve your drainage within the next 10 years? (n=53)

64.2% Yes

35.9% No

19. If yes, how do you plan to finance it? (n=31)

See Appendix A.

20. Five years from now, which statement will best describe your farm operation? (n=55)

36.4% It will be about the same size as it is today

25.5% It will be larger

3.6% It will be smaller

34.6% I don’t know

21. About You

1. What is your gender? (n=57)

94.7% Male

5.3% Female

2. What is your age? (n=55)

Range: 23-87

Mean: 57.3

3. What is the highest level of school you have completed? (n=56)

3.6% Some formal schooling

42.9% High school diploma / GED

21.4% Some college

8.9% 2 year college degree

19.6% 4 year college degree

3.6% Post-graduate degree

4. In the last year, how many days did you work at least 4 hours off-farm? (Include work

on someone else’s farm for pay) (n=57)

57.9% None


10.5% 1-49 days

1.8% 50-99 days

3.5% 100-199 days

26.3% 200 days or more

“Other” Responses to Survey Questions

1c. (Management Practices) I use the results of my soil tests to determine the application rate of:

(check all that apply) (n=46)

Other (please specify):

Micronutrients (n=6)

Zinc, sulfur, boron (n=1)

6e. (Farming Operations) How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation?

If none, please enter a zero. (n=1)

Other livestock (specify):

None listed

10. (Farming Operations) If yes, how do you plan to finance it? (n=31)

Cash (n=10)

Do our own (n=1)

Landowner will pay for it (n=1)

Local bank (n=2)

N/A (n=2)

Through NRCS and my own funds (n=1)

Bank loan or government help (n=1)

Crop income (n=2)

Farm income (n=1)

Not sure (n=4)

Myself (n=4)

None (n=1)

Pay as do (n=1)

Flowers Creek 2014 Survey Results


Flowers Creek 2014 Survey Results I. Methods

Mail Survey 70 Surveys distributed 0 Bad addresses 39 (55.7%) Completed (% not including bad addresses)

II. Water Impairments

Below is a list of water pollutants and conditions that are generally present in water bodies to some extent. The pollutants and conditions become a problem when present in excessive amounts. In your opinions, how much of a problem are the following water impairments in your area?

Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without

9) (n)


(n=29)


(n=25)

c. Phosphorus (n=34) 26.5% 32.4% 8.8% 2.9% 29.4% 1.8

(n=24)

d. Bacteria in the water (such as E. coli) (n=34)

32.4% 11.8% 14.7% 2.9% 38.2% 1.8

(n=21)

III. Sources of Water Pollution

The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following sources in your area?

Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)

a. Discharges from industry into streams and lakes (n=35)

40.0% 22.9% 11.4% 2.9% 22.9% 1.7 (n=27)



b. Discharges from sewage treatment plants (n=35)

31.4% 28.6% 17.1% 5.7% 17.1% 2.0 (n=29)

c. Soil erosion from farm fields (n=35)

11.4% 37.1% 28.6% 5.7% 17.1% 2.3 (n=29)

d. Soil erosion from shorelines and/or streambanks (n=36)

22.2% 25.0% 33.3% 5.6% 13.9% 2.3 (n=31)

e. Lawn fertilizers and/or pesticides (n=35)

34.3% 28.6% 17.1% 0.0% 20.0% 1.8 (n=28)

f. Fertilizers or manure used for crop production (n=35)

20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 2.9% 17.1% 2.1 (n=29)

g. Improperly maintained septic systems (n=36)

27.8% 38.9% 8.3% 0.0% 25.0% 1.7 (n=27)

h. Manure from farm animals (n=35)

31.4% 37.1% 11.4% 2.9% 17.1% 1.8 (n=29)

i. Littering/illegal dumping of trash (n=36)

13.9% 36.1% 27.8% 8.3% 13.9% 2.4 (n=31)

j. Pesticides or herbicides used for crop production (n=35)

28.6% 40.0% 14.3% 0.0% 17.1% 1.8 (n=29)

k. Animal feeding operations (n=36)

36.1% 36.1% 8.3% 2.8% 16.7% 1.7 (n=30)

l. Urban stormwater runoff (e.g. highways, rooftops, parking lots) (n=35)

51.4% 17.1% 14.3% 5.7% 11.4% 1.7 (n=31)

m. Removal of streambank vegetation (n=35)

45.7% 20.0% 17.1% 0.0% 17.1% 1.7 (n=29)

IV. Management Practices

1. Conducting regular soil tests (at least every 4 years) d. Please select the option that best describes your experience with conducting regular soil

tests. (n=31) 3.2% Not relevant – don’t have pasture or crops 3.2% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 3.2% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 9.7% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 80.6% Currently use it



e. On what percentage of your agricultural land do you conduct regular soil tests? (n=25) 0.0% 0-25% 4.0% 26-50% 8.0% 51-75% 88.0% 76-100%

f. I use the results of my soil tests to determine the application rate of: (check all that apply) (n=39) (percent of those currently using)

23.1% Manure (n=9) 56.4% Phosphorus fertilizer (n=22) 56.4% Potassium fertilizer (n=22) 59.0% Nitrogen fertilizer (n=23) 59.0% Agricultural lime (n=23) 0.0% None (n=0) 2.6% Other (please specify): See Appendix A (n=1) How much do the following factors limit your ability to conduct regular soil tests?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)

d. Don’t know how to do it (n=30) 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 1.0 (n=29)

e. Time required (n=30) 80.0% 10.0% 6.7% 0.0% 3.3% 1.2 (n=29)

f. Cost (n=30) 63.3% 16.7% 13.3% 3.3% 3.3% 1.6 (n=29)

g. The features of my property make it difficult (n=30)

86.7% 6.7% 3.3% 0.0% 3.3% 1.1 (n=29)

h. Insufficient proof of water quality benefit (n=30)

80.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 13.3% 1.2 (n=26)

i. Desire to continue traditional farming practices/methods (n=30)

80.0% 0.0% 10.0% 6.7% 3.3% 1.4 (n=29)

j. Disapproval from others (n=30) 96.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 1.0 (n=29)

k. Hard to use with my farming system (n=30)

90.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 1.1 (n=29)

l. Lack of equipment (n=30) 83.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 6.7% 1.2 (n=28)



2. Nutrient Management Plan e. Please select the option that best describes your experience with nutrient management

plans. (n=35) 45.7% Not relevant – don’t own livestock 5.7% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 11.4% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 5.7% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 31.4% Currently use it

f. Who helped you to develop your nutrient management plan? (check all that apply) (n=39) (percent of those currently using)

10.3% SWCD or NRCS (n=4) 2.6% University Extension (n=1) 25.6% A private sector agronomist or crop consultant (n=10) 2.6% I created my own plan (n=1) 0.0% Don’t know (n=0) 2.6% Other (specify): See Appendix A (n=1)

g. What is included in your nutrient management plan? (check all that apply) (n=39) (percent of those currently using)

23.1% Commercial nutrients (n=9) 23.1% Livestock manure (n=9) 0.0% Septic waste (n=0) 0.0% Municipal sludge (n=0) 0.0% Industrial sludge (n=0) 0.0% Don’t know (n=0) 5.1% Other (specify): See Appendix A (n=2)

h. I follow all the guidelines set forth by my nutrient management plan. (n=12) 41.7% Strongly agree 50.0% Agree 8.3% Neutral 0.0% Disagree 0.0% Strongly disagree 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

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)

e. Don’t know how to do it (n=15) 80.0% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 1.2 (n=14)



f. Time required (n=15) 60.0% 26.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 1.4 (n=14)

g. Cost (n=15) 60.0% 20.0% 13.3% 0.0% 6.7% 1.5 (n=14)

h. The features of my property make it difficult (n=15)

86.7% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 1.1 (n=14)

i. Insufficient proof of water quality benefit (n=15)

66.7% 13.3% 6.7% 0.0% 13.3% 1.3 (n=13)

j. Desire to continue traditional farming practices/methods (n=15)

73.3% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 1.2 (n=14)

k. Disapproval from others (n=15) 93.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 1.0 (n=14)

l. Hard to use with my farming system (n=15)

80.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 1.1 (n=14)

m. Lack of equipment (n=15) 80.0% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% 1.2 (n=14)

3. Cover Crops

c. Please select the option that best describes your experience with cover crops. (n=35) 5.7% Not relevant – don’t have row crops 2.9% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 5.7% Heard of it and not willing to try it 22.9% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 17.1% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 45.7% Currently use it

d. On what percentage of your cropland do you use cover crops? (n=18) 33.3% 0-25% 11.1% 26-50% 16.7% 51-75% 38.9% 76-100% 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

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=30) 30.0% 40.0% 16.7% 10.0% 3.3% 2.1 (n=29)



f. The features of my property make it difficult (n=30)

76.7% 10.0% 3.3% 6.7% 3.3% 1.4 (n=29)

g. Insufficient proof of water quality benefit (n=30)

70.0% 10.0% 3.3% 0.0% 16.7% 1.2 (n=25)

h. Desire to continue traditional farming practices/methods (n=29)

62.1% 13.8% 13.8% 3.4% 6.9% 1.6 (n=27)


j. Hard to use with my farming system (n=28)

42.9% 25.0% 14.3% 7.1% 10.7% 1.8 (n=25)


4. Grassed Waterways

c. Please select the option that best describes your experience with grassed waterways. (n=36)

5.6% Not relevant – don’t have row crops 0.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 5.6% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 5.6% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 83.3% Currently use it

d. What percentage of your waterways are grassed waterways? (n=31) 9.7% 0-25% 3.2% 26-50% 16.1% 51-75% 71.0% 76-100% How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement grassed waterways?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=30) 46.7% 20.0% 20.0% 6.7% 6.7% 1.9 (n=28)


72.4% 13.8% 6.9% 0.0% 6.9% 1.3 (n=27)




73.3% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 13.3% 1.2 (n=26)


76.7% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 1.1 (n=27)



73.3% 10.0% 6.7% 0.0% 10.0% 1.3 (n=27)


5. Denitrifying Bioreactors

c. Please select the option that best describes your experience with denitrifying bioreactors. (n=33)


d. What percentage of your cropland is drained by denitrifying bioreactors? (n=1) 100% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100% How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement denitrifying bioreactors?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=10) 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 30.0% 30.0% 3.4 (n=7)


0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 40.0% 30.0% 3.4 (n=7)


0.0% 33.3% 11.1% 11.1% 44.4% 2.6 (n=5)




22.2% 22.2% 0.0% 22.2% 33.3% 2.3 (n=6)



11.1% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 44.4% 2.4 (n=5)


6. Saturated Buffers c. Please select the option that best describes your experience with saturated buffers.

(n=34) 11.8% Not relevant – don’t have row crops 17.6% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 35.3% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 8.8% Heard of it and not willing to try it 17.6% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 8.8% Currently use it

d. What percentage of your cropland is drained by saturated buffers? (n=4) 50.0% 0-25% 25.0% 26-50% 25.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100% How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement saturated buffers?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=12) 25.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 2.3 (n=9)


16.7% 16.7% 8.3% 33.3% 25.0% 2.8 (n=9)


38.5% 15.4% 7.7% 7.7% 30.8% 1.8 (n=9)




50.0% 16.7% 0.0% 8.3% 25.0% 1.6 (n=9)



33.3% 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% 25.0% 1.9 (n=9)


7. Controlled Drainage

c. Please select the option that best describes your experience with controlled drainage. (n=35)


d. What percentage of your cropland is subject to controlled drainage? (n=4) 50.0% 0-25% 25.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 25.0% 76-100% How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement controlled drainage?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=18) 11.1% 11.1% 27.8% 38.9% 11.1% 3.1 (n=16)


11.1% 16.7% 22.2% 38.9% 11.1% 3.0 (n=16)


22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 16.7% 16.7% 2.4 (n=15)


44.4% 33.3% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 1.8 (n=17)





47.1% 29.4% 17.6% 0.0% 5.9% 1.7 (n=16)


8. Two Stage Ditch

e. Please select the option that best describes your experience with two stage ditches. (n=34)


f. What percentage of your ditches have you installed a two stage ditch? (n=0) 0.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100% How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement two stage ditches?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=11) 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 45.5% 18.2% 3.2 (n=9)


18.2% 9.1% 45.5% 9.1% 18.2% 2.6 (n=9)


45.5% 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 18.2% 2.0 (n=9)


60.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 1.5 (n=8)





30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 2.1 (n=8)


9. Stream Channel Restoration

a. Please select the option that best describes your experience with stream channel restoration. (n=32)


b. What percentage of your streams have undergone stream channel restoration? (n=1) 0.0% 0-25% 100% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100% How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement stream channel restoration?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(9)

Mean (Without 9)

(n)



e. Cost (n=7) 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 42.9% 42.9% 3.5 (n=4)


12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 2.8 (n=6)


25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 2.6 (n=7)


57.1% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 2.3 (n=6)



28.6% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 28.6% 2.0 (n=5)





Targeted conservation refers to soil and water conservation activities that use techniques such as satellite imagery and geographic information systems (GIS) to identify the areas of the landscape that are most vulnerable so soil erosion of water quality impairment. Targeted conservation approaches are seen by some as a way to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of soil and water conservation activities by focusing resources on areas of the landscape that would provide the most environmental benefit. We are interested in learning about what you think regarding targeted conservation programs.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(9)

Mean

a. Conservation funding should be higher for land that is most vulnerable to soil and water quality problems. (n=35)

2.9% 0.0% 22.9% 62.9% 11.4% 3.8

b.

Targeted conservation is a good idea because limited resources should be spent where they have the most impact. (n=35)

2.9% 0.0% 14.3% 68.6% 14.3% 3.91

c.

Satellite imagery, GIS and other technologies can be valuable tools to help farmers improve their farm’s environmental performance. (n=35)

2.9% 2.9% 28.6% 57.1% 8.6% 3.66

d.

If a conservation professional contacted me about a potential natural concern on my land, I would allow them to come assess it. (n=35)

5.7% 8.6% 34.3% 45.7% 5.7% 3.37

e. Targeted conservation programs are needed because current programs are not effective enough. (n=35)

5.7% 14.3% 57.1% 17.1% 5.7% 3.03

f. Government use of satellite imagery and GIS to map characteristics of private land is an invasion of privacy. (n=35)

5.7% 14.3% 51.4% 22.9% 5.7% 3.09

g.

If a conservation professional contacted me about a potential natural resource concern on my land, I would feel unfairly singled out. (n=35)

5.7% 25.7% 48.6% 14.3% 5.7% 2.89



VI. Community

Please respond to the following statements.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(9)

Mean

a. I plan to continue living in this community even if I am no longer working here. (n=36)

0.0% 2.8% 5.6% 58.3% 33.3% 4.22

b. I feel a strong sense of attachment to the land I farm. (n=35)

0.0% 2.8% 2.8% 50.0% 44.4% 4.36

c. I identify strongly with the community I live in. (n=35)

0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 57.1% 31.4% 4.20

d. I really depend on my community for the important things in my life. (n=36)

2.8% 5.6% 19.4% 55.6% 16.7% 3.78

e. The way I manage my farm says very little about who I am. (n=36)

27.8% 41.7% 13.9% 8.3% 8.3% 2.28

f. I plan to continue living on my land even if I can’t make money from farming it. (n=36)

2.8% 5.6% 33.3% 38.9% 19.4% 3.67

g. No other place can compare to this area for the farming I do. (n=35)

5.7% 20.0% 42.9% 22.9% 8.6% 3.09

h. The community I live in says a lot about the type of person I am. (n=36)

2.8% 5.6% 38.9% 38.9% 13.9% 3.56

i. Farming in another place would be better. (n=36)

11.1% 25.0% 50.0% 11.1% 2.8% 2.69

j. I do not feel a strong sense of attachment to this particular community. (n=36)

27.8% 58.3% 13.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.86

k. Living in another community would be better. (n=36)

22.2% 50.0% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.06

l. I identify strongly with the land I farm. (n=36)

5.6% 2.8% 13.9% 55.6% 22.2% 3.86




1. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation this year.

d. Owned (n=35) Range: 6-1200 Mean: 313.3 e. Rented (n=31) Range: 0-1900 Mean: 276.7 f. Total (n=32) Range: 10-2270 Mean: 562.5

2. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation this year that is located within the Flowers Creek watershed.

d. Owned (n=31) Range: 0-1200 Mean: 157.8 e. Rented (n=25) Range: 0-1000 Mean: 144.2 f. Total (n=29) Range: 0-1500 Mean: 268.2

3. How many acres of the following did you manage in the Flowers Creek watershed? If none, please enter a zero.

k. Corn (n=25) Range: 0-800 Mean: 155.0

2. How many corn acres were no-till, strip-till or ridge till? (n=22) Range: 0-750 Mean: 89.0

l. Soybeans (n=26) Range: 0-800 Mean: 138.0

3. How many soybean acres were no-till, strip-till or ridge till? (n=24) Range: 0-750 Mean: 95.7 4. How many soybean and corn acres were in cover crops? (n=22) Range: 0-300 Mean: 21.8

m. Small grains (n=20) Range: 0-1500



Mean: 136.3 n. Canning crops (n=20) Range: 0 Mean: 0.0 o. Clover/Alfalfa (n=21) Range: 0-40 Mean: 4.3 p. Pasture (n=23) Range: 0-40 Mean: 5.9 q. Conservation set aside/CRP (n=22) Range: 0-20 Mean: 3.5

r. Forest/woodland (n=24) Range: 0-100 Mean: 12.3 s. Non-row crops for energy (n=20) Range: 0 Mean: 0.0 t. Other (specify): See Appendix A (n=13) Range: 0 Mean: 0.0

4. Over how many of these acres in the Flowers Creek watershed was manure spread? (n=28)

Range: 0-250 Mean: 35.7

5. What proportion of manure originated inside the Flowers Creek watershed? (n=27) Range: 0-100 Mean: 36.7

6. How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please enter

a zero. f. Dairy cattle, including heifers and young stock (n=27) Range: 0-100 Mean: 5.1 g. Beef cattle, including young stock (n=28) Range: 0-130 Mean: 9.3 h. Hogs (n=27) Range: 0-8000 Mean: 740.7 i. Poultry (n=27) Range: 0



Mean: 0.0 j. Other livestock (specify): See Appendix A (n=26) Range: 0-6 Mean: 0.2


Range: 4-70 Mean: 35.1


78.8% Yes 21.2% No

9. Do you plan to improve your drainage within the next 10 years? (n=32) 65.6% Yes 34.4% No

10. If yes, how do you plan to finance it? (n=39) See Appendix A.

11. Five years from now, which statement will best describe your farm operation? (n=33)

48.5% It will be about the same size as it is today 27.3% It will be larger 0.0% It will be smaller 24.2% I don’t know

12. About You

1. What is your gender? (n=36) 91.7% Male 8.3% Female

2. What is your age? (n=35)

Range: 24-87 Mean: 57.8

3. What is the highest level of school you have completed? (n=35)

0.0% Some formal schooling 37.1% High school diploma / GED 17.1% Some college 17.1% 2 year college degree 20.0% 4 year college degree 8.6% Post-graduate degree



4. In the last year, how many days did you work at least 4 hours off-farm? (Include work on someone else’s farm for pay) (n=32)

53.1% None 9.4% 1-49 days 3.1% 50-99 days 12.5% 100-199 days 21.9% 200 days or more

Appendix A-“Other” Responses to Survey Questions c. I use the results of my soil test to determine the application rate of: Cash rent my land b. Who helped you develop your nutrient management plan? Common sense c. What is included in your nutrient management plant? Compost, food grade liquid growers 11. If yes, how do you plan to finance it? No answer (n=20) 0 (n=1) Already did ditch (n=1) Cash (n=8) No (n=1) Not sure – hopefully Ag production (n=1)

Pay as I go (n=1) Rent (n=1) Self (n=5)

Appendix B – Additional Comments

Comments from page 1: I cash rent farms to Farm #1 West Farm’s-171 acres. Farm #2 Musselman Bros, Inc. 70 acres.

o From page 13: I cash rent my land. o Page 14: Cash rent farms to Clarence West and Musselman Bros.

Have neighbors that haul manure on top of the ground. Think it should be knifed in the ground. Sometimes it rains and you can see it all run off and the smell and they don’t live by it. One time we had a lot of rain and cattle farmer pits wer

I cash rent the farmland…not much help on the survey…

I did this survey covering only the land that I directly own and rent. I did not include any of my father’s land that is in the same watershed that I help manage for him.

On page 13 he commented and said there was no map on the front page of the survey for him to answer number 2 on your farming operation



P13-Q2: I cash rent this acreage and don’t farm it myself. I know very little about farming and rent to trusted friend. (Donaldson Farms)

We rent our ground out. So can’t answer this questioner.

Your watershed map does not show my land but my tiles flow to Flowers Creek.


Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Landowner and Producer Meeting and On-farm Visits, Dec 18th, 19th 2014

Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Landowner and Producer Meeting and On-farm Visits,

Dec 18th, 19th 2014

Prepared 2015 by: Dr. Mike Dunn, Dr. Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad, Dr. Nick Babin & Dr. Linda S. Prokopy Natural Resources Social Science Lab Department of Natural Resources Purdue University


Summary

The event was effectively promoted through a variety of means including mail, email,

telephone and in-person.

Opportunities to learn about the watershed project, learn about conservation practices, and to

network with other attendees were the three most important factors behind producers’

decision to attend. The opportunity to attain PARP credits was not a key motivator for

Beargrass producers, but may have encouraged a small number of producers from outside the

watershed to attend.

Attendance was dominated by agency/university staff, who outnumbered producers by

approximately 3:1. Although the event attracted a number of ‘key’ producers, the unbalanced

mix of attendees may have been overwhelming to some. It is also notable that the groups

typically sat with their peers which is likely to have limited dialogue between different actors.

Producers were most vocal towards individuals they already knew and/or had a working

relationship with (e.g. Purdue Extension Service and other producers). The opportunity to

discuss the maps and conservation practices in a private setting helped to generate more in-

depth discussion between producers and Beargrass Creek Watershed Project collaborators.

Responses from the feedback survey showed that producers were unanimously satisfied with

the meeting. Information on the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project was particularly valued.

Producers also considered information on conservation practices, soil health and the use of

maps to be of value. Speakers were commendable in stressing that producers are not

exclusively responsible for water quality issues, and in explaining that conservation practices

would not require a substantial economic loss (due to available cost share and the small

proportion of land the practices require).

Producers demonstrated much interest in the maps and conservation practices. A number of

questions about the various practices were forthcoming, suggesting interest and a lack of


existing knowledge. The use of visual aids to convey the functionality and appearance of novel

practices remains important for future engagement.

Producers were easily able to identify their parcels of land on the maps provided. They were

also able to clarify who owned and rented particular fields in recent years.

While the maps proved very useful in generating discussion, they do not reflect tile presence or

depth, which are important considerations for many of the practices. Nor are they able to detail

how much water existing fields, channels and depressions hold in different circumstances. As a

result, some practices illustrated on the map are infeasible in reality. It is therefore essential to

continue to gain producer’s input (and subsequently survey the landscape on foot) to be able to

say with any certainty that a practice could be implemented.

Background

The Beargrass Creek Watershed Landowner and Producer meeting took place on December 18th 2014.

The event was designed to provide producers with an overview of the partners and projects operating

within the watershed. The meeting provided many attendees with their first opportunity to see how

maps derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology could assist in identifying the most

effective locations for novel conservation practices. In addition, attendance at the meeting allowed

producers to earn Private Applicator Recertification Program (PARP) credits.

Those producers from the Beargrass Creek who attended the meeting were invited to participate in a

short feedback survey. Responses were received from ten of these fifteen producers.

The following day, two on-farm visits were carried out by Susi Stephan (Wabash Soil and Water

Conservation District), Joe Magner (Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering at the University of

Minnesota) and Mike Dunn (Natural Resources Social Science at Purdue University). These visits

provided a more private setting for producers to discuss the maps and opportunities for conservation

practices.

This report summarizes the observations made during the meetings and the findings from the feedback

survey. Its purpose is to assist organizers in improving future events and outreach.

Promotion and Attendance


Personal invitation letters and a copy of the meeting agenda were mailed by Susi Stephan (SWCD) to

each producer/landowner in the Beargrass Creek watershed. This was followed up with an email to

those for whom an address was held. A small number of key producers (based on their acreage and

perceived influence in the community) received phone calls, while those visiting the SWCD office were

reminded about the event in-person.

Fifty individuals signed in at the meeting. The majority of attendees were agency staff. Fifteen

producers from the Beargrass Creek watershed attended. In addition a small number of producers

from outside the watershed were present - presumably to gain applicator (PARP and CCH) credits that

resulted from talks on nutrient management, soil health and regulatory guidelines.

Producers from the Beargrass Creek reported a range of motivations for attending the meeting. All

wished to learn more about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project, while 70% were motivated by the

opportunity to learn more about conservation practices. Responses also show that many of the

producers viewed the meeting as a means of networking with agency/extension staff (60%) and/or

other producers (40%).

Figure 1 – Attendance Motivation

Response options (select all that apply)

Count %

To attain Private Applicator Re-certification Program (PARP) credits

3 30%

To learn more about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project

10 100%

To learn more about conservation practices

7 70%

To meet and engage with other producers

4 40%

To meet and engage with agency/extension staff

6 60%

Other* (please specify) - I’m a producer in the project (x1)

2 20%


Meeting Content and Value The meeting began with a series of introductions of key Project personnel and a brief description of

their work in the watershed. Susi Stephan (SWCD) described the purpose of the Watershed Project as

an opportunity for producers to avoid further regulation by demonstrating their ability to voluntarily

participate in conservation practices.

NRCS Conservationist, Kimberley Neumann, described a new effort to engage absentee landowners

through postcards, as well as newly available cost share assistance funds resulting from the recent

Farm Bill. It was later confirmed that these funds could be accessed for a range of the conservation

practices that would later be discussed, and that NRCS would ensure that Beargrass producers would

have prioritized access to the funds.

Manchester University’s Jerry Sweeten provided further context to the Beargrass watershed by

describing its relation to the Middle Eel. Using examples gained from the University’s previous research

the complexity of water quality was described. Producers were reassured that events/actors outside of

agriculture (such as weather and industry) could also determine day-to-day water quality. However,

the evidence presented suggested that the Beargrass Creek measures unfavorably to other watersheds

in the area, including the paired watershed (Paw Paw). A number of non-regulatory water quality

targets were introduced with the acknowledgement that these would be difficult to achieve in the

short term, particularly if relying on biological indicators.

Environmental Defense Fund Project Manager, Karen Chapman, reiterated the importance of

conservation agriculture in achieving the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force’s goal of reducing nutrient loads by

45%. The extensive use of in-field practices within the Beargrass Creek was commended, although it

was noted that these would need to be supplemented with in-stream/in-channel practices to achieve

the desired level of nutrient reduction. Critically, it was stressed that these new practices could prove

effective on as little as 1-2% of land in the watershed, provided they are well targeted.

Results from the feedback survey show that these talks (informing on the Beargrass Creek Watershed

Project) were considered ‘very useful’ by 90% of the respondents. Jerry Sweeten’s contribution

attracted particular praise from the survey respondents.

In the first of three talks which qualified producers for PARP credits, Melissa Lehman of Agronomic

Solutions Inc. noted that adjusting timing and rate of chemical application would be insufficient to


solve the hypoxia problem. This extensive talk on soil health concluded with the offer of a Nutrient

Management binder and assistance for producers to record their applications. The second of the PARP

talks by District Conservationist, Adam Jones, focused on the benefits to soil health resulting from

cover crops and no-till practices (building organic matter, and the retention of moisture and nutrients).

Feedback responses demonstrate that 70% of producers found these talks on soil health to be either

“very useful” or “extremely useful.” Curt Campbell of Purdue Extension Service provided the final

element necessary for PARP credits. The talk detailed various scenarios to establish the licenses

producers require for manure sales, transportation and application. Respondents of the survey

considered this the least useful component of the meeting, with over half perceiving the information

to be “slightly useful” or “not useful at all.”

USDA’s Sarah Porter and Mark Tomer spoke about the development of detailed maps generated

through LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). To help producers understand that they are not being

singled out, it was made clear that the maps had been based on readily available existing data (soil

maps, statewide LIDAR data). Additionally, it was noted that similar maps had been produced in

watersheds outside of Indiana. The presentation illustrated how data could be used to suggest areas

on the maps where particular conservation practices could be expected to work most effectively within

the Beargrass watershed. Commendably, it was made abundantly clear that the maps should be used

to help producers decide what they might like to try, rather than as a means of identifying locations

where practices must be implemented. As such, the talk helped to reiterate that the goal of the Project

is not to blanket conservation practices throughout the watershed. More than three-quarters of

respondents rated the information pertaining to the use of maps as “very useful.”

Finally, Joe Magner of the University of Minnesota talked about the various trap and treat practices,

i.e. those designed to function on the edge of, or within, the stream/channel. The talk included a

balanced assessment of the practices in which both benefits and challenges were readily addressed.

Again, producers were informed that these practices could help to reduce the possibility of regulation,

and that the intention of the Project’s staff is to implement practices without compromising producers’

profitability. Two-thirds of respondents reported to have found the explanation of these practices

“very useful.”


In the closing comments Susi Stephan expressed her hope that producers would approach

conservation agency staff if they had any questions, if they wished to provide comments on the maps,

or if they needed help in filing applications for cost share assistance. The availability of NRCS cost share

was reiterated, confirming that although there would be some variability depending on the practice,

producers could expect to receive somewhere in the region of 75% assistance. Attendees were also

made aware of a $1 million prize offered by Tulane University for the first small watershed able to

demonstrate the 45% reduction in nutrient loss.

Figure 2 – Usefulness of Meeting Components

Producer Interaction Less than one-third of the meeting’s attendees were producers from the Beargrass Creek. For the most

part, these producers chose to sit and dine together throughout the day. Despite invitations to ask

questions and provide comments, no input was forthcoming during the first half of the meeting.

However, a number of producers could be seen taking notes from the slides, such as the websites

recommended to learn about soil health.

Despite the relative lack of usefulness reported in the follow-up survey, producers were most involved

during the discussion on manure management. The observable peak in the level of interaction may be

attributable to the means of engagement (in which the speaker communicated directly with the

producers, walking amongst their tables), and/or their existing relationships. It was notable that over

the course of this session, producers began to talk openly amongst themselves about the issues and

scenarios being discussed.


Questions were stimulated when a local producer was encouraged to speak about their own

experiences with a conservation practice (controlled drainage), suggesting that the producers in

attendance are most comfortable and interested in dialogue with those who have relatable on-the-

ground experience. The exchange resulted in an invitation for producers to approach the individual or

even visit their farm to see the practice first-hand.

During the sessions on the use of conservation practices, producers became noticeably animated, and

an array of questions pertaining to feasibility were asked. In particular, producers queried the cost and

maintenance of practices, how much land they would require, and if funding would be available.

At the close of the meeting, three producers (including the two largest landowners in the watershed)

stayed behind for a closer look at LIDAR generated maps. All were able to identify the parcels of land

they own, and were able to confirm and correct the maps features and flow patterns. Joe Magner was

very open to the input provided and was able to recall in detail areas of the creek he had previously

visited. These producers were evidently curios to see what practices were suggested and whether their

newly acquired understanding of the practices aligned with their intimate knowledge of the land.

The results of the follow-up survey demonstrate that all respondents went on to discuss the meeting

with at least one other group (80% with their families, 50% with other producers, 30% with

agency/extension staff, and 10% with their landlords).

Follow-up Meetings Two follow-up meetings were arranged to allow producers to view the maps and consider the

suggested practices in a more private setting. The first on-farm meeting took place with two farmers,

but without the farm’s primary decision maker. Although those present were familiar with the project

from participation in previously conducted interviews and surveys, they had been unable to attend the

previous day’s meeting. For this reason, the meeting’s purpose and content was repeated while

emphasizing the intention to avoid regulation without compromising profitability.

The producers had little difficulty identifying their parcels of land. However, a number of inaccuracies

were highlighted resulting in an extended yet amicable discussion about which practices might work

best in specific localities. This process confirmed that the maps are an effective way to generate

dialogue, but may not accurately reflect the most suitable practices for particular localities. For

example, the producers pointed out a depression that was situated at a high point on their farm, and


was not susceptible to ponding as the map had suggested. Another field which the map indicated may

be suitable for controlled drainage was not perceived to have any issues with drainage. During the

discussion it was realized that diagrams of the practices would have been beneficial in aiding the

producers understanding of their function and appearance. Following input from the producers about

the land and its drainage, practices not illustrated on the maps were subsequently discussed with the

goal of tailoring alternative practices to specific locations.

The producer hosting the second farm visit had attended the previous day’s meeting and was able to

comment on what practices might be feasible on their land. However, after discussion about the water

flow and channel depth (lacking on the maps), the suitability of certain practices needed to be

reevaluated. Although numerous possibilities remained, it was considered necessary to view the

landscape firsthand to be able to establish an improved sense of feasibility. The producer was able to

clarify that land considered to fall outside of the Beargrass Creek watershed (according to the maps)

was actually tiled causing water to flow in a direction contrary to that suggested by the maps. This

revelation meant that a substantial area of land - farmed by a producer who is enthusiastic about the

Project - could now be considered a possible location for new practices.

As in the previous day’s meeting, the producers had a number of questions about the suggested

practices, relating to loss of land from production, maintenance/longevity, cost, and evidence of

effectiveness. Low corn prices and lack of evidence of a practice’s impact both emerged as barriers to

adoption. In addition, it was realized that certain practices implemented across multiple farms, or on

land bordering farms, could result in conflicts depending on the actors involved.

Ultimately, the producers noted that they were interested in the possibility of utilizing new practices,

but would not be ready to commit at the present time.


Beargrass Creek Landowner and Producer Meeting Follow-up Survey

Beargrass Creek Landowner and Producer Meeting Follow-up Survey

Thank you again for attending the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Landowner and Producer Meeting on December 18th. We would greatly appreciate it if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this short survey. Your answers will not be linked to your name. It will provide us with useful information to help us improve future meetings.


Q1 Why did you decide to attend the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Landowner and Producer Meeting on December 18, 2014? (Please check all that apply) To attain Private Applicator Re-certification Program (PARP) credits

To learn more about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project

To learn more about conservation practices

To meet and engage with other producers

To meet and engage with agency/extension staff

Other (please specify)

_________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

Q2 How useful did you find the following aspects of the meeting?

Not at all

useful Slightly useful

Moderately useful

Very useful Extremely

useful

Information on the Beargrass Creek

Watershed Project

Evidence of water quality issues in the watershed

Manure management

including transport,

application and licenses

Soil health including benefits of cover crops and

no-tilling

The use of maps to indicate potential

locations for conservation

practices

Explanation of trap and treat

conservation practices


Q3 Are there any other aspects of the meeting that you found useful? If so, please specify. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Q4 Are there any ways in which you feel the meeting could have been improved? If so, please specify. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Q5 Since attending, who have you talked to about the meeting? (Please check all that apply) Other producers

Agency/extension staff

My family

My landlord

Other (please specify) ____________________________________________________

I haven’t talked to anyone about the meeting

Q6 Please use this space to provide any additional comments about the meeting or the project. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your continued interest and participation!


Meeting Review: June 25th 2015

Notes from the Beargrass Creek Watershed Meeting Thursday June 25th 2015 Manchester University

The meeting marked approximately 1 year since the team had first met together, and approximately 6 months after the December 2014 meeting (at which the watershed’s producers were invited to hear about the project in the presence of all of the collaborators). The purpose of the meeting was for each individual/team to provide an update of their work, findings and ideas since the December meeting. Project partners in attendance included Susi Stephan and Rick Duff (SWCD), Terri Michaelis, Jerry Sweeten and his students (North Manchester University), Joe Magner and Herb Manifold (Uni of Minnesota), Melissa Lehman (Agronomic Solutions), Doug Smith (USDA-ARS), Kimberly Neumann (NRCS), Curt Campbell (Purdue extension), and Mike Dunn and Linda Prokopy (Purdue Uni). Sarah Porter, Mark Tomer (USDA-ARS) and Jill Reinhart (NRCS) called in. A small number of Beargrass Creeks’ key producers (defined by Susi on the basis of their acreage) were also in attendance. Other than for the opportunity to hear the updates and ask questions, it was unclear why the producers had been invited. Notably, EDF were not represented because Karen Chapman’s availability did not match with that of the majority of other invitees. As EDF fund the project, Karen was reportedly upset by the decision to schedule the meeting when she was unable to attend. After initially looking to sit in the background, seating was rearranged to allow producers to join the other attendees in a semi-circular arrangement. Following a round of introductions, Susi gave a brief overview of her interactions with producers over the previous 6 months. This included the on-farm meetings attended by Joe Magner and a representative of Purdue’s social science team, as well as discussions with 17 subsequent producers who had visited/called the SWCD office. Susi also noted that she had visited a demonstration event showcasing saturated buffers in Rensselaer – a practice that would require little cost to implement. Joe Magner went on to summarize that a saturated buffer is essentially a filter strip with some additional plumbing (horizontal tile). It was realized that the practice is not currently covered by NRCS cost share, but that this could likely be amended in the future. Herb Manifold spoke briefly about how he and students from North Manchester University had begun surveying sections of the Beargrass Creek. The surveying involves the collection of channel depth and water flow level – information that could be used to help determine suitable BMPs. The surveying provided a level of detail beyond that of the maps produced by Mark Tomer and Sarah Porter (designed to illustrate suitable localities for a range of practices). It appeared that the more detailed surveying could be used as a means of validating the maps for those sections of the creek managed by producers willing to participate in the project. Joe Magner followed with examples of conservation practices, giving most attention to two-stage ditches and bioreactors, but also touching on saturated buffers. Although this was essentially the same information that had been presented at the December meeting and on the subsequent on-farm


meetings, it caused the farmers to become more engaged than at any other point of the meeting (or indeed any previous meeting). The questions and concerns were typical of those previously noted (land required, placement of practice, lifespan). Jerry Sweeten gave a condensed version of his December presentation, simply noting that the water quality monitoring was continuing. His data on the level of N flowing out of the Beargrass Creek was thought by Doug Smith to be very high, raising questions about how the calculation had been made. Doug offered to look at the data. Jerry reiterated that it could take decades before the impact of conservation practices emerges. However, he did note that there had been some short-term, positive changes in fish populations, which one producer suggested might have resulted from the adoption of cover crops in the area. Jerry displayed where cover crops were located in the Beargrass Creek, and appealed to the producers to consider how applying the practice to the entire watershed would allow for clear evidence of the practices’ impact on water quality. In the break that followed, Susi and a number of the producers noted that it would not be realistic to take such a risk with cover crops. Kim Neumann offered to bring in a state specialist on cover crops to meet with farmers and address concerns that might help to encourage more extensive use of the practice. Melissa Lehman talked very briefly about her role in collecting data on manure application within the Beargrass Creek watershed. Curt Campbell (whose talk in December focused on the different licenses required to use and transport manure) was able to provide some input on the types of manure being applied locally. Melissa agreed to keep working with Susi to arrange her visits to the various landowners throughout the watershed. Mike Dunn reminded the group of the Social Science team’s role in the project making reference to the notes and assessment of ongoing interaction with producers. This included an evaluation of the December meeting, on-farm meetings with 13 producers and a water quality meeting hosted by Jerry Sweeten (attended by 4 producers). It was noted that those producers engaged in the project were incredibly valuable to its success, and that producers’ satisfaction was a testament to the commendable work of Jerry, Susi and Joe. However, Mike expressed concern over whether those producers not currently engaged been forgotten about. A newsletter including a piece on what had motivated one of the more engaged producers was suggested as a means of raising awareness of the project to other potential producer partners. The group also agreed with Mike’s suggestion that a brochure summarizing the practices would prove beneficial in raising producers’ awareness of novel practices, and in helping to answer their FAQs. Doug Smith was present to introduce the use of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to the project, which he intends to implement with a postdoc. Doug explained that the model simulates the quality and quantity of surface and ground water and predicts the environmental impact of land use and farm management practices. It was noted that the tool offered an opportunity to demonstrate to NRCS how particular BMPs can be expected to impact soil erosion and water quality in the Beargrass Creek. To implement the model, Doug stated that he would need to make use of Jerry’s existing data to establish a baseline, and collect data from several fields within the watershed. It was deemed logical that Doug work with Melissa so that their data could be collected together, thus minimizing the number of on-farm visits required.


All attendees stayed for lunch during which they continued to converse with those seated in close proximity. Those who were interested in a field trip were invited to remain, but the excursion prompted little interest and was replaced with a discussion about when the next meeting would take place and what the agenda would be. At this point all of the producers had departed leaving approximately half of the core project team. Jerry, Joe and Linda led the discussion while Susi took notes. It was decided that the core project members would meet in Aug 2015. The agenda is set to include 1) a look back at what has been achieved and what could have been done better (what has been learned), and 2) looking to the future – how the valuable work that has been done can be built upon. This is likely to include efforts to secure ongoing funding needed to ensure water quality monitoring can continue long term. In addition, it was suggested that a future symposium held at Manchester could raise the profile of the project, especially if prominent scientists and policymakers were able to attend. Terri Michaelis remarked that she would be meeting with producers in January 2016 to reveal how new 319 funding (dedicated to the Beargrass watershed) could help to subsidize conservation practices. It was agreed that this event should coincide with the Beargrass Creek project meeting due to take place around that time.


Meeting Review: August 26th 2015

Beargrass Creek project meeting Manchester University Aug 26th 2015

The purpose of the meeting was for the core members of the project to come together and;

Provide updates on their respective work

Look back and evaluate what has gone well/poorly to date, and suggest strategies for

improvement

Discuss how to take the project forward from this point

The meeting was chaired by Joe Magner (Uni of Minnesota) and attended by his student Herb Manifold, Karen Chapman (EDF), Jill Reinhart (NRCS), Mark Tomer (USDA-ARS), Joe Updike (local farmer and outgoing DC), Susi Stephan (Wabash SWCD), Doug Smith (USDA-ARS), Jerry Sweeten and his student Colin (Manchester Uni), Linda Prokopy, Belyna Bentlage and Mike Dunn (Purdue Social Science team). Project Updates Herb Manifold gave a presentation summarizing the work he has been carrying out (in collaboration with Melissa Lehman of Agronomic Solutions) to assess the movement of N and P from fields to the point at which they leave the Beargrass Creek (e.g. time and rate). This assessment relies on the use of 15 observation wells (alternate name “access tubes”) placed throughout the watershed, allowing access to water at a depth of between 4 and 8 feet. Observations are being made at least once per month, but also following each rain event. In addition Herb is also surveying adjacent tile locations and condition in an attempt to establish an overall nutrient budget, work with farmers to note areas of high organic matter, and take a closer look at tributary channels. All of this information is being used to assess where practices are feasible, and where they can be expected to be effective (e.g. a bioreactor would be wasted in an area of high organic matter; channels may show potential for an oxbow in which water could be diverted, slowed and introduced to carbon rich woody vegetation, capable of trapping sediment and denitrifying flows). Additionally, the “over-monitoring” in the watershed allows for the creation of a large and reliable database. Data helps to locate sources and sinks of nutrients and will inform the development of nutrient reduction strategies/nutrient budget plans. Jerry Sweeten then spoke about his ongoing water quality monitoring in the Beargrass watershed (which is part of the Middle Eel River), reminding the group of the sampling locations and procedure (automatic and grab sampling). As well as measuring N, he also talked about the importance of bio-indicators including fish and mussels (because “Chemistry without biology is a mistake”-Jerry), noting that fish communities often exhibit natural variability along a stream, and in different streams. Bio-indicators are assessed by both biotic (IBI) and qualitative (QHEI) metrics. Jerry illustrated his findings on N and discharge over time, which others confirmed were similar to those observed in Minnesota and Iowa. There was some consensus that the results could be explained by various agricultural activities (application, plant growth, harvesting). On this basis it was suggested that the data could be shared with producers to help them think about how they could alter their practices to reduce N losses. Although rain events did not feature in the results, it was recognized that these remain a very important factor in N losses. By comparing N and P losses (mg/L) between 2013 and 2015 it appeared


that some progress is being made (although Jerry wanted to remain cautious at this early stage because looking for patterns in a short 2-3 year time period is difficult due to natural variability). Boxplots showed medians for both nutrients have decreased over time. Seasonal graphs demonstrate the need for an agronomic calendar (e.g. April-June = Planting Season, then Harvest Season, followed by Idle Months). Graphs also indicated that there are reservoirs of nutrients (fertilizer, N, P, manure, soil mineralization). Big rain events release nutrients from those reservoirs. Jerry was able to recall targets for both impairments which he believed came from the EPA, but nobody was able to confirm these figures. A number of ideas about why the reductions had occurred were suggested including; variation in weather events, an increase in the use of conservation practices such as cover crops, producers’ knowledge that the watershed is being subjected to intensive monitoring efforts prompting a change in their behavior (social factors), or the changing cost of fertilizer from year to year (economics). It was also thought possible that the results may be a reflection of a combination of these possibilities. Jill Reinhart expressed that by examining the extent and location of practice use (e.g. cover crops) over time, she may be able to hone in on their contribution. She also expressed that Jerry’s findings could help to generate further interest and funding for the project. Jerry finished his presentation by touching on habitat scores, noting that variations in the channel played some role, but in many cases findings were unexplainable. Mark Tomer talked about the ongoing expansion of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) tool (a.k.a. the Tomer Tool) which requires land use and soil data, field boundaries, crop rotations info and LIDAR. Mark is also working to make the tool more sophisticated by incorporating new components such as hydrological conditioning. Interested parties are being trained how to use the tool in Indiana and Ohio. To date over 65 people have received training (mostly in Minnesota, the interest in the tool is high up there). This is expected to continue and expand to new locations. A National Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) proposal (through the University of Minnesota) was submitted to aid this endeavor. Specifically these funds would help to develop training videos, and incorporate social insights into the learning process (in collaboration with Linda Prokopy). Mark continued to emphasize the importance of ‘ground truthing’ during training events. Jerry announced that USFWS had agreed to collaborate on research involving a proposed two-stage ditch above one of his gauge stations. Their involvement and funding is in part motivated by an interest in studying how the installation would impact birdlife. The proposed location of the two-stage ditch lies on the land of one of the key producers who has an ongoing interest in the wider project. Joe Updike was said to have helped with negotiating the agreement to site the practice, but it is not yet clear who, other than USFWS, would provide funds (Joe Magner cited a cost of $25 per linear foot). Various funding sources and streams were discussed. Jill confirmed that there were funds available for practices in Beargrass, but needed to check on whether a two-stage ditch such as that being proposed could be funded under the current guidelines. It was later confirmed by Shannon Zezula (NRCS) that existing riparian functions (corridors, shade, streambank protection, detritus, wildlife habitat, etc.) need to be considered as part of an impact assessment. NRCS’s stance is that wooded riparian zones hold higher value to multiple resources than grass zones and that the removal of trees is considered to be a net negative impact (suggesting that they would be unable to fund such projects). Jerry pointed out that the recent federally endangered listing of long-eared bats could have implications for other practices that involve habitat disturbance. Joe Updike felt that in this particular case the producer in question would be prepared to make a contribution to funding the two-stage ditch.


Mike Dunn assured Karen that the social science team would be able to assist with any write up at the end of the project by providing detailed notes of all of the meetings and producer interactions. It was also confirmed that the booklet recommended during the meeting in June (containing a guide to various conservation practices and answers to the questions commonly posed by producers) would be funded by SWCD. The social science team insisted on being consulted on the material contained within the booklet to ensure that the material was pertinent to the concerns and queries expressed in the interviews, surveys and meetings. In the absence of Terri Michaelis (Uni of Manchester), Susi agreed to take the lead on the booklet with input from various others. Doug Smith reported that his Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT) being developed by his postdoc was around 90% complete, and would soon be ready for use in the Beargrass Creek watershed. Once the tool has been validated it is hoped that it will be able to run various scenarios so as to determine what, where and how many BMPs are needed to be able to reduce nutrient loading by 40-45%. Doug has been working with Eileen McLellan (EDF) to include additional novel BMPs into the model, and to apply the tool in Texas. It is also planned for use in additional watersheds. Eileen was said to be working on farm scale modelling that will use both Doug and Mark’s tools. Jill agreed to make ‘field to market’ data available to Mark, Purdue and anyone other interested parties. Doug offered to make his findings available for inclusion in the aforementioned practice booklet. [Belyna notes: Tool is meant to be a predictor and to be applied at a farm-scale, not a 12-digit watershed scale] Looking Back In evaluating their experience with the project Susi, Mike, Joe, and Jerry all commented on how well various project members had done in engaging with the producers. In line with the original recommendations from the social science report (Nov 2014), a number of instances were highlighted demonstrating how the team had tried to see things from the producers perspective by recognizing that farming is a business, that there are other contributors to water quality impairment, and that heavy rain events are perhaps the biggest factor in determining nutrient losses. Mike reminded the group how Mark had taken on-board the social science teams recommendations when presenting the maps, and in emphasizing that the practices shown were options that could be refined with producer input. Jerry spoke about the experiences he had had with farmers coming to recognize the amount of life in the channels, and in bringing their friends to his lab to learn about the water quality monitoring process. However, Mike noted that there was room for improvement in the way project meetings were organized. For example, although Susi was frequently tasked to organize meetings, there had been cases of confusion surrounding who needed to be there. Without knowing upfront who would be in attendance the other project members could not know exactly who they should be targeting their updates for, or whether they could share sensitive information. Moreover, this lack of clarity meant that occasionally individuals would feel they needed to attend meetings which were of no value to them. To rectify this Susi had begun asking explicitly who should or should not attend. When referring to the original producer meeting in Dec 2015, Mike reminded the group that the producers had been greatly outnumbered by agency staff, whose involvement was unclear. Jerry agreed that an ideal meeting would involve the producers outnumbering other attendees. Looking Forward Karen Chapman (EDF) asked attendees whether another meeting with producers would be useful. Linda reminded the group that Terri Michaelis (University of Manchester) had previously stated she


would be meeting with the Beargrass producers in January 2016 to announce the availability of new conservation funds. It was agreed that this opportunity should be used to update producers on happenings within the Beargrass project. It was decided that an agenda sheet could be used to help promote the event which would encompass; updates on funding, water quality monitoring, the ACPF (maps), SWAT models as part of a national showcase, and the conservation practice booklet. In an attempt to reach additional producers in the watershed Linda reasoned that the group should engage with the trusted retailers. Jill also agreed to promote the event through influential individuals including Mike Dunn (Indiana Soybean Alliance) and Justin Schneider (Indiana Farm Bureau) so that they could encourage their contacts of the project’s importance and relevance. Linda further suggested the use of provocative questions on promotional material, such as ‘Is it true water quality in the Beargrass Creek is improving?’ and ‘Why is so much funding being directed to the Beargrass Creek?’ Karen had attendees block out January 25th and 26th 2016 as potential dates for this meeting. Jerry expressed his ongoing concerns about the need to find long-term funding for the project, and particularly his water quality monitoring work. He had had discussions with USFWS about what a long-term monitoring plan (e.g. 50 years) would ideally consist of in order to provide firm evidence and continuity. He estimated that it would cost $50k per year to continue to operate his gauging stations Bizarrely, none of the team were aware of what baseline figures EPA’s 45% nutrient loading reduction goal was in reference to, prompting questions about when data for the Beargrass was first collected (thought to be 2009). Long-term funding from federal or state sources was deemed non-existent, leading to the suggestion that a private, endowed fund might be the most realistic solution. Doug raised the possibility of a long-term funding stream, but there was some confusion about whether water quality monitoring would qualify given the historic use of these funds for nitrogen gas exchange projects. In the short-term, federal and state funds would need to be matched, which returned the discussion to the importance of private donations. Joe Magner expressed his need to know what funds were available so that he could begin to seal agreements with producers open to having conservation practices put onto their properties – e.g., a producer would need to know what contribution they would be required to make for the practice to go ahead. Planned Outputs Karen opened a discussion to clarify the outputs that are expected to result from the project. These included: A grant report provided to the project funders

A more usable report which could be shared with non-experts so that they may understand

how to replicate the project

Journal articles produced independently by the project’s different academic members. These

articles could form the basis of chapters/sub-sections in the above reports.

Purdue’s social science team’s outputs would include the results of a second social science

findings report (compiled using interview and survey data) at the end of the project

Post-Meeting Fieldtrip Herb, Susi, Mark, Doug, Joe M., Colin, Belyna, and Mike drove through the watershed making a number of stops at sites of interest. Herb showed the group the observation wells, gauge stations, the proposed site for the two-stage ditch and some possible locations for creating and restoring oxbows. The trip was of principal interest to Mark who wished to see how the ACPF maps compared to the actual landscape.


Meeting Review: January 25th 2016

Notes from the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Landowner and Producer Meeting Prepared by Belyna Bentlage and Sarah Church of the Purdue University Social Science Team

Monday, January 25th 2016 Manchester University This meeting took place just over one year since the last Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Landowner and Producer Meeting (December 18, 2014). At this previous meeting, the watershed’s producers were invited to hear about the project in the presence of all of the project collaborators. The purpose of the January 25, 2016 meeting was for producers to learn about the project’s progress and to learn more about conservation practices, and how they can be implemented. Project partners in attendance included Susi Stephan and Rick Duff (SWCD), Jerry Sweeten and environmental scholar Collin Huffine (Manchester University), Joe Magner and Herb Manifold (University of Minnesota), Karen Chapman (EDF), Jill Reinhart (NRCS), Sarah Porter, Mark Tomer (USDA-ARS), Rachel Ziegler (Agronomic Solutions), Shannon Zezula (USDA), Kimberly Neumann (NRCS), Bobby Hettmansperger (producer and Vice-Chairman Wabash County SWCD Board), and Belyna Bentlage, Sarah Church, and Linda Prokopy (Purdue University). There were about 20 producers in attendance. The room was set up with three long tables in a U-shape with the open end facing the screen. Although most of the producers sat on on/toward the right side of the room, attendance felt well-balanced between producers and project collaborators. Welcome – Susi Stephan

Susi moderated the meeting and began with introductions. A microphone traveled around the room and everyone gave their name and their role in the project. Susi encouraged producers to say more than “I’m just a producer.” Bobby Hettmansperger said he was a “soil health manager” and there were some cheers in response. Many producers gave reasons as to why they were in attendance/interested in the project. Recurring reasons included:

To learn more

To learn how to “do things a little better”

“Do what’s right.”

Producers also mentioned their interest in water quality and conservation practices, particularly cover crops.

During introductions, Susi made a point of telling farmers that participating in interviews, completing surveys, and letting Joe and other project personnel walk their land aren’t “scary” activities, and that producer feedback and involvement is highly encouraged to help make this a successful project. After introductions, Susi had everyone stand up and she asked that all non-producers go around the room and thank all the producers for their hard work and dedication to conservation. It was a great activity to make everyone feel welcome and part of the team. More specifically, by emphasizing the


presence of the producers, Susi effectively set the tone that everyone in attendance was there out of gratitude, respect, and a desire to work with together toward reaching high conservation goals in the watershed. Everyone in attendance received a packet of information that included things such as schedules for upcoming meetings and field days. The packet also included the recently made booklet of conservation practices. Producers seemed interested in the booklet and flipped through it whenever a presenter mentioned it. Environmental Defense Fund – Karen Chapman

Karen Chapman gave a brief overview of the project and its goals. She said that it was “encouraging” to hear so much openness and willingness from the producers regarding conservation in the watershed. Karen also noted that the project’s CIG ends in September 2016. EDF will send a report to NRCS. Linda and Purdue’s social science team will add “lessons learned” to the report. Kimberly asked when a final report might be ready. Karen said an extension will most likely be requested and tentatively suggested some time in 2017. Water Quality Monitoring – Jerry Sweeten

Jerry Sweeten gave the first presentation which was titled, “Stream ecological integrity: The efficacy of integrated best management practices.” Jerry talked about how stream integrity is more than just water quality; measuring healthy streams includes metrics of chemistry, habitat, biology, and conservation practices. Jerry talked about how hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico is a result of degraded water quality throughout the Mississippi River Basin. He related the problem to people “who make a living off the sea”. The people in the room appeared to be interested Jerry’s discussion about hypoxia. Jerry connected Gulf hypoxia with agricultural practices and water quality in the Beargrass Creek watershed, and noted that the Gulf is a long way away, but there is a lot of life living in the waterways along the way and therefore there are many reasons why we should care about the water before it gets to the Gulf. He said that we are “still very much in a descriptive mode” when it comes to monitoring stream integrity. As Jerry discussed at the August 2015 meeting, there are some results suggesting nutrient content (N and P) in the watershed is decreasing, but he asserts that we cannot draw conclusions based on short-term data collection. Jerry’s slide depicting water samples was particularly striking, and we noted several people around the room nodding. Jerry also showed a graph about rain, noting that no 2 years are the same. People in the room seemed engaged. After Jerry’s presentation, Susi asked what the target values for nutrient reduction are. Karen answered with EDF’s goal of 45% reduction. Bobby asked what the cost of sampling for one year is. Jerry gave an estimate of around $50,000 and said that interns are paid $4,000 for a summer’s worth of work and that one N test in the lab at Manchester costs about $4.50. Another producer asked about an acceptable value per acre for water quality tests [We were unsure exactly what the producer was asking, but we thought he was asking something about whether local farmers can pitch in to fund water monitoring; drainage fees were mentioned]. Before a short a break, a producer asked if it is possible to distinguish between sources of nutrients (livestock and commercial fertilizer) in the water samples. Jerry said it is indirectly possible because the tests can show ammonia concentrations versus nitrate and total nitrogen.


During the short break that followed Jerry’s presentation and questions, producers mingled and talked amongst themselves. Before the next presentation, Susi introduced Jessica (last name?), the Northeast Watershed Coordinator who came in after initial introductions. Nutrient Budget – Herb Manifold

Herb Manifold gave the next talk, titled “Nutrient/Manure Budget of Beargrass Creek Watershed.” Herb expanded upon water quality data that Jerry presented. In addition to analyzing water quality (i.e. what is in the water), Herb is looking at how the water moves through the watershed (i.e., does the water move latently or does it move vertically into the aquifer/source of drinking water?). While Herb has more analysis to do, he did report preliminary findings showing that over 11 million gallons of manure were applied in the watershed in 2015. Around 5.3 million gallons of N were applied, which averages out to about 172 lbs./acre. Corn uptakes about 140 lbs./acre, which leaves about 32 lbs./acre of excess N in the watershed. So far, Herb has not found geographic patterns explaining concentration levels, but he does report that there is some denitrification/dilution happening between the confluence/EDF/lower gauge and the upstream gauge. Herb asked, “How can we optimize that reduction?” He suggested strategies including cover crops, hay, winter wheat, and riparian storage opportunities (e.g., oxbows). Herb explained that an oxbow is an area no longer connected to a stream, but still holds water. Herb reported that there are additional 15,000 linear feet of storage in these oxbows. He proposes that these areas, along with other “non-productive areas” (e.g., woodlots) need to be used to efficiently lower nutrient loads. Jerry made a comment that brought the oxbow idea back to the targets to mitigate algae blooms in lakes. Susi noted that the data is important, but we cannot yet make conclusions. LIDAR Maps of Beargrass Creek – Mark Tomer and Sarah Porter

Mark and Sarah presented next. Their talk was titled, “Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Results for Beargrass Creek Watershed Near North Manchester, Indiana.” Mark said their work is facilitated by LIDAR, soil, and land use databases. He presented his pyramid of conservation. The foundation of this pyramid is to “build soil health.” Mark says this level of the pyramid does not require geographic specialization; all producers should be engaged in building soil health. The upper levels of the pyramid require more specialization and more targeted decision making. For the decision making process, Mark and his team developed matrices that are customizable for variation within a watershed. Sarah detailed how the databases they use show that the Beargrass Creek watershed has hydric soils and that LIDAR data helps inform flow pathways of water in the watershed. Mark went on to say that based on the data specific to the watershed, they are able to fill in the decision making matrix with conservation “practice opportunities.” Mark presented a slide with a multitude of conservation practices, but assured producers to not feel overwhelmed by all the options. Instead of feeling like they have to adopt all practices on all their land, Mark encouraged producers to think of it all as a “menu of options.” He compared all the options to a menu at a restaurant: You wouldn’t order every item, but you would tailor your order to your appetite, e.g. ask yourself how hungry are you for conservation? Mark and Sarah went on to describe different conservation practices (drainage water management, WASCOBs and grassed waterways, denitrifying bioreactors, riparian buffers, shallow wetlands, and two-stage ditches). Not only did they explain the practices, they showed on a map of the watershed where each practice would be most beneficial. Sarah noted that the map they’re using shows different


watershed boundaries than USGS boundaries. Sarah found that USGS data was less accurate because it allowed for more land to be included within the Beargrass Creek watershed. Sarah’s map is more accurate and excludes previously included land that actually drains into the Eel. At the end of their presentation, Mark gave a web address if anyone was interested in using the tool (must have ArcGIS): www.northcentralwater.org/ACPF. Producers wrote down the address and after some questions were asked about different practice specifications, Bobby spoke about his experience with drainage water management. He also mentioned that he uses cover crops and that they are a “piece of the puzzle.” Mark then concluded that even though we often discuss conservation practices one at a time, it is necessary to use a combination of them to make the most positive impact on water quality and soil health. Lunch

Susi asked Kevin Cordes, a producer in the watershed and Secretary/Treasurer of Wabash County SWCD Board, to give an invocation before lunch. Kevin said he enjoyed Mark’s analogy and likened the “menu of options” to a “buffet,” much like the one awaiting everyone for lunch. Kevin reminded his fellow producers to consider the buffet of practice options and to get in touch with Adam Jones or Rick Duff so they can visit the producer’s land and figure out which practices would be beneficial to implement. Kevin said we are blessed to live in a country where we can make free choices. He also said he is grateful to live in an area with good, overall soil health and that we need to be good stewards of the land for future generations. Kevin concluded by saying that we need to be more accountable to our fellow man, upstream, downstream, and those yet to be born. Susi dismissed everyone to lunch (available outside the meeting room) and encouraged everyone to move around and sit in different locations during lunch. During lunch a couple of people moved to the inside of the U, but most people stayed in their original spots. A few people had to leave during and right after lunch. Jill Reinhart – NRCS Assistant State Conservationist for Partnerships: Indiana Initiatives

Jill gave the first presentation after lunch and talked about conservation initiatives in Indiana. Jill said that in general, NRCS tries to distribute funding equitably and initiatives allow for more targeted conservation efforts. Jill said these initiatives are meant to move beyond farm and political boundaries and that is necessary to build partnerships for success. She noted that this watershed is not the only one being “targeted”. She went on to describe various projects in the state, including Amish producer surveys in the Western Lake Erie Basin, the Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) in the Middle Eel, and the National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) that recently added the Beargrass Creek watershed to its list of watersheds. The importance of partnerships and leveraging dollars was mentioned. Jill also described the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) as an opportunity to “put all initiatives under one umbrella.” Jill said RCPP funding is an opportunity to think outside the box/be creative with proposals. A goal of RCPP initiatives is to bring diverse partners to the table, especially private sector partners. Bobby asked how these initiatives in Indiana compare to other states. Jill answered that Indiana and other Midwestern states are fortunate in terms of funding because of opportunities related to the Mississippi River and Great Lakes. The 4R certification program was mentioned.

http://www.northcentralwater.org/ACPF


Watershed Recovery – Rick Duff

Rick spoke next and said the LIDAR maps were “very, very useful.” He reminded everyone that before these maps, only aerial and soil maps were available. Rick said the LIDAR maps provide a better focus and a more efficient use of time. Rick asked the producers to come see him or Adam Jones to receive more information about using oxbows and bioreactors on their property. Rick also mentioned saturated buffers and how there are only two known in Indiana. He also spoke about the CSP program as one way to keep going on practices once producers’ current funding is over. Rick also spoke about wildlife in the area, related to improvements to the watershed. Watershed Recovery – Joe Magner

Joe spoke next and said he wants to come to the producers’ land for field validation of the maps. He says the maps are pretty accurate. Joe also wants producers to seriously consider the menu of options and for producers to think about which options for conservation practices would work best on their land. Joe emphasized the importance of combining practices (e.g., tile with bioreactors). He said he was also interested in talking with producers about oxbows and using marginal/less productive land to help enhance the natural nutrient reduction we are seeing in the riparian corridors to get closer to the watershed’s reduction goal without adversely affecting producer’s production goals. Joe told the producers that by being here, they showed interest in water quality and that interest puts them “out in front of the pack.” Joe said the producers in attendance were in a leadership position, to show how positive results can happen on a voluntary basis, without regulation. Joe urged the producers to “take the next step,” to put in another practice. He said improvements are happening, incrementally, one practice at a time, but the watershed needs more practices implemented. Joe said as more practices are implemented, we will see a cumulative response and that Beargrass Creek Watershed will have a story to tell to the entire Upper Midwest: That it is possible, on a volunteer basis, for producers and partners to work together for a win-win situation for both water quality and production. Joe called the last part of his presentation his “pep talk.” Joe then asked the producers what they thought the obstacles are (to implementing new/more conservation practices)? There was a long silence. It felt a little forced and as if producers did not want to speak. Kimberly broke the silence and asked Rick about what to do when you have been doing a conservation practice (e.g., cover crops) and funding runs out. Rick and Kimberly went on to briefly discuss opportunities available for continuing/additional funding, such as CSP. Susi went on to ask a question about seeding for a riparian buffer. After Susi’s question, producers seemed more comfortable asking questions and they went on to ask Joe about bioreactors, tiling into wetlands, oxbows, and cover crops. Cover crops seemed to be of great interest for most of the producers present. The discussion turned toward seeding methods, effects of residual herbicide, and other logistics related to cover crops. Producers expressed concern about how poorly some of their cover crop stands look. Scott from NRCS stressed that even though the stands may not look great, it is great if anything is growing at all because the roots are building soil health. Scott went on to say aerial seeding is getting better and that rain is crucial for helping get that seed to soil contact. He recommended that producers attend conferences like the no-till conference in Indy because conference provide excellent opportunities to learn from many different farmers. Shannon added that cover crops are very much affected by residual interactions and that once the soil does build up, producers will see more success with aerial seeding. He stressed that success occurs


over time and urged producers to not give up. Joe reiterated the sentiment that producers should not give up, to keep trying to tailor practices to best fit their land and management. Shannon asked the producers if anyone has tried gypsum yet. Rex said he did last fall and that it is therefore too early to see or know of any results. He did say the gypsum was costly and that he did not want to use it on a lot of acres. Shannon spoke more about gypsum and a few other non-producer project collaborators chimed in. At this point, it was 2pm and it seemed as though some producers were wanting the meeting to wrap up. The discussion eventually came back to Susi who said she hoped everyone felt like they could take home some ideas and that producers in attendance would come see her and others at the NRCS office. She thanked the producers for being there and for letting Joe walk their land. Throughout the meeting, Susi thanked the producers for their interest and participation. Wrap up

Bobby then spoke in the middle of the U and said the project is three-pronged. He said everyone knows about the water quality prong. Then there is the implementation of practices. Bobby said one of the biggest challenges of this project is the third prong: Social aspects. He said the social side of things includes what neighbors think and how and why people get involved with the project. Bobby urged producers to take the surveys and participate in the interviews with Purdue. He said it is important to find out the best approach to get producers involved and that producers need to share their mistakes so everyone can improve and be part of the solution. Bobby stated, “We are a community. We stick together. We grow together.” An ag-retailer spoke and said “retailers sometimes get a bad rap” but that he was there today because he wants “to do what’s best,” especially for “kids and people downstream.” Bobby then shifted the subject to government offices. He said Indiana is “unique” in terms of government support. Bobby said NRCS helps with cost-share dollars and helps with technical assistance so you (producers) do not fail. Bobby urged producers to reach out to Rick and Adam. He noted that Wabash County has been “very fortunate” in terms of district conservationists. Bobby said Joe Updike pushed the producers to think outside the box and across county lines and that he was a great leader. Bobby asked if there is a reason why the watershed can’t reach 70% coverage [we think he meant conservation practices in general, but he could have meant cover crops]. He said the biggest challenge is social. He said it is difficult to change mindsets, but it is possible. Bobby concluded by asking everyone to start today for “our great grandkids,” to “feed the world and this community,” and to recognize “all parts of the puzzle.” Susi then thanked everyone for coming. Susi said producers would have an opportunity to stay and discuss things like how to improve communication and technical assistance. She asked that only producers and the Purdue social science team stay in the meeting room, but everyone was welcome to stay for a little bit outside for further discussion and to be available for questions after the closed door session. Round table

Susi thanked the producers again for coming and for participating in the “round table” discussion. To be begin discussion, Susi asked the producers what they think of the project. This question may have been too broad to really respond to, as only one producer spoke up at that point to respond to the question. A producers said he liked it and believes it is headed in the right direction. He also brought


up the subject of data. Bobby said a couple of years’ worth of data is not enough, “we can’t be afraid to start now and have samples pulled.” Another producer asked how many acres can be fed into a bioreactor. Both Susi and Bobby suggested the producers consult with NRCS and Joe for answers about new practices. Discussion then turned from practice options to recruitment strategies. Susi said the producers in the room are great, they represent the watershed in terms of acres well, but there are still non-participating producers in the watershed. She said she has 85 producers on her list and asked how she can get them to meetings like this. One producers described how it was difficult to get his dad on board with changes he and his brother wanted to make. The producer described this difficulty as resulting from an “age”/“generational gap.” Bobby added that there is also an issue of being comfortable with new practices. He recognized it is scary to try something new. Bobby said he never gave up (on cover crops) and now he can see benefits. He also said he “can’t imagine conventional farming...tilling,” that his yields are “great” in stress years, his crop insurance investments are at lower levels. Discussion turned back to practices, specifically cover crops. Bobby said he is still learning how to get it right and everyone wants to see “a good return on investment.” Almost all producers nodded in agreement. More agreement came when a producer said, “I don’t care what our neighbors think.” Bobby said the county farm will put on a workshop about cover crops. Producers seemed interested in the workshop and expressed desire to learn more about timing, soil types, herbicidal effects, sunlight/shading, and seed types. Other concerns expressed about cover crops were crop rotation, aerial seeding, proximity to neighbor’s fields, time and labor availability, appropriate amounts of N to apply, and presence of pests (e.g., slugs, mice, voles). A producer joked about his mistakes with cover crops and other producers joined in with smiles and laughter. A producer then asked about no-till corn. Bobby said anyone who wants to try no-till corn should come to Bobby’s farm to see how he does it. He said it helps to see how someone does it before you try it yourself. Bobby further offered to come to anyone’s field with a planter and do 10 acres. Susi said her office is always open to ideas and wants to know what producers want to learn more about and to try for themselves. A producer expressed interest in jointly purchasing a no-till drill to plant soybeans for other producers. Bobby agreed and advised to not just lend out equipment, but to actually do it for someone, much like a custom-hire. A producer brought up where/from whom to purchase seed. A seed dealer’s name was mentioned. Susi acknowledged this seed dealer is popular and requested that if anyone goes to someone else for seed to please let her know so she can add them to her list so she can make better recommendations to producers. Bobby said this project provides producers in the room with an “opportunity to lead by example.” Susi told the producers that “you are my people.” She asked producers how NRCS can help and how the project can be improved. A producer said it is a good project with good people, especially Manchester University. The same producer expressed hope that producers still in the project will stay and in five years everyone will be able to see improvements. Bobby said the challenge now is to increase acreage. Another producer asked how many people, outside of producers, are aware of the project. He wondered if people in North Manchester know “we’re trying to protect and improve their water


quality.” Susi said Terri has “moved on” and Susi has since struggled to find the time and appropriate way to inform the public (e.g., a newsletter). Susi asked the producers if this round table was helpful. There were some nods of agreement. Susi asked if producers would be interested in a regular round table type meeting. There was less agreement with this question. A producer said it was easy to participate because they were already there for the meeting. Bobby admitted that he was just getting comfortable talking about his experiences. It was obvious to us, however, that the forum was of great benefit to all producers present – it gave them all a chance to talk about the ins and outs of cover crops in particular. A producer who owns hog barns came in late, introduced himself, and said he would like to host an open house for people to see his barns. After seeing how others operate he said, “I thought I was cutting edge, but I’m not.” He said the public at large “has no earthly idea what we do.” Another producer expressed concern that the public is uneducated about agriculture and that “we have not done our job telling our story.” The meeting wrapped shortly after. Susi and Bobby encouraged producers to check their packet for upcoming meetings and to talk to NRCS and Joe about practices and funding. They also encouraged producers to get in touch with Jerry for water quality samples. The meeting lasted from 9:30am until around 3:30pm. Producers seemed engaged with all presentations. Throughout the meeting and post-meeting round table discussion, light-hearted jokes helped create a friendly and collegial atmosphere. No date was set for a next meeting.


Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed (Fall 2016)

Social Science Evaluation Report Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project Wabash County, IN

Prepared Fall 2016 by: Belyna Bentlage, Pranay Ranjan, 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

Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 91

Project Background ......................................................................................................................... 92

Current use of agricultural conservation practices ........................................................................... 93 Difficulties with cover crops ..................................................................................................................... 93 Benefits of cover crops and motivations to continue ................................................................................. 95 Factors which encourage adoption of other practices ............................................................................... 96 Factors which discourage adoption of other practices ............................................................................... 96 Increased awareness of other practices .................................................................................................... 97

Experiences with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project ................................................ 98 Motivations to join .................................................................................................................................. 98 Benefits of participation: producers ......................................................................................................... 99 Benefits of participation: agency staff .................................................................................................... 100 Challenges with the project: producers ................................................................................................... 101 Challenges with the project: agency staff ................................................................................................ 101

Evaluation of Project Outputs and Tools ........................................................................................ 102 Booklet .................................................................................................................................................. 103 LIDAR Map ............................................................................................................................................. 103

Definitions and Assessments of Project Success ............................................................................. 104 Suggestions for improvements: producers .............................................................................................. 105 Suggestions for improvements: agency staff ........................................................................................... 106

Lessons Learned and Advice from Participants .............................................................................. 106 Producers .............................................................................................................................................. 106 Agency Staff........................................................................................................................................... 106

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 107


Key Findings

The Natural Resource Social Science (NRSS) Lab at Purdue University conducted surveys and interviews in 2014 to collect baseline social science data for the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. After the implementation of the project, the NRSS Lab conducted a final round of surveys and interviews in 2016 to measure any changes in conservation practice adoption in the watershed and to evaluate producer and agency staff experiences with the project. The following are key findings from the 2016 surveys and interviews.

Most agricultural producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed still use grassed waterways. Cover crop usage is about the same as it was in 2014. Interviews show some producers are unwilling to continue using the practice based on negative experiences, while others remain optimistic and determined to successfully maintain cover crops as part of their operations. Adoption of other conservation practices, such as denitrifying bioreactors, saturated buffers, controlled drainage, two stage ditches, and stream channel restoration remains low, but awareness of these practices has increased over the course of the project.

Key factors that encourage the initial adoption and continuing usage of cover crops include: availability of cost-share opportunities and a desire to reduce on-farm erosion and improve soil health.

Key factors that discourage ongoing usage of cover crops include: decreased or unsightly yields and negative experiences with managing cover crops.

Benefits of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project: water quality monitoring and data, opportunities to learn about and try new conservation practices, enhanced local relationships, and collaboration with Manchester University and outside institutions and agencies.

Challenges of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project: successful management of cover crops, implementing promoted conservation practices, recruitment of producers, and communication across project partners.

Evaluations of success: Overall, producer and agency staff interviewees were satisfied with the level of education and awareness-raising accomplished during project. Both groups would have liked to see more conservation practices implemented. Producer interviewees wanted the project to continue for a few more years so more practices could be implemented and more water quality data could be collected.


Project Background

Targeted conservation, placing the “right practices” in the “right places,” is thought to have the greatest impact on reducing nutrient loads from agricultural lands, while efficiently allocating funds to implement such practices. Efficient and effective conservation strategies are essential to meet ambitious water quality goals, such as the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient (Hypoxia) Task Force’s call for a 45% reduction in nutrient loading. As part of a Conservation Innovation Grant from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Wabash County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Manchester University, and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) joined together in 2014 to create the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. The watershed approach is defined as, “a systemic and strategic approach to reducing nutrient losses from agricultural landscapes” (Social Science Findings Report for the Beargrass Creek Watershed, 2014). Beargrass Creek is a sub-watershed of the Middle Eel River, located in northcentral Indiana’s Wabash County. A major goal of the three-year project was to demonstrate how a locally-led, partnership approach can encourage voluntary adoption of conservation practices to meet water quality goals. Additional project partners, scientists at Manchester University and researchers at USDA Agricultural Research Service, were brought on board to show the impact of conservation practices on water quality and to show opportunities for conservation practices using remote sensing technology, respectively. Purdue University’s Natural Resources Social Science (NRSS) Lab conducted surveys and interviews with agricultural producers and agency staff to collect baseline data for the development of the project. Agricultural producers’ perceptions of water quality in the area, opinions of targeted conservation, and usage of conservation practices were assessed and presented in a report. As the Conservation Innovation Grant drew to a close in 2016, the NRSS Lab conducted a second round of surveys and interviews to evaluate the project from the perspective of producers and agency staff. The following report contains information from surveys and interviews with producers and agency staff. Four agency staff members and 13 producers from 10 different agricultural operations in the Beargrass Creek watershed were interviewed regarding their experiences with the project. Participating producers and agency staff were interviewed in August 2016 by an NRSS Lab research associate. Interviewees were selected by SWCD staff. Interviewees varied in their levels of engagement with the project. Interviews typically lasted about 45 minutes and took place at producers’ homes, shops, or the SWCD office. Survey data were collected by mail during the summer of 2016. Survey content was identical to the surveys mailed in 2014, except that some items were replaced with questions specifically designed to evaluate the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. A modified list of respondents created by SWCD in 2014 was used for distribution of the surveys. Respondents were contacted up to four times (advance letter, 1st mailing of paper survey, reminder postcard, drop off and pick up of 2nd paper survey with a reminder postcard). This methodology achieved a 47% response rate (n=40). Over half of the respondents (n=28) completed the survey in both 2014 and 2016. Identical surveys were also distributed to producers in Flowers Creek watershed, a control area where no targeted outreach occurred. A full description of analytical methods of both survey and interview data is found in Appendix A.


Information provided in interviews and surveys provides insight into how conservation practices and attitudes have changed over the course of the project and how participants evaluate the success of the project. The following report details current usage of conservation practices with a focus on cover crops, positive and negative experiences with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project, and participant suggestions for improvement.

Current use of agricultural conservation practices

All operations accounted for in the interviews had grassed waterways and filter/buffers strips. These practices, along with nutrient management plans and some form of conservation tillage remain the most common practices in the watershed. Survey data show that usage of grassed waterways remains extensive, with a majority of producers reporting that the practice covers 76-100% of their waterways (see attached Appendix B for the full data report from the 2016 survey). Of the respondents who completed the survey in both 2014 and 2016 (see attached Appendix C for comparison report), coverage of conservation tillage remained relatively consistent with conservation tillage on corn acres increasing slightly from 37% to 40% and soybean acres decreasing from 61% to 52%. Usage of conservation tillage on corn and soybean acres might fluctuate based on an operation’s use of cover crops. Interviews with producers revealed that cost-share contracts for cover crops required producers to not till their cover crop acres. Therefore, if an operation adjusted their cover crop acres, they might also adjust their acres in conservation tillage. Based on data from producers who completed surveys in 2014 and 2016, usage and coverage of cover crops on corn and soybean acres remained about the same. However, interviews indicate that future usage of cover crops might be inhibited by negative experiences over the last three years.

Difficulties with cover crops

While survey data show that cost remains prohibitive to the adoption and continued usage of cover crops, interviews with producers highlighted more specific challenges. Almost all interviewees cited recent wet springs as a major challenge with managing cover crops. Wet ground made it difficult for producers to kill their cover crops in the spring before planting their cash crops. Aside from weather conditions, producers generally experienced difficulty with the timing of killing/spraying the cover crops. Issues with timing and lack of personally-owned spraying equipment resulted in excess growth of cover crops, which created problems during the planting of corn and soybeans. In terms of planting the cover crops, some producers were dissatisfied with the spotty stands produced by aerial seeding. Inconsistent stands, lack of growth, and decreased yields were common negative experiences with cover crops. Seed type, application method, and other restrictions associated with cost-share contracts proved frustrating for some interviewees. Interviewees also noted that current market prices made for tight operating margins, causing them to feel hesitant about continuing a practice that negatively impacted their bottom line. Some interviewees expressed concern about their peers discontinuing cover crop usage after having these negative experiences. A few producers said they were unsure whether or not they would continue to use the practice. Recent lack of positive results in the watershed appears to be the main deterrent to future adoption and maintenance of cover crops in the area. The following quotes from producer interviews highlight the challenges producers face when using cover crops.


Aerial Seeding “He doesn't get it covered. And I understand why. Along the edges and stuff he doesn't want to get it

into the neighbor.” –Producer

“We're spotty. We're streaky. It seemed like one year it would be awesome and the next year it was terrible. It's really hard to get a perfect stand.” –Producer

Cost-Share Restrictions

“I guess part of my frustration is that we don't get along while no-tilling corn, and they tie with EQIP's program. You have to do three years of crops, of no-tilling - two years of corn. And so that kind of

throws that bag out of the water for me, because we just don't get along while no-tilling corn in our heavy, wet, clay soils.” –Producer

Decreased Yields

“I saw some pretty lousy looking corn fields. Maybe it will come out alright, but the proof in the pudding will be in the field monitor this fall. Saw some pretty poor stands of corn.” –Producer

“Before I'm sold on the cover crop I need to see more successes than failures, because I'm seeing more failures than successes out there. They stick out like a sore thumb.” –Producer

Discontinued Use

“We won't stick with them unless we have to…Because of the management issues. That's why. It looks good on paper, but if it's a wet spring - like this spring was very wet - and you can't get in to get that

cover crop burnt down, it's going be detrimental to your bottom line…No, if I can't make money, I won't be in business. I have to stay in business.” –Producer

Lack of Equipment

“With my off-farm job, I just simply don't have much time to do much spraying. So, we don't have a sprayer. And that can make a little bit of a challenge as far as getting a timely application of the

chemical on when it needs to be on.” –Producer

“We had a commercial applicator was supposed to come in. I called him to come spray it, to burn it down when it was just about knee height. And they messed around for four days, didn't get out here, and then we got a three-inch rain. And the rye…Took off and got eight, nine feet tall. And so what do

you with it at that point?” –Producer

Market Prices “With corn at $3.30 as opposed to $4.50, there's not that much incentive for us to be out messing

around. We're trying to hold it together, not learn new things right now.” –Producer

“Especially with $3.25 corn. That's below the cost of production. So I'm not going to farm for free. I'm just not-- it's too hard of work. And it's too much of a risk.” –Producer


Wet Weather “We have seen a lot of failures, and concerned about financial end of it, because there's-- especially this

spring, there was a lot of people trying to plant corn and had some disasters. They haven't harvested yet, but they're just pulling their hair out because the ground wouldn't dry out.” –Producer

Benefits of cover crops and motivations to continue

Interviewees said they were motivated to start using cover crops because they believed it was the right thing to do and that cover crops would help improve the soil health on their farms as well as improve the water quality of the watershed. Some interviewees mentioned that the cost-share opportunities made available to them through the project helped motivate them to try cover crops. Interviewees commonly referred to their usage of cover crops as “a learning experience.” Despite the challenges involved with using cover crops, some interviewees said they plan to continue learning and figuring out the best way for cover crops to fit within their operation in terms of seed, application, acreage, timing, and other management factors. A few interviewees, though dissatisfied with their cover crop experiences, decided not to give up entirely on the practice, but instead to take some time off from doing cover crops or to do the practice only every other year. Additional solutions to management issues included waiting for cost-share contracts to end to employ alternative seeding methods, such as adapting a highboy to seed into standing corn or lightly incorporating cover crop seed with a vertical tillage tool. Most interviewees were interested in continuing the learning experience with cover crops because, despite recent challenges, interviewees believe in the soil health benefits of the practice. Benefits and positive statements from producers about cover crops are found in the following quotes.

Cost-Share Opportunities “If it wasn't for the EQIP, I don't know if I would've [done cover crops] because…to pay the $30 an acre to start…I don't know if I would've…definitely the cost-sharing helps out, to get your foot in the door,

and try something that you probably wouldn't have tried.” –Producer

“I think they make the difference of you trying something or not, quite frankly. It becomes a factor of, ‘If I can get some cost-share, sure, I'm going to try it.’ If it were on your own that you are going to have to experiment, then it becomes a real tighter decision of whether I can economically experiment…So, yes,

absolutely. Those cost-share programs are huge.” –Producer

Learning Curve “The only way to learn sometimes is mistakes and you hope you learn from your mistakes and improve the next year so that’s why the mistake we made this year was our mistake, my mistake, but hopefully we can learn from that and do a better job next year…The whole cover crop and no-till practices was just, for our farm anyway, was just totally new experience and totally new learning curve and totally

different management situation on how you apply your fertilizer, the planting method as far as [equipment], it’s nothing that can’t be overcame, but it’s just a totally different management practice

than what we were used to.” –Producer


Seeding “If and when the Beargrass Project itself is no longer and farmers [still] want to continue, then maybe we can put the fertilizer on in the fall and use a vertical tillage tool to lightly go over it and incorporate

it into the soil to keep the fertilizer from moving. And then we could probably, because we’re not meeting anybody’s rules at that point, do it your own way.” –Producer

Stewardship

“I think it's the right thing to do in terms of conservation. I think it makes sense to build organic matter to take care of the soil, and I think we want to always have the concept that we're going to basically,

improve the quality of the soil itself. So that the future generations that we're leaving something better than maybe we had.” –Producer

Taking a Break

“We're trying to make sure we're back on a square playing field before we just keep charging ahead and things get out of control.” –Producer

Factors which encourage adoption of other practices

Overall, whether interviewees discussed cover crops or any other conservation practice, financial factors greatly affect a producer’s decision to adopt. Other factors include maintaining yields and seeing improvements in soil health, both of which are closely linked to a producer’s financial well-being. One producer summarized his thoughts on why he and his peers continue using certain conservation practices: “A, because the yields are still there… B, it's economically feasible. And C, because [we] actually see improvement in the soil tilth…So I think it's combination of factors.” Additional quotes from producers show how adoption of conservation practices is closely linked to economics.

Nutrient Management

“You know what, bottom line is cash. Dollars. So why in the world am I going to throw that on the farm and watch it go down the river?“ –Producer

Conservation Tillage

“It's economically more feasible that I don't have to work the ground and everything. I can just plant, is what I'm saying. So that's an economic decision.” –Producer

Factors which discourage adoption of other practices

Perceived lack of cost-share opportunities and the perception that existing opportunities involve restrictive requirements (e.g., an operation must use no-till for a certain number of years) are two main deterrents for producers interested in adopting conservation practices such as denitrifying bioreactors, two stage ditches, and controlled drainage. Some producer interviewees were interested in these new practices, but said it was difficult for them to implement bioreactors, two stage ditches, and controlled drainage because of high implementation costs. Agency staff interviewees sympathized with producers and described the adoption of edge-of-field conservation practices as an economic challenge for producers. In addition to implementation expenses, agency staff interviewees explained adoption of these practices is difficult for producers because benefits of the practices are not directly


related to operational productivity. Quotes below demonstrate the willingness of producer interviewees to adopt conservation practices and the barriers producers face in implementing larger, more expensive practices.

Bioreactors “That’s why bioreactors and all those things really seem silly, because that’s not affecting their yield whatsoever. You know, that’s just water quality. Which I’m not saying we shouldn’t agree with. But again, to spend money on your land for something like a bioreactor…it’s not improving their bottom

line. So that’s always a challenge as well.” –Agency Staff

Two Stage Ditch “We are 100% for it. In fact, I’ve tried to get [project partner] to do our whole ditch…but they couldn’t get funding for that…And it has to be done through the grant, because it’s a very expensive project.”

–Producer

Water Sediment Control Basins “There's things like WASCOBs that I would love to do, but it seems like there's some restrictions with that type of thing too. I've talked to them several times about doing different projects like that, but it

seems like when I want to go in and get in that program, they're trying to make you do the no-till thing for three years. That just restricts me from being able to do that project, because there's no cost-

sharing on it, and I got to foot the whole thing myself.” –Producer

Increased awareness of other practices

Although adoption of denitrifying bioreactors, saturated buffers, stream channel restoration, and two stage ditches remains low, awareness of these practices increased since 2014. Qualitatively, the quote below demonstrates how producer interviewees reported increased awareness of conservation practices. Quantitatively, the table below shows the number of total survey respondents in 2014 and 2016 who had never heard of these practices. Beargrass Creek responses are shown in comparison to responses from Flowers Creek, a control watershed. In 2014, respondents from the two watersheds were not significantly different in their awareness of denitrifying bioreactors, saturated buffers, stream channel restoration, and two stage ditches. Awareness of these four conservation practices increased in both watersheds over time, but a higher proportions of respondents in Beargrass had heard of the practices than respondents in Flowers. Awareness levels of denitrifying bioreactors and saturated buffers were significantly different between the two watersheds in 2016. These statistically significant differences speak to the impact of education and outreach efforts of the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. While awareness of these practices has increased in Beargrass and while there is interest among some interviewees to adopt these practices, adoption rates are likely to remain low given the high costs of implementation.


Awareness “That's all new to me. I had not heard anything like that until I was in this Beargrass Creek watershed

program.” –Producer

2014 2016

Beargrass Flowers Beargrass Flowers

Never heard of: n % n % n % n %

Denitrifying Bioreactors 53 66 29 72 25 20* 22 55

Saturated Buffers 53 68 30 60 27 30* 20 70

Stream Channel Restoration 50 72 27 78 23 52 16 63

Two Stage Ditches 51 57 30 70 24 29 21 57

*significant at the p <0.01 level using a χ2 test.

Experiences with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project

During the interviews, producers were asked why they were motivated to join the project, what benefits they associated with their participation, what challenges they encountered, how they would evaluate the success of the project, and if they had any suggestions for improvements or pieces of advice they would give to other watersheds. Agency staff were asked similar questions.

Motivations to join

Most producer interviewees first learned about the project from local SWCD staff members. According to survey data, awareness of the project was high, with 30 out of the 40 total respondents having heard about the initiative. Most interviewees and 15 survey respondents attended at least one project meeting. Interviewees said they were motivated to participate in the project because it felt like it was “the right thing to do” in terms of conservation efforts to reduce runoff and improve water quality in the area. Interviewees were largely interested in learning about opportunities for how they could play a part in improving the watershed’s water quality. Some producers were also motivated to participate in the voluntary program in hopes of preventing future regulations from state or federal government. Producer quotes below describe interviewees’ motivations for participating in the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach project.

Improving Water Quality “The fact that I own land in that watershed…When it rains hard, it floods our lowlands and runs directly into an open ditch, which drains into the Beargrass Creek watershed. That's the whole reason I'm there,

is to try and see what programs are available to help in that watershed with issues of runoff.” –Producer

“Mainly [we participated] for protection of the soil and water quality. We’re all wanting better water

quality and not wanting our nutrients to end up down in the Gulf of Mexico, you know.” –Producer

Preventing Regulation “We just don't want to be forced, that's all…that's always been in the back of my mind ever since this

whole thing started: When are they going to start policing us? And then it's going to be a


problem. We're willing to work and that's the main reason we are working is because we figure if we're proactively work[ing]…then they're not going to come out and get after us.” –Producer

Benefits of participation: producers

Interviews revealed that producers benefited from the project in multiple ways. Two main benefits occurred in every interview: 1. Producers often described their experience with the project as “eye-opening” in terms of raising their awareness about environmental problems associated with farming and learning about what conservation practices are available to reduce their environmental impacts; and 2. Producers frequently referenced water quality monitoring by Manchester University as a major benefit associated with the project. Project meetings provided producers with opportunities to not just learn about new practices from agencies and universities, but also to hear from their peers about personal experiences with conservation practices, such as cover crops. A few interviewees appreciated meetings where their peers shared experiences of cover crop successes, failures, and different management strategies. Both round table discussions and more informal opportunities during project meetings were beneficial for interviewees to learn from their fellow producers. Some interviewees mentioned additional social benefits, such as meeting and interacting with new people and collaborating with outside partners. The collaborative nature of the project gave some interviewees the sense that government agencies were willing to listen to the experiences of the producers and to learn about the difficulties associated with conservation practices, such as cover crops. Overall, interviews showed that producers believed the project was eye-opening for themselves and project partners. The following quotes from producer interviews show the benefits they gleaned from the project.

Collaboration “We’ve been able to meet some people that we would not have been able to meet if it had not been for the Beargrass Project…we would have never had an opportunity to meet or talk with or present maybe our side of the table to them. And it’s not just all one-sided where they’ve [agencies] just been throwing

the Beargrass stuff at us. We’ve been able to give some information back to those people which has helped, too, I think.” –Producer

“Everybody’s pretty much open-minded. Nobody’s saying, ‘Well you’ve got stupid ideas.’ You know,

they listen to you. That’s been pretty much been the attitude of everyone involved; the soil and water people, the university people, the farmers. So I think we’ve all tried to work together pretty well.”

–Producer

Meetings “I think having other farmers come in that have done it, and share their experiences helps, too.

Because, at our annual meeting, they've had different farmers from different areas come in and talk about that. I think people like to know, ‘I'm not out here by my own on this island.’ It's like, other guys have done this, and yeah, they've had headaches, and they've learned. But you can do it." –Producer


New Practices “Probably the main thing for us would be that it’s shown us that there are different ways to go about

farming than what we were doing before instead of just conventional [till] and all that, there’s a different way…So it’s kind of opened our eyes, you might say, a little bit” –Producer

“Before the project started, there were some practices that we didn't know about…so we have learned

some new practices to use.” –Producer

Water Quality Monitoring “It brings your attention to what’s going on in the crick, in the whole watershed area. And going to the annual meeting, that’s pretty eye opening; what they’re finding when they’re testing the waters. The

things I thought they would find are not what they’re finding. It’s more – Nitrogen seems to be the biggie here.” –Producer

Benefits of participation: agency staff

Interviews with agency staff revealed many of the same benefits provided by producers. Agency staff saw the project as a great opportunity to bring in funding to the watershed to improve water quality and soil health, which were said to “go hand-in-in.” Staff from NRCS and SWCD also viewed the watershed project as beneficial for producers interested in learning about and trying new practices, saying that the project “sparked a lot of interest” in conservation practices and programs among producers. Project meetings were seen as a benefit, allowing for the sharing of information among partner organizations, as well as between outside organizations and the local producers. The ability to share information and to connect with producers was seen as a benefit from the agency perspective, because local staff were able to build trusting relationships with participating producers. Benefits of the project are described by agency staff interviewees below.

Funding “It was nice that the district was able to bring in some funds…we get very little from the county to do

anything with our programs…So we definitely would not have been able to do a watershed project obviously without the funding that EDF allowed the district to have, that’s for sure.” –Agency Staff

Improving Water Quality through Best Practices

“Benefits would be improving water quality, soil health promotion, reducing soil loss. Those are some of the things we try to quantify. That’s where Manchester University has been a big advocate on telling us

– Are we making improvements? What best management practices are needed out here?” –Agency Staff

Meetings

“The fact that these farmers sat in a group together to talk about it [conservation] is huge.” –Agency Staff

Opportunity to Try New Practices

“They’re [producers] very comfortable with the way they’ve been doing it, they know how to get it done that way and that’s what they stay with. But with this project, it has allowed some producers…to try it on a small part of their farm. Which is the way you want them to do it. You don’t want them to change


everything overnight. Because there’s a learning curve, there definitely is. So this was an opportunity for some of them to get their feet in the ground a little bit and try it a little bit at a time. And it gave

others an opportunity that were willing to start something, to do something, it was a great opportunity for them to really get involved.” –Agency Staff

Trust

“They [producers] put a lot of trust in what the group is saying, what NRCS is saying, what soil and water is saying…I mean they are basically making cropping decisions that affect what they do for a

living on what [the agencies are] advising them to do.” –Agency Staff

Challenges with the project: producers

Other than extra paperwork and time, which interviewees acknowledged is “like anything else, everything takes more time than what you expect it to,” challenges associated with the project from the producers’ perspectives focused on the management of cover crops. When asked about what was challenging about the project, interviewees frequently spoke of cover crops as the only challenge. For example, “Other than just the actual physical management of the cover crop, no” and “Other than that [cover crops], I don't think there's been any major challenges. Nobody's caused us any grief or headaches.” For most interviewees, the practice was synonymous with the project. Project meetings were highly praised by interviewees, but some did offer minor critiques. Some interviewees thought the meetings were occasionally scheduled during inconvenient times, were too long, and contained too much information all at once.

Challenges with the project: agency staff

Agency staff experienced different challenges than the producers. Although interviewees mentioned producers were having difficulty with cover crops, project challenges for agency staff focused more on communication, shifts in project personnel, and producer participation. While building partnerships with multiple partners across different states, agencies, and areas of expertise was a perceived benefit of the project, agency staff acknowledged that effective communication between all groups was a struggle at times. There were also personnel changes within different partner groups that came as “a huge blow in momentum,” but those were challenges outside the control of local agency staff. Within their control was the recruitment of producers for the project. Local NRCS and SWCD staff interviewees said one of their main challenges was the recruitment of some producers, noting that it has taken quite a bit of “convincing them [producers] we are working with them, not really against them…that’s come a long way in this project…It’s been difficult, but it’s been fun.” Interviewees believe that changing the mindset of the more resistant producers, motivating them to change their practices and manage their operations in a more conservation-minded way will be an “ongoing” challenge. Additionally, although interviewees understand the benefits of and advocate for the adoption of new conservation practices, they also sympathize with producers over their legitimate fears and risks associated with changing their operations. For producers who did implement conservation practices, such as cover crops, agency staff interviewees say the next challenge is helping producers maintain those practices: “These EQIP applications are running out and you can’t necessarily convince somebody to continue and so that obviously is a huge struggle.”


Other challenges agency staff interviewees experienced when recommending practices to producers were the differences in state NRCS construction specifications for conservation practices. Some project partners involved in making conservation practice recommendations hailed from states other than Indiana. Construction specifications for certain practices may have been within NRCS guidelines in these other states, but were unavailable for funding in Indiana. Such discrepancies led to some frustration among agency staff members and producers. One agency staff member said, “there were a few curveballs as far as policy stuff goes…When I say policy, I mean NRCS policy.” Additional quotes from agency staff call attention to the challenges they faced throughout the project.

Communication

“Just keeping an open line of communication. The more partners becoming involved, it became more evident to us very quickly that we needed to keep these teleconferences going. A lot of the partners

aren’t located in Wabash, Miami County. So we had to make special efforts to get everyone together in the same room. Keep everybody up to speed. That was a challenge. But [local coordinator] did a good

job coordinating that. That’s an issue. Communication and off-site staff. Out of state staff.” –Agency Staff

Financial Risk to Producers

“It’s not my family. And I understand that it sounds great, why wouldn’t you just do all these things? Because at $3.00 corn there’s not a lot of extra money to do a lot of things with. And so I’ve been

farming and I’ve been making a living so why would I all of a sudden change my management practices and not make as high of a yield? That’s always a challenge as well to us, that it’s not our bank

account.” –Agency Staff

Mindsets and Participation “I mean there are some farmers you are just not going to get…and you have to accept that, I think…the

farmers that farm in Beargrass, some of them, it was going to be a hard sell from the get-go. So in a way you set yourself up to fail but there’s probably not a perfect watershed or an easy watershed. There’s always going to be farmers that farm it that are going to be tough to get.” –Agency Staff

Evaluation of Project Outputs and Tools

Outputs of the watershed project included the production of an informational booklet titled Strategies for Voluntarily Improving the Soil Health on your Farm and LIDAR-based maps, on which conservation practices were overlaid. The purpose of the LIDAR map was to present producers with opportunities of the “right practices” in the “right places.” Conservation practices promoted on the map and throughout the project were pictured and described in the informational booklet. Overall, interviews with agency staff and producers showed project outputs to be useful tools in encouraging education about different opportunities for conservation practices.


Booklet

Both agency staff and producer interviewees were pleased with the Strategies for Voluntarily Improving the Soil Health on your Farm booklet. Agency staff said they found the booklet useful because they could distribute it at project meetings and to producers who visited their offices. An agency staff interviewee described the booklet as a helpful “Cliffs Notes of each practice and what it does.” Producer interviewees appreciated the booklet, saying they were able to reference it if they wanted to refresh their memory of a practice they recently learned about from a project meeting. If they were interested in a practice depicted in the booklet, producer interviewees said they would check with their local NRCS/SWCD office for more information.

LIDAR Map

Reviews of the LIDAR map were generally positive as well. Agency staff interviewees thought the map was a “great tool for the NRCS to utilize” and “It’s a huge ice breaker.” Agency staff interviewees said the map was a useful catalyst for conversations with producers about conservation practices. While useful for providing “options” for practices such as bioreactors, two stage ditches, and WASCOBs, agency staff noted that “there needs to be a practicality, because you’re not going to go out there and implement every practice that’s available.” Agency staff recognized that the map was useful in an educational rather than a motivational sense, noting that cost and availability of cost-share funds were limiting factors for producers interested in the implementation of practices shown on the map. When using the map, agency staff interviewees said they reminded producers that they were not limited to only practices on the map and that “waterways can go in any field, buffer strips…the biggies like no till, nutrient management, pest management, any type of manure management, those are big practices, cover crops, can apply anywhere.” All producer interviewees and 17 survey respondents had seen the map. Survey respondents all rated the map as somewhat to very accurate. Producer interviewees expressed similar confidence in the map’s accuracy, but some went on to say they would need to explore the physical characteristics of their property before agreeing that the map showed the “right location” for a given practice. In terms of general location, many interviewees had difficulty finding their property on the map because there were no road numbers. Producer interviewees preferred versions of the map with key road numbers “so you kind of knew where your property and everything was.” No producer interviewees believed the map to be an invasion of privacy, saying that “it's just basically public knowledge” and “pretty much anyone that knows how to use the computer can look [this] stuff up.” Of the survey respondents who took the survey in 2014 and 2016, attitudes remain fairly split between those who think targeted conservation efforts and tools such as the LIDAR map invade privacy. Interview data provide further insight into potential concerns over privacy. Some interviewees said the map as it is currently being used does not cause concern, however, they foresee issues if in the future the map were to be used for regulatory purposes. This type of attitude toward the LIDAR map is summarized in the following quote from a producer: “I would think they'd need to approach it with going to the farmer and saying, ‘We think this might fit. What do you think?’ Because the farmer's going to have first-hand experience tilling the ground, and if he has any kind of a care for the land at all, he's going to want to take that into consideration. But for


them to come out and say, ‘Here's something we need to do. You're going to be forced to do it,’ that's not going to be a pill that anybody's wanting to swallow very well.” –Producer

Definitions and Assessments of Project Success

Both producer and agency staff interviewees mainly defined project success as improving water quality in the watershed through conservation practices. However, almost all interviewees were uncertain about how successful the project has been in that sense, often stating that three years of water quality data is not sufficient to assess the project’s success. Some interviewees believed more time is necessary to evaluate success because the impacts of conservation practices might be delayed. One producer stated that, “Long term success may be literally five, ten years. Because it may take that long for some of these practices to really show its full effect.” Beyond water quality, many producer and agency staff interviewees defined success of the project to be increased awareness about conservation practices and ability to implement practices. While both groups of interviewees had hoped to see more extensive implementation of conservation practices throughout the watershed, they placed great value on the fact that the project facilitated educational opportunities about new conservation practices and structures. However, some producers and agency staff believed success of the project would be determined only if producers maintain usage of conservation practices. One producer described success and ongoing maintenance of conservation practices: “If it was a true, total success, everybody that was involved would probably stay involved and maybe increase their acreage. If some guys back out and say “well this didn’t work for me,” then maybe it wasn’t a total success.” Producer interviewees often credited local NRCS and SWCD staff as being dependable sources of information and providing reliable support throughout the project. The local project coordinator was frequently mentioned by name, as were project personnel who presented “creative” conservation practice ideas and who led the water quality monitoring efforts. Agency staff interviewees also valued the relationships they built with producers and the partnerships they formed between partner organizations.

Agency Support “[Local project coordinator]’s been fantastic. [District coordinator]'s been great. Actually, the whole

office has been very solid from that standpoint…It's been a concerted effort, you can tell, of the whole office.” –Producer

Extensive Outreach

“It's an educational process. The farmers have to want to do it, but to want to do it, someone has to educate them. And I think our local office has done an excellent job on that.” –Producer

“One-on-one meetings with producers, telephone calls, got them out to some demonstration plots and

stuff like that. But it’s still… the best part of it though is still talking to those producers, you know, meeting them on the street, at the grocery store, at the county fair, stuff like that.” –Agency Staff


Improved Water Quality “I think the main thing would be if, overall, if everybody that participated…actually made the water

quality better, if we wound up with less nutrients in the water, less soil, sediments in the water because of the Beargrass Project, then I’d say it was an overall success.” –Producer

“I think it starts with the water quality monitoring department in a university. That is the scientific

based approach that you can’t argue with.” –Agency Staff

Increased Opportunity “On an individual basis, each farmer might be able to say, ‘Well it was a success to me because I

learned a couple different methods of farming that maybe we wouldn’t have tried without this on our own.’” –Producer

“What I hoped to see out of the project was an opportunity for education…And it very much did that. I

mean, even if we didn’t get as much…projects implemented as we wanted to, it still was an educational, an opportunity for knowledge. It’s like, you gotta plant a seed and let it grow.”

–Agency Staff

Need More Practices “We're pretty well-ready to have the rubber meet the road…There's a point where guys just need to

say, "Okay, we're ready to start doing some of these things.” –Producer

Uncertain Evaluation “I don't think we've got enough information at this point.” –Producer

“I don't really know how much we've really accomplished anyway.” –Producer

Suggestions for improvements: producers

When asked what they would improve about the project, producer interviewees said they wanted the project to continue for a few more years. Extending the project into the future corresponds with producers’ difficulty to define success within the project’s short timeframe. One producer interviewee said he thinks “we're just getting started really” and “was kind of surprised the other day, when [local project coordinator] said [chuckles] that this meeting was more or less getting ready for the end of it.” Overall, producer interviewees felt as though the project needed more time to implement conservation practices, collect more water quality data, and to improve conservation decision-making in the watershed. The following quotes demonstrate producer interviewees’ desire to continue the project.

More Time “I was hoping we [would] go a couple more years” –Producer

“I know it’ll take a lot of funding and they probably won’t be able to do it, but if they could extend it

another 2 or 3 years and get more data collected, I think they could maybe make some better decisions, or our farmers would maybe have a better idea if it would work or not work… Some projects just take

up a long time to collect enough data to try to make a decision from.” –Producer


Suggestions for improvements: agency staff

Agency staff interviewees would have liked to see more practices implemented, but they struggled to pinpoint how exactly they could have improved rates of adoption throughout the project: “Well it’s tough to say because…we tried our hardest.” Overall, agency staff felt satisfied with what they accomplished, given the time, staff, and other resources they had: “I look back at 2015 and the amount of work between the two counties. Beargrass, the lower Eel river, the middle Eel river. We had so many irons in the fire. We did the best we could with what we had. I feel like we went above and beyond.” Generally satisfied with their efforts, the main suggestion for improvement was more guidance from EDF, the funder of the project. Challenges with communication (pg. 9) led to local agency staff having unclear expectations regarding their role and deliverables: “I don’t know that we’ve fulfilled what they [EDF] thought we were supposed to do and I’m not really sure what that was.” More specific guidelines at the beginning and throughout the project would have been appreciated by local agency staff.

More Guidance

“I felt like if we did it again, like always, you’d have a little more idea, once you have that experience. I guess we were under the assumption that EDF had done this numerous times and had an idea.”

–Agency Staff

Lessons Learned and Advice from Participants

Producers

Despite the difficulties with cover crops, interviewees said they would encourage producers in other watersheds to try cover crops on a small scale and to get involved with a local initiative like the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. Interviewees advocated for initial and continued participation, education, and advised other producers in similar projects to “keep an open mind.” Because financial considerations are highly influential in conservation decision-making, producers also advised their peers to seek out cost-share opportunities. Producer pieces of advice about joining a conservation project are found in the quotes below.

Get Involved “You get out there and figure out what program is there, and what funding there is for different

applications… If there's funding available, make use of them and try them out.” –Producer

“Join a project, because if you don't, you're not going to learn anything at all. Whereas if you do join the project, at least you're going to learn a little bit.” –Producer

Agency Staff

During the interviews, agency staff advocated for keeping the scale of a watershed project small, so that interacting with and recruiting producers is achievable. Within that smaller watershed, agency staff called for social science investigations prior to the project so that project personnel would have a sense of “who is in that watershed…what practices they are already doing…what practices they might be willing to do.” Based on that information, interviewees advised that their peers in other watersheds should first recruit conservation-minded producers. If these producers have already implemented


conservation practices on their land, interviewees advocated for asking the producers to host a demonstration site for their neighbors in the watershed. Agency staff realized that implementation of conservation practices is not and should not be the sole measure of success for a project. Rather, methods of recruiting and educating producers were especially important to interviewees. Agency staff interviewees strongly recommended that forming personal contacts with producers is essential and that agency staff are responsible for quality engagement and education regarding conservation practices. To do so, one agency staff member summarized, ““Definitely make it personable…You gotta get face to face.” As seen throughout the project, water quality monitoring is crucial for a successful project. When possible, agency staff highly recommended future projects should find partnerships and pathways to collecting water quality data. Advice from agency staff are found in the following quotes.

Beyond Implementation

“The most interesting part of this concept of this project is what I realized really early on: That it’s not – with this particular project – it’s just not about getting the practices on the ground, but it’s a lot about

how we got those practices on the ground.” –Agency Staff

Recognize Responsibility and Possibilities “The main thing is to realize your responsibilities…It’s our responsibility to realize that sustainable

agriculture is possible, and to try to make other producers realize what sustainable agriculture really is and what it needs to be.” –Agency Staff

Water Quality Data

“Start with the water quality monitoring and build those partnerships…Find out who’s doing water quality monitoring. And that’s tough. That takes money. I keep coming back to Manchester because

[of] their strong partnership… get that scientific baseline set.” –Agency Staff

Recommendations

Beargrass Creek

Moving forward in the Beargrass Creek watershed, producers will require motivation and assistance in continuing and expanding conservation practices. Final interviews and surveys demonstrate that while there are conservation-minded producers in the watershed, producers are largely limited by financial factors. Survey data show that the number of producers who plan to apply cost-share funds to implement practices is similar to the number of producers who are not interested in applying for cost-share programs. Continued outreach for cost-share opportunities might encourage future adoption of conservation practices to improve water quality. More survey respondents agree/strongly agree (n=20) than disagree/strongly disagree (n=5) that producers play a key role in reducing nutrient loading by 45%. More producers also agree/strongly agree (n=12) than disagree/strongly disagree (n=3) that the 45% reduction goal is achievable. These data, along with interviewee interest in continuing the Beargrass project and the practice of cover crops, suggest there is momentum to motivate producers to continue and potentially increase their conservation efforts.


Future Projects

Based on our study, we recommend future projects should:

Incorporate water quality data through rigorous sampling methods and analysis. Both agency staff and producer interviewees cited water quality data as a main benefit to the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. If future projects set a goal of reducing nutrient loading in waterways, baseline and continued assessment of water quality must occur to track improvements in water quality over time. Evaluation of a project’s success should also not be limited to a few years’ worth of water quality data.

Continue assigning a local project coordinator within the watershed. Personal contact and face-to-face meetings were highly valued by all interviewees. The local project coordinator and other project partners who directly interacted with producers were often referenced as highly valuable assets and sources of information. Local staff should continue to be responsible for maintaining positive relationships with producers in the watershed. The local project coordinator should be provided with and have access to resources that will help them fulfill clear project goals.

Keep project scale within manageable limits. Agency staff interviewees were in favor of focusing on relatively small watersheds so that outreach and education efforts would be effective. Producer and agency staff interviewees valued project meetings and in-person conversations, which are difficult to facilitate on a larger scale. If future projects were to be implemented in a relatively larger watershed, consider assigning multiple local coordinators in smaller geographic areas or sub-watersheds.

Consider redefining requirements of cost-share contracts and provide options for implementation. Some producer interviewees were willing to adopt conservation practices, but felt restricted within cost-share contracts. For example, requirements of no-till on cover crop acres was perceived as a deterrent by some interviewees. Including a variety options and room for flexibility in the implementation and maintenance of conservation practices may increase producers’ willingness to adopt and maintain practices.

Consider extending timeframes of future projects. Interviews with producers showed interest in having more time to learn how to best incorporate conservation practices, specifically cover crops, into their operations. Three years may not be enough time for producers to effectively adopt and maintain new conservation practices.

Social science investigations should occur during the early stages of the project so that local agency staff may gain more in-depth insights into producers’ conservation attitudes, practices, and willingness to adopt new practices.


Evaluation of future projects should not be limited to strictly quantifiable measures, such as water quality data and number of acres enrolled in a conservation practice. Qualitative assessment, such as interviews with participants, should also occur. Producer interviewees often evaluated the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project as successful based on the educational opportunities and awareness-raising throughout the area.

Appendix A: Data Analysis Methods

Interviews

All interviews with producer and agency staff were scheduled through the local project coordinator. The local project coordinator contacted all interviewees in-person, over the phone, or via email to set times and locations for the interviews. One agency staff member and two producers who were interviewed in 2014 were not interviewed in 2016 due to retirement, health concerns, and scheduling conflicts. Other than these three individuals, all interviewees from 2014 participated in the 2016 interviews. All agency staff interviews were conducted on a one-on-one basis. Two producer interviews were conducted with multiple producers from the same operation. Agency staff and producer interviewees varied in their levels of engagement with the project. The local project coordinator escorted the researcher from Purdue’s NRSS Lab to the various locations, but did not stay for the duration of the interview to ensure confidentiality. All interviews were recorded with the permission of the interviewee. Undergraduate students and staff from an online transcription service transcribed all interviews. After reading through all of the transcriptions, the NRSS researcher who conducted the interviews developed two coding frameworks: one for agency staff interviews and one for producer interviews. Another NRSS researcher assisted in the refinement of the coding frameworks. Transcriptions were coded in NVivo 11. Using the software, two coding comparisons were analyzed to ensure consistent coding between the two researchers. Coding comparison queries resulted in overall kappa scores above 0.7 for both sets of interviews. Based on the coding, key themes emerged from the interviews and illustrative quotes were organized within the report.

Surveys

Surveys returned through the mail were entered into Qualtrics by NRSS undergraduate students. The data were downloaded by the NRSS researcher, who followed lab protocols for quality checking and cleaning. Data entered by NRSS students were merged with data entered directly into Qualtrics by respondents who chose to complete the survey online into a single SPSS 23 file. Descriptive statistics were analyzed to create the data report for the 2016 survey (attached Appendix B). Respondents were assigned the same 4-digit ID number in 2014 and 2016. Based on these ID numbers, 28 respondents completed the survey in both years. Counts, rather than percentages, were used in the comparison data report (attached Appendix C) due to the low sample size. Means for variables across the two different years were generally very similar. Paired t-tests were conducted and no significant differences were found.


Surveys were also mailed to producers in the Flowers Creek watershed, located in northcentral Indiana’s Miami County. Miami County is adjacent to Wabash County, where the Beargrass Creek watershed is located. Surveys distributed in the Flowers Creek watershed were identical to the surveys distributed in Beargrass except for questions specific to the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project, which were excluded in the Flowers surveys. To compare differences in awareness of conservation practices between the two watershed, appropriate variables were recoded and chi-square tests for association were conducted in SPSS.


Beargrass Creek 2016 Survey Results

II. Methods

Mail Survey 86 Surveys distributed 1 Bad address 40 (47%) Completed (% not including bad addresses)

III. Water Quality: Water Impairments

1. Below is a list of water pollutants and conditions that are generally present in water bodies to some extent. The pollutants and conditions become a problem when present in excessive amounts. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following water impairments in your area?

Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


(n=29)


(n=26)

c. Phosphorus (n=36) 16.7% 25.0% 19.4% 5.6% 33.3% 2.21

(n=24)


19.4% 11.1% 8.3% 2.8% 58.3% 1.87

(n=15)

IV. Water Quality: Sources of Water Pollution 2. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In

your opinion, how much of a problem are the following sources in your area?

Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without 5)

(n)


29.7% 29.7% 13.5% 0.0% 27.0% 1.78 (n=27)


27.0% 21.6% 13.5% 13.5% 24.3% 2.18 (n=28)


10.8% 45.9% 24.3% 10.8% 8.1% 2.38 (n=34)


V. Management Practices Cover Crops

3. Please select the option that best describes your experience with cover crops. (n=39) 15.4% Not relevant 2.6% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 12.8% Heard of it and not willing to try it 7.7% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 2.6% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 17.9% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 41.0% Currently use it

4. On what percentage of your cropland do you use cover crops? (n=16)

37.5% 0-25% 18.8% 26-50% 12.5% 51-75% 25.0% 76-100%


19.4% 41.7% 19.4% 8.3% 11.1% 2.19 (n=32)


24.3% 35.1% 16.2% 2.7% 21.6% 1.97 (n=29)


20.0% 40.0% 22.9% 2.9% 14.3% 2.10 (n=30)


24.3% 27.0% 18.9% 5.4% 24.3% 2.07 (n=28)


32.4% 35.1% 16.2% 0.0% 16.2% 1.81 (n=31)


21.6% 43.2% 16.2% 0.0% 18.9% 1.93 (n=30)


27.0% 40.5% 16.2% 2.7% 13.5% 1.94 (n=32)


35.1% 27.0% 18.9% 2.7% 16.2% 1.87 (n=31)

l.

Urban storm water runoff (e.g. highways, rooftops, parking lots) (n=37)

27.0% 29.7% 13.5% 2.7% 27.0% 1.89 (n=27)


38.9% 33.3% 5.6% 2.8% 19.4% 1.66 (n=29)


5. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Beargrass Creek watershed were in cover crops in 2015? Corn (n=8) 12.5% 30% 25% 50% 62.5% 100% Soybeans (n=10) 10.0% 15% 10.0% 20% 10.0% 42% 20.0% 50% 50.0% 100%

6. 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)

(n)

a. Don’t know how to do it (n=27) 63.0% 18.5% 11.1% 0.0% 7.4% 1.44 (n=25)

b. Time required (n=26) 26.9% 38.5% 23.1% 3.8% 6.1% 2.04 (n=24)

c. Cost (n=29) 13.8% 13.8% 51.7% 17.2% 3.4% 2.75 (n=28)

d. The features of my property make it difficult (n=27)

44.4% 25.9% 22.2% 0.0% 7.4% 1.76 (n=25)

e. Insufficient proof of water quality benefit (n=26)

46.2% 26.9% 11.5% 0.0% 15.4% 1.59 (n=22)

f. Desire to continue traditional farming practices/methods (n=27)

44.4% 18.5% 29.6% 0.0% 7.4% 1.84 (n=25)

g. Disapproval from others (n=27) 77.8% 3.7% 7.4% 0.0% 11.1% 1.21 (n=24)

h. Hard to use with my farming system (n=27)

25.9% 37.0% 18.5% 7.4% 11.1% 2.08 (n=24)

i. Lack of equipment (n=27) 33.3% 29.6% 14.8% 14.8% 7.4% 2.12

(n=25)

Grassed Waterways

7. Please select the option that best describes your experience with grassed waterways. (n=39) 17.9% Not relevant 0.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it


5.1% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 2.6% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 2.6% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 71.8% Currently use it

8. What percentage of your waterways are grassed waterways? (n=28) 0.0% 0-25% 3.6% 26-50% 7.1% 51-75% 85.7% 76-100%

9. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement grassed

waterways?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without 5)

(n)



c. Cost (n=27) 44.4% 14.8% 22.2% 18.5% 0.0% 2.15 (n=27)


74.1% 14.8% 7.4% 3.7% 0.0% 1.41 (n=27)


88.5% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 1.12 (n=25)


73.1% 23.1% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.31 (n=26)

g. Disapproval from others (n=26) 96.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1.00

(n=26)


65.4% 30.8% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.2 (n=26)


(n=26)


Denitrifying Bioreactors

10. Please select the option that best describes your experience with denitrifying bioreactors. (n=37) 32.4% Not relevant 8.1% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 5.4% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 10.8% Heard of it and not willing to try it 35.1% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 2.7% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 5.4% Currently use it

11. What percentage of your cropland is drained by denitrifying bioreactors? (n=2)

0.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 100% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100%

12. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement denitrifying

bioreactors?

Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Don’t know how to do it (n=17) 23.5% 17.6% 17.6% 29.4% 11.8% 2.60

(n=15)

b. Time required (n=17) 23.5% 23.5% 29.4% 11.8% 11.8% 2.33

(n=15)

c. Cost (n=18) 5.6% 11.1% 16.7% 55.6% 11.1% 3.38

(n=16)


11.1% 22.2% 27.8% 16.7% 22.2% 2.64

(n=14)


16.7% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 27.8% 2.38

(n=13)


58.8% 11.8% 11.8% 5.9% 11.8% 1.60

(n=15)

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


(n=15)



35.3% 29.4% 5.9% 11.8% 17.6% 1.93

(n=14)


(n=14)

Saturated Buffers

13. Please select the option that best describes your experience with saturated buffers. (n=40) 32.5% Not relevant 5.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 15.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 10.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 22.5% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 15.0% Currently use it

14. What percentage of your cropland is drained by saturated buffers? (n=4)

25.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 50.0% 51-75% 25.0% 76-100%

15. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement saturated

buffers?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without 5)

(n)


(n=10)

b. Time required (n=12) 33.3% 0.0% 41.7% 8.3% 16.7% 2.30

(n=10)

c. Cost (n=14) 7.1% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 21.4% 2.64

(n=11)


9.1% 36.4% 9.1% 18.2% 27.3% 2.50 (n=8)


27.3% 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% 36.4% 1.86 (n=7)


58.3% 0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 25.0% 1.56 (n=9)



(n=11)


18.2% 27.3% 9.1% 18.2% 27.3% 2.38 (n=8)

i. Lack of equipment (n=15) 45.5% 18.2% 18.2% 0.0% 18.2% 1.67 (n=9)

Two Stage Ditch

16. Please select the option that best describes your experience with two stage ditches. (n=40) 40.0% Not relevant 10.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 7.5% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 7.5% Heard of it and not willing to try it 32.5% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 2.5% Currently use it

17. What percentage of your ditches have you installed a two stage ditch? (n=1) 100.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100%

18. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement two stage

ditches?

Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


(n=11)

b. Time required (n=15) 20.0% 33.3% 13.3% 6.7% 26.7% 2.09

(n=11)

c. Cost (n=16) 6.3% 12.5% 12.5% 43.8% 25.0% 3.25

(n=12)


20.0% 26.7% 20.0% 20.0% 13.3% 2.46

(n=13)


40.0% 6.7% 20.0% 6.7% 26.7% 1.91

(n=11)


60.0% 13.3% 13.3% 6.7% 6.7% 1.64

(n=14)



(n=13)


46.7% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 1.92

(n=13)


(n=13)

Stream Channel Restoration

19. Please select the option that best describes your experience with stream channel restoration. (n=40) 42.5% Not relevant 10.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 20.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 10.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 12.5% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 5.0% Currently use it

20. What percentage of your streams have undergone stream channel restoration?

(n=1) 0.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 100.0% 76-100%

21. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement stream channel restoration?

Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)



c. Cost (n=10) 20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 2.0% 30.0% 2.57 (n=7)


10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.0% 2.71 (n=7)


20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 40.0% 2.50 (n=6)


40.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 2.13 (n=8)


Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)



20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.0% 2.43 (n=7)


VI. Conservation Tillage

22. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Beargrass Creek watershed were no-till, strip-till, or ridge till in 2015?

Corn (n=28) 0.0% 50.0% 10.0% 3.6% 40.0% 3.6% 50.0% 7.1% 60.0% 3.6% 89.0% 3.6% 100.0% 25.0% Soybeans (n=27) 0.0% 40.7% 50.0% 11.1% 80.0% 3.7% 100.0% 44.4%

VII. Targeted Conservation

23. Targeted conservation refers to soil and water conservation activities that use techniques such as satellite imagery and geographic information systems (GIS) to identify the areas of the landscape that are most vulnerable so soil erosion of water quality impairment. Targeted conservation approaches are seen by some as a way to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of soil and water conservation activities by focusing resources on areas of the landscape that would provide the most environmental benefit. We are interested in learning about what you think regarding targeted conservation programs.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a. Conservation funding should be higher for land that is most

10.5% 2.6% 21.1% 50.0% 15.8% 3.58

(n=38)


vulnerable to soil and water quality problems. (n=38)

b.


7.9% 2.6% 18.4% 52.6% 18.4% 3.71

(n=38)

c.


10.8% 2.7% 37.8% 45.9% 2.7% 3.27

(n=37)

d.


7.9% 7.9% 34.2% 47.4% 2.6% 3.29

(n=38)

e.

Targeted conservation programs are needed because current programs are not effective enough. (n=35)

5.7% 8.6% 57.1% 28.6% 0.0% 3.09

(n=35)

f.

Government use of satellite imagery and GIS to map characteristics of private land is an invasion of privacy. (n=38)

7.9% 13.2% 50.0% 18.4% 10.5% 3.11

(n=38)

g.


2.6% 42.1% 44.7% 2.6% 7.9% 2.71

(n=38)

VIII. Farming Operations

24. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming

operation this year. Owned (n=38) Range: 0-1,500 Mean: 434.37

Rented (n=33) Range: 0-2,450 Mean: 442.32

Total (n=36) Range: 0-3,000 Mean: 807.99


25. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation this year that is located within the Beargrass Creek watershed.

Owned (n=35) Range: 0-1,250 Mean: 170.91

Rented (n=30) Range: 0-700 Mean: 105.90


26. How many acres of the following did you manage in the Beargrass Creek

watershed? If none, please enter a zero. u. Corn (n=33)

Range: 0-1,240 Mean: 150.12

v. Soybeans (n=33) Range: 0 -831 Mean: 116.12

w. Small grains (n=27) Range: 0-100 Mean: 10.78

x. Canning crops (n=23) Range: 0.0 Mean: 0.0

y. Clover/Alfalfa (n=27) Range: 0-110 Mean: 9.96

z. Pasture (n=25) Range: 0-15 Mean: 1.12

aa. Forest/woodland (n=26) Range: 0-40 Mean: 6.27

bb.Conservation set aside/CRP (n=24) Range: 0-25 Mean: 2.96

cc. Non-row crops for energy (n=0) Range: 0 Mean: 0

dd.Other (n=0) Range: 0 Mean: 0


27. Over how many of these acres in the Beargrass Creek watershed was manure spread? (n=38)

Range: 0-1,500 Mean: 73.21

28. What percentage of the manure originated inside the Beargrass Creek

watershed? (n=31) Range: 0%-100% Mean: 36.16%

29. How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none,

please enter a zero. k. Dairy cattle, including heifers and young stock (n=6)

Range: 0-200 Mean: 33.67

l. Beef cattle, including heifers and young stock (n=6) Range: 0-7 Mean: 1.50

m. Hogs, including contract hog barns (n=4) Range: 0-50,000 Mean: 16,750

n. Poultry (n=5) Range: 0-20 Mean: 4.00

o. Other livestock (please specify): See Appendix I (n=2)

30. How many years have you been farming? (n=35) Range: 4-68 Mean: 39.9


42.1% No 57.9% Yes

32. Do you plan to improve your drainage within the next 10 years? (n=39) 53.8% No 46.2% Yes


See Appendix I

34. Five years from now, which statement will best describe your farm operation? (n=38) 42.1% It will be about the same size as it is today 7.9% It will be larger 7.9% It will be smaller 42.1% I don’t know


IX. Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project

35. Before this survey, I was aware of The Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project. (n=35) 17.1% No 82.9% Yes

36. I have attended a Beargrass Creek Watershed Producer Meeting. (n=36)

50.0% No 50.0% % Yes, please specify what year (see Appendix I)

37. I have met with Susi Stephan (SWCD) and Joe Magner (University of Minnesota)

about implementing targeted conservation practices on my land. (n=36) 61.1% No 38.9% Yes

38. I have seen Lidar maps of the Beargrass Creek watershed that depict practice

opportunities. (n=35) 48.6% No 51.4% Yes, and I think these maps are: (n=17)

0.0% Not at all accurate 0.0% Not very accurate 64.7% Somewhat accurate 35.3% Very accurate

39. I have seen the “Strategies for Voluntarily Improving the Soil Health on Your Farm” booklet. (n=34) 47.1% No 52.9% Yes, and I think the booklet is: (n=18)

0.0% Not at all useful 5.6% Not very useful 66.7% Somewhat useful 27.8% Very useful

40. Please select how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither Agree or Disagree

(3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a.

I believe producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed play a key role in meeting the 45% nutrient reduction goal. (n=34)

5.9% 8.8% 26.5% 32.4% 26.5% 3.65

(n=34)


b. I believe the 45% nutrient reduction goal is achievable (n=34)

5.9% 2.9% 55.9% 32.4% 2.9% 3.24

(n=34)

c.

I am willing to implement targeted conservation practices on my land. (n=34)

8.8% 5.9% 41.2% 38.2% 5.9% 3.26

(n=34)

d.

I plan to apply for cost-share to help fund the implementation of conservation practices on my land. (n=34)

11.8% 14.7% 41.2% 26.5% 5.9% 3.00

(n=34)

X. About You

41. What is your gender? (n=37) 94.6% Male 5.4% Female

42. What is your age? (n=34) Range: 31-89 Mean: 61

43. What is the highest level of school you completed? (n=37) 2.7% Some formal schooling 56.8% High school diploma / GED 27.0% Some college 2.7% 2 year college degree 8.1% 4 year college degree 2.7% Post-graduate degree

44. In the last year, how many days did you work at least 4 hours off-farm? (Include

work on someone else’s farm for pay) (n=36) 58.3% None 11.1% 1-49 days 2.8% 50-99 days 5.6% 100-199 days 22.2% 200 days or more


45. Researchers at Purdue are interested in your opinions regarding “sustainable farming.” Please select the answer choice that best represents your opinion.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)


(3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a. I consider my farm to be “sustainable.” (n=36)

2.8% 0.0% 19.4% 58.3% 19.4% 3.92

(n=36)

b. “Sustainable farming” means keeping my farm running for future generations. (n=35)

2.9% 0.0% 17.1% 60.0% 20.0% 3.94

(n=35)

c. I believe farmers in the U.S. have a responsibility to feed our nation. (n=35)

2.9% 5.7% 5.7% 57.1% 28.6% 4.03

(n=35)

d. I believe farmers in the U.S. have a responsibility to feed the world. (n=36)

5.6% 11.1% 25.0% 41.7% 16.7% 3.53

(n=36)

e. Nothing is truly “sustainable.” (n=34)

8.8% 35.3% 35.3% 11.8% 8.8% 2.76

(n=34)

f. “Sustainable farming” means protecting my soil. (n=37)

2.7% 5.4% 10.8% 62.2% 18.9% 3.89

(n=37)

g.

I think companies that say they make “sustainable” products are not being honest about such claims. (n=36)

2.8% 5.6% 61.1% 22.2% 8.3% 3.28

(n=36)

h. I think “sustainable” labels are just a marketing ploy. (n=36)

2.8% 5.6% 50.0% 33.3% 8.3% 3.39

(n=36)

i. I think most consumers in the U.S. are not well-informed about the agricultural industry. (n=36)

2.8% 0.0% 8.3% 52.8% 36.1% 4.19

(n=36)

j. I think “sustainability” and “conservation” mean the same thing. (n=36)

5.6% 16.7% 30.6% 41.7% 5.6% 3.25

(n=36)


Appendix I: “Other” Responses to Survey Questions Q29e. (Farming Operations) How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please enter a zero. (n=2)

Other livestock (specify) “goats, horses” [no quantity listed] 10 [type of livestock not listed]

Q33. (Farming Operations) If yes [improving drainage within next 10 years], how do you plan to finance it? (n=14)

Cash (n=5) Cash out of pocket (n=1) Cash/Loan (n=1) Mortgage (n=1) Profit from crops (n=1) ME (n=1) Don’t know (n=1) Not sure (n=1) Myself (n=1) No (n=1)

Q36. (I have attended a Beargrass Creek Watershed Producer Meeting) Yes, please specify what year: (n=18)

2013, 2014, 2015 (n=1) 2014, 2015 (n=2) 2015 (n=8) 2015 or 2016 (n=1) 2015, 2016 (n=1) 2016 (n=2) All (n=1) Don’t know (n=1) Manchester U. (n=1)

Appendix II: Additional Comments “I am concerned about all the forest and wood lands we're losing. More emphasis should be placed on restoring and keeping the trees and woodlands to protect our wildlife and environment. In our area, trees, woods, fence lines are being destroyed at an alarming rate." "Do this in the winter when I have more time"

Nutrient loading into the Eel River from cities and towns are more of a concern than livestock and crops. "All land near creek is all in grass for hay. All acreage is in pasture + hay." "My 37 acres is totally woodland we planted 6600 trees on 13 acres CRP"


“As was the case this spring, using cover crops require intense management. It takes weather cooperating with the farmer to allow cover crops to work so the farmer avoids disastrous financial results. This spring was a prime example of why I am hesitant to jump in with both feet. Several local farmers had an extremely difficult time getting crops seeded into wet soils with cover crops as the land didn't warm and dry out. I applaud the efforts for soil conservation, but not at the risk of financial ruin. There has to be a happy medium somewhere. We try to leave as much residue on top of the soil as is possible and soil as permeable as possible so soil runoff during severe rainfall is at a minimum. This seems to curb soil erosion but heavy rainfall after herbicide application does concern me. Wonder if any testing has been done in water quality testing for herbicides after heavy rainfall events?”

Appendix C: Beargrass Creek Pre-Post Survey Results


Beargrass Creek Pre-Post Survey Results: 2014-2016

I. Methods

Mail Survey 2014: 82 surveys distributed, 0 bad addresses. A total of 60 surveys were completed (73% response rate). 2016: 86 surveys distributed, 1 bad address. A total of 40 surveys were complete (47% response rate).

A total of 28 respondents completed the survey in 2014 and in 2016. The following report compares this group’s responses before and after the implementation of the Beargrass

Creek Watershed Approach Project.

I. Water Quality: Water Impairments


Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Sedimentation/silt

2016 (n=26) 1 9 8 3 5 2.62

(n=21)

2014 (n=25) 6 5 12 1 1 2.33

(n=24)

b. Nitrate/nitrogen

2016 (n=26) 2 8 8 1 7 2.42

(n=19)

2014 (n=27) 5 7 9 1 5 2.27

(n=22)

c. Phosphorus

2016 (n=26) 2 7 6 2 9 2.47

(n=17)

2014 (n=26) 6 6 8 0 6 2.10

(n=20)



Not a

Problem (1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

d. Bacteria in the water (such as E. coli)

2016 (n=26) 4 3 2 1 16 2.00

(n=10)

2014 (n=27) 8 7 4 1 7 1.90

(n=20)

II. Water Quality: Sources of Water Pollution 2. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In


Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Discharges from industry into streams and lakes

2016 (n=27) 9 8 3 0 7 1.70

(n=20)

2014 (n=27) 13 6 3 1 4 1.65

(n=23)

b. Discharges from sewage treatment plants

2016 (n=27) 9 6 3 3 6 2.00

(n=21)

2014 (n=26) 12 3 7 1 3 1.87

(n=23)

c. Soil erosion from farm fields

2016 (n=27) 1 15 6 3 2 2.44

(n=25)

2014 (n=26) 4 8 11 2 1 2.44

(n=25)



Not a

Problem (1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

d. Soil erosion from shorelines and/or streambanks

2016 (n=26) 6 9 6 3 2 2.25

(n=24)

2014 (n=26) 8 7 7 2 2 2.13

(n=24)

e. Lawn fertilizers and/or pesticides

2016 (n=27) 8 11 4 0 4 1.83

(n=23)

2014 (n=26) 11 6 4 1 4 1.77

(n=22)

f. Fertilizers or manure used for crop production

2016 (n=25) 4 11 6 1 3 2.18

(n=22)

2014 (n=26) 6 9 8 1 2 2.17

(n=24)

g. Improperly maintained septic systems

2016 (n=27) 7 7 7 0 6 2.00

(n=21)

2014 (n=26) 7 8 4 2 5 2.05

(n=21)

h. Manure from farm animals

2016 (n=27) 8 9 6 0 4 1.91

(n=23)

2014 (n=26) 8 13 3 0 2 1.79

(n=24)

i. Littering/illegal dumping of trash

2016 (n=27) 7 12 3 0 5 1.82

(n=22)

2014 (n=27) 9 14 1 1 2 1.76

(n=25)



Not a

Problem (1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

j. Pesticides or herbicides used for crop production

2016 (n=27) 5 12 6 1 3 2.13

(n=24)

2014 (n=27) 8 11 5 0 3 1.88

(n=24)

k. Animal feeding operations

2016 (n=27) 8 7 7 1 4 2.00

(n=26)

2014 (n=26) 9 12 3 0 2 1.75

(n=24)

l. Urban storm water runoff (e.g. highways, rooftops, parking lots)

2016 (n=27) 8 9 4 0 6 1.81

(n=21)

2014 (n=26) 12 8 3 1 2 1.81

(n=21)

m. Removal of streambank vegetation

2016 (n=26) 9 10 2 1 4 1.77

(n=22)

2014 (n=26) 11 11 1 1 2 1.67

(n=24)



III. Management Practices Cover Crops

3. Please select the option that best describes your experience with cover crops. 2016 2014 (n=27) (n=26) 6 3 Not relevant 0 0 Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0 0 Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 5 4 Heard of it and not willing to try it 2 7 Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0 0 Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 3 1 Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 11 11 Currently use it

4. On what percentage of your cropland do you use cover crops?

2016 2014 (n=11) (n=11) 5 4 0-25% 1 2 26-50% 1 1 51-75% 4 4 76-100%

5. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Beargrass Creek watershed were in cover crops in [2015 or 2014]?

2016 (n=9)

2014 (n=19)

Range 0-450 0-320

Mean 134.15 62.05




Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Don’t know how to do it

2016 (n=18) 10 4 2 0 2 1.50

(n=16)

2014 (n=21) 13 4 4 0 0 1.57

(n=21)

b. Time required

2016 (n=17) 5 6 3 1 2 2.00

(n=15)

2014 (n=21) 7 9 3 2 0 2.00

(n=21)

c. Cost

2016 (n=19) 3 4 8 3 1 2.61

(n=18)

2014 (n=21) 7 2 8 4 0 2.43

(n=21)

d. The features of my property make it difficult

2016 (n=17) 8 5 2 0 2 1.60

(n=15)

2014 (n=21) 14 3 3 0 1 1.45

(n=20)

e. Insufficient proof of water quality benefit

2016 (n=16) 8 4 1 0 3 1.46

(n=13)

2014 (n=21) 14 4 2 0 1 1.40

(n=20)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

f. Desire to continue traditional farming practices/methods

2016 (n=18) 8 3 5 0 2 1.81

(n=16)

2014 (n=23) 14 3 3 3 0 1.78

(n=23)

g. Disapproval from others

2016 (n=18) 15 0 1 0 2 1.13

(n=16)

2014 (n=21) 19 1 0 0 1 1.10

(n=20)

h. Hard to use with my farming system

2016 (n=17) 5 4 4 2 2 2.20

(n=15)

2014 (n=22) 11 4 3 3 1 1.90

(n=21)

i. Lack of equipment

2016 (n=17) 5 4 4 3 1 2.31

(n=16)

2014 (n=22) 6 6 6 3 1 2.29

(n=21)



Grassed Waterways

7. Please select the option that best describes your experience with grassed waterways. 2016 2014 (n=27) (n=28) 5 2 Not relevant 0 0 Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0 0 Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0 1 Heard of it and not willing to try it 1 2 Heard of it and might be willing to try it 1 1 Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0 2 Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 20 20 Currently use it

8. What percentage of your waterways are grassed waterways? 2016 2014 (n=20) (n=20) 0 0 0-25% 1 0 26-50% 2 0 51-75% 17 20 76-100%


waterways?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=18) 17 1 0 0 0 1.06

(n=18)

2014 (n=22) 18 2 1 1 0 1.32

(n=22)

b. Time required

2016 (n=18) 14 0 3 1 0 1.50

(n=18)

2014 (n=22) 13 5 1 3 0 1.73

(n=22)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

c. Cost

2016 (n=19) 8 3 5 3 0 2.16

(n=19)

2014 (n=22) 9 5 1 7 0 2.27

(n=22)


2016 (n=18) 14 3 1 0 0 1.28

(n=18)

2014 (n=22) 17 2 0 2 1 1.48

(n=21)


2016 (n=18) 17 0 1 0 0 1.11

(n=18)

2014 (n=22) 18 2 1 0 1 1.19

(n=21)


2016 (n=18) 13 4 1 0 0 1.33

(n=18)

2014 (n=23) 18 1 2 1 1 1.36

(n=22)


2016 (n=18) 18 0 0 0 0 1.00

(n=18)

2014 (n=23) 22 0 0 0 1 1.00

(n=22)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=18) 12 5 0 1 0 1.44

(n=18)

2014 (n=23) 16 5 0 1 1 1.36

(n=22)


2016 (n=18) 12 5 1 0 0 1.39

(n=18)

2014 (n=23) 15 3 4 0 1 1.50

(n=22)


10. Please select the option that best describes your experience with

denitrifying bioreactors.

2016 2014 (n=25) (n=28) 8 3 Not relevant 0 5 Never heard of it and not willing to try it 1 12 Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 4 1 Heard of it and not willing to try it 11 6 Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0 0 Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0 0 Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 1 1 Currently use it

11. What percentage of your cropland is drained by denitrifying bioreactors?

2016 2014 (n=1) (n=1) 0 1 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 1 0 51-75% 0 0 76-100%



12. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement denitrifying bioreactors?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=13) 3 2 3 4 1 2.67

(n=12)

2014 (n=7) 2 0 0 4 1 3.00 (n=6)

b. Time required

2016 (n=13) 3 2 5 2 1 2.50

(n=12)

2014 (n=7) 3 0 1 1 2 2.00 (n=5)

c. Cost

2016 (n=14) 0 2 3 8 1 3.46

(n=13)

2014 (n=7) 3 0 0 2 2 2.20 (n=5)


2016 (n=15) 2 3 4 3 3 2.67

(n=12)

2014 (n=7) 2 0 0 1 4 2.00 (n=3)


2016 (n=14) 2 3 3 2 4 2.50

(n=10)

2014 (n=7) 3 1 0 0 3 1.25

(n=4)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=13) 14 1 2 1 1 1.67

(n=12)

2014 (n=8) 4 0 2 0 2 1.67

(n=6)


2016 (n=14) 12 0 0 0 2 1.00

(n=12)

2014 (n=7) 5 0 0 0 2 1.00

(n=5)


2016 (n=13) 4 4 1 2 2 2.09

(n=11)

2014 (n=7) 2 0 1 1 3 2.25

(n=4)


2016 (n=13) 5 1 3 2 2 2.18

(n=11)

2014 (n=6) 2 0 0 1 3 2.00

(n=3)



Saturated Buffers

13. Please select the option that best describes your experience with saturated buffers.


14. What percentage of your cropland is drained by saturated buffers?

2016 2014 (n=4) (n=0) 1 0 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 2 0 51-75% 1 0 76-100%




buffers?

Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=10) 2 1 4 2 1 2.67 (n=9)

2014 (n=8) 4 1 1 1 1 1.86 (n=7)

b. Time required

2016 (n=11) 4 0 5 1 1 2.30

(n=10)

2014 (n=8) 4 0 2 0 2 1.67 (n=6)

c. Cost

2016 (n=13) 1 4 4 2 2 2.64

(n=11)

2014 (n=7) 2 0 1 2 2 2.60 (n=5)


2016 (n=10) 1 4 1 2 2 2.50 (n=8)

2014 (n=8) 2 1 3 0 2 2.17 (n=6)


2016 (n=10) 3 2 2 0 3 1.86

(n=7)

2014 (n=8) 3 1 2 0 2 1.83

(n=6)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=11) 7 0 1 1 2 1.56

(n=9)

2014 (n=8) 4 0 3 0 1 1.86

(n=7)


2016 (n=11) 9 0 0 1 1 1.30

(n=10)

2014 (n=8) 7 0 0 0 1 1.00

(n=7)


2016 (n=10) 2 3 1 2 2 2.38

(n=8)

2014 (n=8) 2 3 0 1 2 2.00

(n=6)


2016 (n=10) 5 2 2 0 1 1.67

(n=9)

2014 (n=8) 3 3 0 0 2 1.50

(n=6)



Two Stage Ditch

16. Please select the option that best describes your experience with two stage ditches.


17. What percentage of your ditches have you installed a two stage ditch?

2016 2014 (n=0) (n=1) 0 1 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 0 0 51-75% 0 0 76-100%

18. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement two stage ditches?

Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=12) 2 5 0 1 4 2.00 (n=8)

2014 (n=11) 5 3 1 0 2 1.56 (n=9)

b. Time required

2016 (n=13) 2 4 2 1 4 2.22 (n=9)

2014 (n=8) 3 2 0 2 1 2.14 (n=7)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

c. Cost

2016 (n=13) 1 1 2 5 4 3.22 (n=9)

2014 (n=9) 2 0 2 3 2 2.86 (n=7)


2016 (n=12) 2 2 3 3 2 2.70

(n=10)

2014 (n=8) 2 2 0 3 1 2.57 (n=7)


2016 (n=12) 5 1 2 0 4 1.63

(n=8)

2014 (n=8) 5 1 1 0 1 1.43

(n=7)


2016 (n=12) 6 2 2 1 1 1.82

(n=11)

2014 (n=8) 4 1 1 1 1 1.86

(n=7)


2016 (n=12) 10 0 0 0 2 1.00

(n=10)

2014 (n=8) 7 1 0 0 0 1.13

(n=8)


2016 (n=12) 4 2 2 2 2 2.20

(n=10)

2014 (n=8) 3 2 0 2 1 2.14

(n=7)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=12) 3 1 2 4 2 2.70

(n=10)

2014 (n=8) 1 1 3 1 2 2.67

(n=6)


19. Please select the option that best describes your experience with stream channel restoration.


20. What percentage of your streams have undergone stream channel restoration? 2016 2014 (n=1) (n=1) 0 1 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 0 0 51-75% 1 0 76-100%




Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=7) 1 2 3 2 2 2.80 (n=5)

2014 (n=6) 4 0 0 0 2 1.00 (n=4)

b. Time required

2016 (n=7) 1 1 1 2 2 2.80 (n=5)

2014 (n=5) 1 2 0 0 2 1.67 (n=3)

c. Cost

2016 (n=7) 1 1 1 2 2 2.80 (n=5)

2014 (n=6) 2 1 1 0 2 1.75 (n=4)


2016 (n=7) 1 2 1 2 1 2.67 (n=6)

2014 (n=5) 2 0 1 1 1 2.25 (n=4)


2016 (n=7) 2 1 1 1 2 2.20

(n=5)

2014 (n=5) 2 1 1 0 1 2.25

(n=4)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=7) 4 0 1 1 1 1.83

(n=6)

2014 (n=5) 3 1 0 0 1 1.25

(n=4)


2016 (n=7) 6 0 0 0 1 1.00

(n=6)

2014 (n=5) 4 0 0 0 1 1.00

(n=4)


2016 (n=7) 1 2 1 2 1 2.67

(n=6)

2014 (n=5) 1 2 0 1 1 2.25

(n=4)


2016 (n=7) 1 1 1 2 2 2.67

(n=6)

2014 (n=5) 2 1 0 0 2 1.33

(n=3)



IV. Conservation Tillage 22. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the

Beargrass Creek watershed were no-till, strip-till, or ridge till in [2015 or 2014]?

Acres Percentage of Acres

2016 2014 2016 2014

Corn (n=18) (n=18) (n=20) (n=18)

Range 0-143 0-200 0-100 0-100

Mean 39.23 53.11 39.95 37.08

Soybeans (n=19) (n=20) (n=20) (n=20)

Range 0-364 0-401 0-100 0-100

Mean 52.05 92.65 51.50 60.67





Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a. Conservation funding should be higher for land that is most vulnerable to soil and water quality problems.

2016 (n=27) 2 1 3 16 5 3.78

(n=27)

2014 (n=26) 2 1 3 13 7 3.85

(n=26)

b. Targeted conservation is a good idea because limited resources should be spent where they have the most impact.

2016 (n=27) 2 0 2 17 6 3.93

(n=27)

2014 (n=26) 2 0 2 14 8 4.00

(n=26)

c. Satellite imagery, GIS and other technologies can be valuable tools to help farmers improve their farm’s environmental performance.

2016 (n=26) 2 0 9 14 1 3.46

(n=26)

2014 (n=26) 2 0 8 14 2 3.54

(n=26)

d. If a conservation professional contacted me about a potential natural concern on my land, I would allow them to come assess it.

2016 (n=27) 1 1 8 16 1 3.56

(n=27)

2014 (n=26) 2 0 9 14 1 3.46

(n=26)



Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

e. Targeted conservation programs are needed because current programs are not effective enough.

2016 (n=25) 1 1 15 8 0 3.20

(n=25)

2014 (n=26) 2 3 14 7 0 3.00

(n=26)

f. Government use of satellite imagery and GIS to map characteristics of private land is an invasion of privacy.

2016 (n=27) 2 4 14 6 1 3.00

(n=27)

2014 (n=26) 0 5 12 5 4 3.31

(n=26)

g. If a conservation professional contacted me about a potential natural resource concern on my land, I would feel unfairly singled out.

2016 (n=27) 0 14 10 1 2 2.67

(n=27)

2014 (n=27) 0 10 14 1 2 2.81

(n=27)

VI. Farming Operations


Owned Rented Total

2016 (n=28)

2014 (n=27)

2016 (n=24)

2014 (n=21)

2016 (n=27)

2014 (n=27)

Range 0-1,250 0-1,603 0-2,450 0-2,450 0-3,000 0-3,000

Mean 368.00 398.36 367.56 413.43 707.43 718.93



25. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation this year that is located within the Beargrass Creek watershed.

26. How many acres of the following did you manage in the Beargrass Creek

watershed? If none, please enter a zero.

2016 2014

a. Corn (n=23) (n=22)

Range 0-357 0-1,500

Mean 102.74 169.86

b. Soybeans (n=23) (n=22)

Range 0-831 0-1,200

Mean 111.30 166.86

c. Small grains (n=20) (n=17)

Range 0-40 0-250

Mean 4.55 34.18

d. Canning crops (n=17) (n=14)

Range 0 0

Mean 0.00 0.00

e. Clover/Alfalfa (n=20) (n=18)

Range 0-110 0-120

Mean 13.30 16.83

Owned Rented Total

2016 (n=25)

2014 (n=25)

2016 (n=21)

2014 (n=21)

2016 (n=24)

2014 (n=24)

Range 0-550 0-1,000 0-600 0-2,200 0-1,150 0-2,750

Mean 146.40 196.86 70.90 212.19 214.13 379.10



2016 2014

f. Pasture (n=19) (n=17)

Range 0-15 0-18

Mean 1.47 1.97

g. Forest/Woodland (n=20) (n=18)

Range 0-40 0-80

Mean 8.15 13.28

h. Conservation set aside/CRP

(n=17) (n=14)

Range 0-13 0-13

Mean 2.00 1.81

i. Non-row crops for energy

(n=17) (n=15)

Range 0 0-500

Mean 0.00 33.93

j. Other (n=28) (n=23)

Range 0 0

Mean 0.00 0.00

27. Over how many of these acres in the Beargrass Creek watershed was manure spread?

2016 (n=28)

2014 (n=27)

Range 0-125 0-200

Mean 11.14 29.63



28. What percentage of the manure originated inside the Beargrass Creek

watershed?

29. How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please enter a zero.

2016 2014

a. Dairy cattle (n=24) (n=21)

Range 0-200 0-20

Mean 8.33 0.95

b. Beef cattle (n=18) (n=21)

Range 0-7 0-9

Mean 0.50 0.57

c. Hogs (n=18) (n=22)

Range 0 0-4,000

Mean 0.00 206.82

d. Poultry (n=18) (n=20)

Range 0-20 0

Mean 1.11 0.00

e. Other (n=0) (n=17)

Range 0-10 0

Mean 0.56 0.00

2016 (n=22)

2014 (n=20)

Range 0-100 0-100

Mean 32.77 33.25



30. How many years have you been farming?

31. Does the property you manage touch a stream, river, lake, or wetland?

32. Do you plan to improve your drainage within the next 10 years?

33. If yes, how do you plan to finance it? See Appendix I

34. Five years from now, which statement will best describe your farm operation?

2016 2014 (n=28) (n=27) 13 12 It will be about the same size as it is today 2 5 It will be larger 2 2 It will be smaller 11 8 I don’t know

2016 (n=26)

2014 (n=26)

Range 19-68 0-70

Mean 41.71 37.54

2016 (n=28)

2014 (n=28)

No 12 12

Yes 16 16

2016 (n=28)

2014 (n=28)

No 16 13

Yes 12 15



VII. About You

35. What is your gender? 2016 2014 (n=26) (n=28) 25 26 Male 1 2 Female

36. What is your age?

37. What is the highest level of school you completed? 2016 2014 (n=26) (n=27) 1 2 Some formal schooling 13 13 High school diploma / GED 9 7 Some college 0 2 2 year college degree 2 2 4 year college degree 1 1 Post-graduate degree


work on someone else’s farm for pay) (n=36) 2016 2014 (n=26) (n=28) 17 19 None 3 2 1-49 days 0 0 50-99 days 2 1 100-199 days 4 6 200 days or more

2016 (n=25)

2014 (n=28)

Range 45-89 41-87

Mean 65.76 64.71



Appendix I: “Other” Responses to Survey Questions Q33. (Farming Operations) If yes [improving drainage within next 10 years], how do you plan to finance it?

2016 2014 (n=11) (n=14) Cash (n=4) Cash (n=4) Cash out of pocket (n=1) Crop or farm income (n=2) Cash/Loan (n=1) Landowner (n=1) Profit from crops (n=1) Loan (n=1) ME (n=1) None (n=1) Not sure (n=1) Not sure- crop revenue (n=1) Myself (n=1) Pay as do (n=1) No (n=1) Self (n=2) Write check (n=1)

Q39. (Farming Operations) How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please enter a zero.

10 [type of livestock not listed]

Appendix D: Flowers Creek Survey Results 2016



I. Methods

Mail Survey 69 Surveys distributed 2 Bad address 31 (46%) Completed (% not including bad addresses)

II. Water Quality: Water Impairments


Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Sedimentation/silt (n=31)

16.1% 29.0% 35.5% 12.9% 6.5% 2.48

(n=29)


(n=22)

c. Phosphorus (n=30) 23.3% 30.0% 13.3% 0.0% 33.3% 1.85

(n=20)


29.0% 29.0% 9.7% 3.2% 29.0% 1.82

(n=22)

III. Water Quality: Sources of Water Pollution 2. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In


Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without 5)

(n)


48.5% 16.1% 12.9% 3.2% 19.4% 1.64

(n=25)


41.9% 25.8% 25.8% 0.0% 6.5% 1.83

(n=29)


6.7% 46.7% 30.0% 13.3% 3.3% 2.52

(n=29)



IV. Management Practices Cover Crops

3. Please select the option that best describes your experience with cover crops. (n=29) 10.3% Not relevant 0.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 20.7% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 13.8% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 55.2% Currently use it

4. On what percentage of your cropland do you use cover crops? (n=15)

20.0% 0-25% 20.0% 26-50% 13.3% 51-75% 46.7% 76-100%


19.4% 41.9% 25.8% 9.7% 3.2% 2.27

(n=30)


22.6% 32.3% 22.6% 6.5% 16.1% 2.15

(n=26)


25.8% 32.3% 29.0% 0.0% 12.9% 2.04

(n=27)


20.0% 43.3% 23.3% 0.0% 13.3% 2.04

(n=26)


30.0% 43.3% 16.7% 0.0% 10.0% 1.85

(n=27)


19.4% 51.6% 12.9% 12.9% 3.2% 2.20

(n=30)


25.8% 35.5% 19.4% 0.0% 19.4% 1.92

(n=25)


32.3% 38.7% 12.9% 3.2% 12.9% 1.85

(n=27)

l.

Urban storm water runoff (e.g. highways, rooftops, parking lots) (n=30)

40.0% 33.3% 16.7% 3.3% 6.7% 1.82

(n=28)


35.5% 41.9% 9.7% 0.0% 12.9% 1.70

(n=27)



5. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Flowers Creek watershed were in cover crops in 2015?

Corn (n=15) Soybeans (n=13)

13.3% 0% 15.4% 0%

13.3% 10% 7.7% 10%

6.7% 14% 7.7% 15%

6.7% 20% 7.7% 20%

6.7% 40% 7.7% 65%

6.7% 90% 7.7% 70%

26.7% 100% 7.7% 80%

20.0% NA 15.4% 100%

23.1% NA


Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without 5)

(n)


(n=21)

b. Time required (n=25) 28.0% 24.0% 32.0% 12.0% 4.0% 2.29

(n=24)

c. Cost (n=24) 33.3% 4.2% 45.8% 12.5% 4.2% 2.39

(n=23)


59.1% 4.5% 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 1.85

(n=20)


60.9% 13.3% 13.3% 0.0% 13.3% 1.45

(n=20)


45.8% 29.2% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 1.92

(n=24)


(n=23)


41.7% 25.0% 16.7% 8.3% 8.3% 1.91

(n=22)


(n=23)



Grassed Waterways

7. Please select the option that best describes your experience with grassed waterways. (n=29) 10.3% Not relevant 0.0% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0.0% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 3.4% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 3.4% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 82.8% Currently use it

8. What percentage of your waterways are grassed waterways? (n=23)

0.0% 0-25% 8.7% 26-50% 34.8% 51-75% 56.5% 76-100%


waterways?

Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


(n=21)

b. Time required (n=23) 43.5% 21.7% 26.1% 4.3% 4.3% 1.91

(n=22)

c. Cost (n=22) 27.3% 9.1% 50.0% 9.1% 4.5% 2.43

(n=21)


68.2% 13.6% 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 1.35

(n=20)


81.0% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 9.5% 1.16

(n=19)


68.2% 22.7% 4.5% 4.5% 0.0% 1.45

(n=22)


(n=21)


72.7% 13.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 1.38

(n=21)




(n=21)


10. Please select the option that best describes your experience with denitrifying bioreactors. (n=29) 24.1% Not relevant 6.9% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 34.5% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 3.4% Heard of it and not willing to try it 27.6% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 3.4% Currently use it

11. What percentage of your cropland is drained by denitrifying bioreactors? (n=1)

0.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 100% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100%

12. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement denitrifying

bioreactors?

Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


(n=7)


c. Cost (n=8) 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 3.33

(n=6)


0.0% 12.5% 62.5% 0.0% 25.0% 2.83

(n=6)


33.3% 22.2% 22.2% 0.0% 22.2% 1.86 (n=7)


50.0% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 1.43

(n=7)



Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)



25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 2.17

(n=6)


(n=6)

Saturated Buffers

13. Please select the option that best describes your experience with saturated buffers. (n=29) 31.0% Not relevant 3.4% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 44.8% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 17.2% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 3.4% Currently use it

14. What percentage of your cropland is drained by saturated buffers? (n=1)

100.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100%


buffers?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without 5)

(n)


b. Time required (n=5) 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 2.50

(n=4)

c. Cost (n=5) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 3.00 (n=4)


20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0% 20.0% 2.25 (n=4)




80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 1.00 (n=4)


20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.00 (n=5)



16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 33.3% 1.60 (n=5)


Two Stage Ditch

16. Please select the option that best describes your experience with two stage ditches. (n=29) 27.6% Not relevant 13.8% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 27.6% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 6.9% Heard of it and not willing to try it 20.7% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 0.0% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 3.4% Currently use it

17. What percentage of your ditches have you installed a two stage ditch? (n=1) 0.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 100.0% 76-100%

18. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement two stage

ditches?

Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)



c. Cost (n=9) 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 3.71 (n=7)


0.0% 28.6% 57.1% 0.0% 14.3% 3.50 (n=6)


22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 22.2% 2.29 (n=7)




25.0% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 2.14 (n=7)



12.5% 37.5% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 2.50

(n=6)



19. Please select the option that best describes your experience with stream channel restoration. (n=29) 44.8% Not relevant 10.3% Never heard of it and not willing to try it 24.1% Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0.0% Heard of it and not willing to try it 13.8% Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0.0% Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 3.4% Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 3.4% Currently use it

20. What percentage of your streams have undergone stream channel restoration?

(n=1) 100.0% 0-25% 0.0% 26-50% 0.0% 51-75% 0.0% 76-100%


Not at

all (1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)



c. Cost (n=6) 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 3.60 (n=5)


33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 2.20

(n=5)


16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 16.7% 2.20

(n=5)



Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.83 (n=6)



16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 2.25 (n=4)


V. Conservation Tillage

22. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Flowers Creek watershed were no-till, strip-till, or ridge till in 2015?

Corn (n=28) Soybeans (n=29)

21.4% 0% 6.9% 0%

3.6% 2% 3.4% 4%

7.1% 25% 3.4% 10%

10.7% 50% 3.4% 50%

7.1% 75% 3.4% 75%

3.6% 90% 3.4% 80%

25.0% 100% 55.2% 100%

21.4% NA 20.7% NA



VI. Targeted Conservation


Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a.

Conservation funding should be higher for land that is most vulnerable to soil and water quality problems. (n=29)

3.4% 3.4% 13.8% 65.5% 13.8% 3.83

(n=29)

b.


3.4% 0.0% 20.7% 55.2% 20.7% 3.90

(n=29)

c.


3.4% 3.4% 24.1% 51.7% 17.2% 3.76

(n=29)

d.


6.9% 6.9% 31.0% 44.8% 10.3% 3.45

(n=29)

e.

Targeted conservation programs are needed because current programs are not effective enough. (n=29)

3.4% 20.7% 55.2% 17.2% 3.4% 2.97

(n=29)

f.

Government use of satellite imagery and GIS to map characteristics of private land is an invasion of privacy. (n=29)

10.3% 20.7% 37.9% 13.8% 17.2% 3.07

(n=29)

g.


10.3% 37.9% 41.4% 6.9% 3.4% 2.55

(n=29)




24. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming

operation this year. Owned (n=31) Range: 0-3,200 Mean: 414.75



25. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your

farming operation this year that is located within the Flowers Creek watershed.

Owned (n=27) Range: 0-705 Mean: 157.16



26. How many acres of the following did you manage in the Flowers Creek

watershed? If none, please enter a zero. ee. Corn (n=26)

Range: 0-600 Mean: 117.72

ff. Soybeans (n=23) Range: 0-1,540 Mean: 232.26

gg.Small grains (n=20) Range: 0-350 Mean: 32.00

hh.Canning crops (n=16) Range: 0.0 Mean: 0.0

ii. Clover/Alfalfa (n=16) Range: 0-180 Mean: 11.94

jj. Pasture (n=17) Range: 0-110 Mean: 8.82

kk. Forest/woodland (n=18) Range: 0-220 Mean: 28.25

ll. Conservation set aside/CRP (n=17) Range: 0-26 Mean: 3.62

mm. Non-row crops for energy (n=0)



Range: 0.0 Mean: 0.0

nn.Other (n=3) “310 seed corn,” “5, ditch and bank,” “60 Fruit trees/grass”

27. Over how many of these acres in the Flowers Creek watershed was manure

spread? (n=27) Range: 0-610 Mean: 57.96

28. What percentage of the manure originated inside the Flowers Creek watershed?

(n=23) Range: 0%-100% Mean: 26.09%

29. How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none,

please enter a zero. p. Dairy cattle, including heifers and young stock (n=7)

Range: 0-1,000 Mean: 171.43

q. Beef cattle, including heifers and young stock (n=7) Range: 0-120 Mean: 28.14

r. Hogs, including contract hog barns (n=9) Range: 0-8,000 Mean: 1,783.33

s. Poultry (n=6) Range: 0-30 Mean: 6.83

t. Other livestock (specify): (n=7) “0,” “12, meat goats,” “chickens 500”


Range: 0-66 Mean: 32.81


17.9% No 82.1% Yes

32. Do you plan to improve your drainage within the next 10 years? (n=29) 24.1% No 75.9% Yes


See Appendix I



34. Five years from now, which statement will best describe your farm operation? (n=29) 41.4% It will be about the same size as it is today 27.6% It will be larger 3.4% It will be smaller 27.6% I don’t know

35. Please select how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)


(3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a.

I am willing to implement targeted conservation practices on my land. (n=29)

3.4% 3.4% 37.9% 48.3% 6.9% 3.52

(n=29)

b.

I plan to apply for cost-share to help fund the implementation of conservation practices on my land. (n=28)

10.7% 7.1% 25.0% 50.0% 7.1% 3.36

(n=28)

VIII. About You

36. What is your gender? (n=30)

93.3% Male 6.7% Female

37. What is your age? (n=30) Range: 28-89 Mean: 57.4

38. What is the highest level of school you completed? (n=30) 3.3% Some formal schooling 43.3% High school diploma / GED 10.0% Some college 16.7% 2 year college degree 20.0% 4 year college degree 6.7% Post-graduate degree


work on someone else’s farm for pay) (n=30) 50.0% None 16.7% 1-49 days 3.3% 50-99 days 0.0% 100-199 days 30.0% 200 days or more



40. Researchers at Purdue are interested in your opinions regarding “sustainable farming.” Please select the answer choice that best represents your opinion.

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)


(3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a. I consider my farm to be “sustainable.” (n=28)

2.8% 0.0% 19.4% 58.3% 19.4% 3.89

(n=28)

b. “Sustainable farming” means keeping my farm running for future generations. (n=28)

2.9% 0.0% 17.1% 60.0% 20.0% 3.82

(n=28)

c. I believe farmers in the U.S. have a responsibility to feed our nation. (n=28)

2.9% 5.7% 5.7% 57.1% 28.6% 4.07

(n=28)

d. I believe farmers in the U.S. have a responsibility to feed the world. (n=28)

5.6% 11.1% 25.0% 41.7% 16.7% 3.25

(n=28)

e. Nothing is truly “sustainable.” (n=28)

8.8% 35.3% 35.3% 11.8% 8.8% 2.93

(n=28)

f. “Sustainable farming” means protecting my soil. (n=28)

2.7% 5.4% 10.8% 62.2% 18.9% 3.96

(n=28)

g.

I think companies that say they make “sustainable” products are not being honest about such claims. (n=28)

2.8% 5.6% 61.1% 22.2% 8.3% 3.14

(n=28)

h. I think “sustainable” labels are just a marketing ploy. (n=28)

2.8% 5.6% 50.0% 33.3% 8.3% 3.36

(n=28)

i. I think most consumers in the U.S. are not well-informed about the agricultural industry. (n=28)

2.8% 0.0% 8.3% 52.8% 36.1% 4.39

(n=28)

j. I think “sustainability” and “conservation” mean the same thing. (n=28)

5.6% 16.7% 30.6% 41.7% 5.6% 2.93

(n=28)



Appendix A: “Other” Responses to Survey Questions Q33. (Farming Operations) If yes [improving drainage within next 10 years], how do you plan to finance it? (n=24)

? (n=1) Cash (n=4) Equip and cash (n=1) Myself (n=1) Myself like always (n=1) NA (n=3) NRCS (n=1) On my own (n=1) Operations (n=1) Out of pocket (n=1) Pay as I can afford (n=1) Pay cash (n=1) Personal finances (n=1) Row crop profits (n=1) Self (n=3) Well, by ‘improve’ I intend to restore a wetland on the agricultural field. Cost-share is coming from nrcs (n=1)

Appendix E: Flowers Creek Pre-Post Survey Results


Flowers Creek Pre-Post Survey Results: 2014-2016

I. Methods

Mail Survey 2014: 70 surveys distributed, 0 bad addresses. A total of 39 surveys were completed (56% response rate). 2016: 69 surveys distributed, 2 bad address. A total of 31 surveys were complete (46% response rate).

A total of 25 respondents completed the survey in 2014 and in 2016. The following report compares this group’s responses before and after the implementation of the Flowers Creek

Watershed Approach Project.

II. Water Quality: Water Impairments


Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Sedimentation/silt

2016 (n=25) 3 8 8 4 2 2.57

(n=23)

2014 (n=21) 4 4 6 4 3 2.56

(n=18)

b. Nitrate/nitrogen

2016 (n=24) 4 7 5 0 8 2.06

(n=16)

2014 (n=21) 4 7 2 1 7 2.00

(n=14)

c. Phosphorus

2016 (n=24) 5 7 3 0 9 1.87

(n=15)

2014 (n=21) 5 7 0 1 8 1.77

(n=13)



Not a

Problem (1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

d. Bacteria in the water (such as E. coli)

2016 (n=25) 6 8 2 1 8 1.88

(n=17)

2014 (n=21) 5 3 1 1 11 1.80

(n=10)

III. Water Quality: Sources of Water Pollution 2. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In


Not a Problem

(1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

a. Discharges from industry into streams and lakes

2016 (n=25) 12 4 3 0 6 1.53

(n=19)

2014 (n=22) 7 5 3 0 7 1.73

(n=15)

b. Discharges from sewage treatment plants

2016 (n=25) 12 5 6 0 2 1.74

(n=23)

2014 (n=22) 5 6 5 1 5 2.12

(n=17)

c. Soil erosion from farm fields

2016 (n=24) 2 11 7 3 1 2.48

(n=23)

2014 (n=22) 1 7 7 2 5 2.59

(n=17)



Not a

Problem (1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

d. Soil erosion from shorelines and/or streambanks

2016 (n=25) 5 11 6 2 1 2.21

(n=24)

2014 (n=23) 3 6 8 2 4 2.47

(n=19)

e. Lawn fertilizers and/or pesticides

2016 (n=25) 5 8 6 1 5 2.15

(n=20)

2014 (n=22) 5 5 6 0 6 2.06

(n=16)

f. Fertilizers or manure used for crop production

2016 (n=25) 6 8 7 0 4 2.05

(n=21)

2014 (n=22) 2 9 6 0 5 2.24

(n=17)

g. Improperly maintained septic systems

2016 (n=24) 4 12 4 0 4 2.00

(n=20)

2014 (n=23) 3 10 2 0 8 1.93

(n=15)

h. Manure from farm animals

2016 (n=24) 9 10 2 0 3 1.67

(n=21)

2014 (n=22) 4 10 3 0 5 1.94

(n=17)

i. Littering/illegal dumping of trash**

2016 (n=25) 6 13 4 1 1 2.00

(n=24)

2014 (n=23) 2 8 8 1 4 2.42

(n=19)



Not a

Problem (1)

Slight Problem

(2)

Moderate Problem

(3)

Severe Problem

(4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

j. Pesticides or herbicides used for crop production

2016 (n=25) 8 7 5 0 5 1.85

(n=20)

2014 (n=22) 4 10 3 0 5 1.94

(n=17)

k. Animal feeding operations

2016 (n=25) 9 8 4 0 4 1.76

(n=21)

2014 (n=23) 6 10 2 0 5 1.78

(n=18)

l. Urban storm water runoff (e.g. highways, rooftops, parking lots)

2016 (n=24) 10 8 3 1 2 1.77

(n=22)

2014 (n=22) 8 4 5 2 3 2.05

(n=19)

m. Removal of streambank vegetation

2016 (n=25) 9 10 3 0 3 1.73

(n=22)

2014 (n=22) 8 4 5 0 5 1.82

(n=17)



IV. Management Practices Cover Crops

3. Please select the option that best describes your experience with cover crops. 2016 2014 (n=23) (n=22) 2 2 Not relevant 0 1 Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0 0 Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0 1 Heard of it and not willing to try it 5 5 Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0 0 Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 4 4 Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 12 9 Currently use it

4. On what percentage of your cropland do you use cover crops?

2016 2014 (n=12) (n=9) 2 2 0-25% 3 1 26-50% 2 2 51-75% 5 4 76-100%

5. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Flowers Creek watershed were in cover crops in [2015 or 2014]?

2016 (n=9)

2014 (n=16)

Range 0-1,120 0-300

Mean 281.23 27.81




Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=17) 14 0 2 0 1 1.25

(n=16)

2014 (n=19) 14 3 0 1 1 1.33

(n=18)

b. Time required

2016 (n=20) 5 4 7 3 1 2.42

(n=19)

2014 (n=19) 6 5 6 1 1 2.11

(n=18)

c. Cost

2016 (n=19) 5 1 10 2 1 2.50

(n=18)

2014 (n=19) 5 8 3 3 0 2.21

(n=19)


2016 (n=17) 10 1 1 3 2 1.80

(n=15)

2014 (n=19) 15 2 1 1 0 1.37

(n=19)


2016 (n=18) 11 2 3 0 2 1.50

(n=16)

2014 (n=19) 14 1 1 0 3 1.19

(n=16)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=19) 7 7 3 2 0 2.00

(n=19)

2014 (n=18) 11 3 2 1 1 1.59

(n=17)


2016 (n=19) 16 1 1 0 1 1.17

(n=18)

2014 (n=18) 17 0 1 0 0 1.11

(n=18)


2016 (n=19) 7 5 3 2 2 2.00

(n=17)

2014 (n=17) 7 5 3 1 2 1.80

(n=15)


2016 (n=19) 5 6 3 4 1 2.33

(n=18)

2014 (n=17) 7 5 3 1 1 1.88

(n=16)



Grassed Waterways

7. Please select the option that best describes your experience with grassed waterways. 2016 2014 (n=24) (n=24) 1 2 Not relevant 0 0 Never heard of it and not willing to try it 0 0 Never heard of it, but might be willing to try it 0 0 Heard of it and not willing to try it 1 2 Heard of it and might be willing to try it 0 0 Used it in the past and not willing to try it again 1 2 Used it in the past and might be willing to try it again 21 19 Currently use it

8. What percentage of your waterways are grassed waterways? 2016 2014 (n=20) (n=19) 0 1 0-25% 1 1 26-50% 6 3 51-75% 13 13 76-100%


waterways?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=20) 15 1 2 1 1 1.42

(n=19)

2014 (n=19) 15 2 0 1 1 1.28

(n=18)

b. Time required**

2016 (n=20) 8 5 6 0 1 1.89

(n=19)

2014 (n=19) 9 6 3 0 1 1.67

(n=18)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

c. Cost

2016 (n=19) 5 2 10 1 1 2.39

(n=18)

2014 (n=19) 8 4 4 2 1 2.00

(n=18)


2016 (n=19) 13 2 2 0 2 1.29

(n=17)

2014 (n=18) 13 3 1 0 1 1.56

(n=17)


2016 (n=18) 15 0 1 0 2 1.13

(n=16)

2014 (n=19) 14 0 2 0 3 1.25

(n=16)


2016 (n=19) 14 3 1 1 0 1.42

(n=18)

2014 (n=17) 15 2 0 0 2 1.12

(n=17)


2016 (n=18) 17 1 0 0 0 1.06

(n=18)

2014 (n=19) 17 0 0 0 2 1.00

(n=17)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=19) 14 3 1 0 1 1.28

(n=18)

2014 (n=19) 14 2 1 0 2 1.24

(n=17)


2016 (n=20) 10 5 3 1 1 1.74

(n=19)

2014 (n=19) 13 4 1 0 1 1.33

(n=18)


10. Please select the option that best describes your experience with

denitrifying bioreactors.


11. What percentage of your cropland is drained by denitrifying bioreactors?

2016 2014 (n=0) (n=0) 0 0 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 0 0 51-75% 0 0 76-100%



12. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement denitrifying bioreactors?

Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=7) 1 2 2 1 1 2.50

(n=6)

2014 (n=7) 0 2 2 2 1 3.00 (n=6)

b. Time required

2016 (n=7) 1 0 4 0 2 2.60

(n=5)

2014 (n=7) 0 2 2 1 2 2.80 (n=5)

c. Cost

2016 (n=7) 0 0 3 2 2 3.40 (n=5)

2014 (n=8) 0 0 4 2 2 3.33 (n=6)


2016 (n=7) 0 1 4 0 2 2.80 (n=5)

2014 (n=8) 0 1 2 3 2 3.33 (n=6)


2016 (n=8) 3 1 2 0 2 1.83

(n=6)

2014 (n=7) 0 3 1 0 3 2.25 (n=4)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=7) 3 3 0 0 1 1.50

(n=6)

2014 (n=7) 2 2 0 1 2 2.00

(n=5)


2016 (n=7) 5 1 0 0 1 1.17

(n=6)

2014 (n=7) 4 0 0 1 2 1.60

(n=5)


2016 (n=7) 2 2 1 0 2 1.80

(n=5)

2014 (n=7) 1 2 1 0 3 2.00

(n=4)


2016 (n=8) 2 0 3 1 2 2.50

(n=6)

2014 (n=7) 1 2 2 0 2 2.20

(n=5)



Saturated Buffers

13. Please select the option that best describes your experience with saturated buffers.


14. What percentage of your cropland is drained by saturated buffers?

2016 2014 (n=0) (n=2) 0 1 0-25% 0 1 26-50% 0 0 51-75% 0 0 76-100%




buffers?

Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=3) 0 3 0 0 0 2.00 (n=3)

2014 (n=6) 2 1 0 1 2 2.00 (n=4)

b. Time required

2016 (n=2) 0 0 2 0 0 3.00 (n=2)

2014 (n=6) 2 1 0 1 2 2.00 (n=4)

c. Cost

2016 (n=3) 0 0 1 1 1 3.50 (n=2)

2014 (n=6) 1 1 1 1 2 2.50 (n=4)


2016 (n=3) 1 0 1 0 1 2.00 (n=2)

2014 (n=6) 1 0 0 3 2 3.50 (n=4)


2016 (n=3) 2 0 0 0 1 1.00

(n=2)

2014 (n=5) 2 1 0 0 3 1.33

(n=2)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=3) 0 3 0 0 0 2.00

(n=3)

2014 (n=6) 2 1 0 1 2 2.00

(n=4)


2016 (n=3) 2 1 0 0 0 1.33

(n=3)

2014 (n=6) 3 0 1 0 2 1.50

(n=4)


2016 (n=4) 0 2 1 0 1 2.33

(n=3)

2014 (n=6) 0 2 1 1 2 2.75

(n=4)


2016 (n=2) 0 1 1 0 0 2.50

(n=2)

2014 (n=6) 1 2 0 1 2 2.25

(n=4)



Two Stage Ditch

16. Please select the option that best describes your experience with two stage ditches.


17. What percentage of your ditches have you installed a two stage ditch?

2016 2014 (n=0) (n=0) 0 0 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 0 0 51-75% 0 0 76-100%


Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=7) 5 1 1 0 0 2.43 (n=7)

2014 (n=7) 4 1 0 1 1 1.67 (n=6)

b. Time required

2016 (n=7) 2 3 1 0 1 1.83 (n=6)

2014 (n=7) 0 4 1 1 1 2.50 (n=6)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)

c. Cost

2016 (n=7) 0 0 2 4 1 3.67 (n=6)

2014 (n=7) 0 1 0 5 1 3.67

(n=6)


2016 (n=5) 0 2 3 0 0 2.60 (n=5)

2014 (n=7) 1 1 3 1 1 2.67 (n=6)


2016 (n=7) 1 2 2 1 1 2.50 (n=6)

2014 (n=7) 3 1 0 2 1 2.17

(n=6)


2016 (n=6) 1 3 1 1 0 2.33 (n=6)

2014 (n=6) 4 1 0 1 1 1.67

(n=6)


2016 (n=5) 4 1 0 0 0 1.20

(n=5)

2014 (n=7) 5 0 0 1 1 1.50

(n=7)


2016 (n=6) 1 2 0 2 1 2.60

(n=5)

2014 (n=7) 2 2 1 1 1 2.17

(n=6)



Not at all

(1) A little

(2) Some

(3) A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=6) 2 1 1 1 1 2.20

(n=5)

2014 (n=7) 5 0 0 1 1 1.50 (n=6)


19. Please select the option that best describes your experience with stream channel restoration.


20. What percentage of your streams have undergone stream channel restoration? 2016 2014 (n=0) (n=0) 0 0 0-25% 0 0 26-50% 0 0 51-75% 0 0 76-100%




Not at all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=3) 0 2 1 0 0 2.33 (n=3)

2014 (n=6) 1 0 2 3 0 3.17 (n=4)

b. Time required

2016 (n=3) 0 0 2 0 1 3.00 (n=2)

2014 (n=6) 0 1 2 3 0 3.33 (n=6)

c. Cost

2016 (n=3) 0 0 0 2 1 4.00 (n=2)

2014 (n=6) 0 1 0 3 2 3.50 (n=4)


2016 (n=3) 1 0 1 0 1 2.00 (n=2)

2014 (n=6) 1 1 1 2 1 2.80 (n=5)


2016 (n=3) 0 1 1 0 1 2.50

(n=2)

2014 (n=6) 2 1 1 2 0 2.50

(n=6)



Not at

all (1)

A little (2)

Some (3)

A lot (4)

Don’t Know

(5)

Mean (Without

5) (n)


2016 (n=3) 1 1 1 0 0 2.00

(n=3)

2014 (n=6) 3 0 1 2 0 2.33

(n=6)


2016 (n=3) 1 1 0 0 1 1.50

(n=2)

2014 (n=6) 4 0 1 1 0 1.83

(n=6)


2016 (n=3) 1 0 0 0 2 1.00

(n=1)

2014 (n=6) 2 2 0 1 1 2.00

(n=5)


2016 (n=3) 1 0 0 1 1 2.50

(n=2)

2014 (n=6) 2 1 0 2 1 2.40

(n=5)



V. Conservation Tillage 22. How many of the corn and soybean acres that you manage in the Flowers

Creek watershed were no-till, strip-till, or ridge till in [2015 or 2014]?

Acres Percentage of Acres

2016 2014 2016 2014

Corn (n=16) (n=16) (n=16) (n=12)

Range 0-432 0-650 0-100 0-100

Mean 65.19 63.25 50.94 42.60

Soybeans (n=20) (n=15) (n=19) (n=12)

Range 0-1,200 0-600 0-100 0-100

Mean 236.67 85.73 85.00 42.60



VI. Targeted Conservation


Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

a. Conservation funding should be higher for land that is most vulnerable to soil and water quality problems.

2016 (n=23) 0 0 4 16 3 3.96

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 0 0 5 15 3 3.91

(n=23)

b. Targeted conservation is a good idea because limited resources should be spent where they have the most impact.

2016 (n=23) 0 0 5 13 5 4.00

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 0 0 3 16 4 4.04

(n=23)

c. Satellite imagery, GIS and other technologies can be valuable tools to help farmers improve their farm’s environmental performance.

2016 (n=23) 0 1 6 12 4 3.83

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 0 0 7 14 2 3.78

(n=23)

d. If a conservation professional contacted me about a potential natural concern on my land, I would allow them to come assess it.

2016 (n=23) 1 1 7 12 2 3.57

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 1 1 9 11 1 3.43

(n=23)



Strongly Disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Mean (n)

e. Targeted conservation programs are needed because current programs are not effective enough.

2016 (n=23) 0 5 14 3 1 3.00

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 1 3 15 3 1 3.00

(n=23)

f. Government use of satellite imagery and GIS to map characteristics of private land is an invasion of privacy.

2016 (n=23) 2 5 8 3 5 3.17

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 1 3 13 5 1 3.09

(n=23)

g. If a conservation professional contacted me about a potential natural resource concern on my land, I would feel unfairly singled out.

2016 (n=23) 2 7 12 2 0 2.61

(n=23)

2014 (n=23) 1 5 13 3 1 2.91

(n=23)



Owned Rented Total

2016 (n=25)

2014 (n=23)

2016 (n=20)

2014 (n=19)

2016 (n=25)

2014 (n=21)

Range 0-3,200 0-1,200 0-2,400 0-1,900 0-5,200 0-2,270

Mean 438.83 311.16 477.94 272.74 792.43 537.37



25. Please estimate the total tillable acreage (owned and/or rented) of your farming operation this year that is located within the Flowers Creek watershed.

26. How many acres of the following did you manage in the Flowers Creek

watershed? If none, please enter a zero.

2016 2014

a. Corn (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-480 0-800

Mean 106.99 150.84

b. Soybeans (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-1,200 0-800

Mean 164.35 129.26

c. Small grains (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-160 0-1,100

Mean 12.61 64.47

d. Canning crops (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0 0

Mean 0.00 0.00

e. Clover/Alfalfa (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-180 0-40

Mean 8.30 4.21

Owned Rented Total

2016 (n=22)

2014 (n=20)

2016 (n=16)

2014 (n=15)

2016 (n=23)

2014 (n=18)

Range 0-705 0-1,200 0-1,250 0-1,000 0-1,600 0-1,370

Mean 179.21 160.70 227.11 130.00 322.07 264.39



2016 2014

f. Pasture (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-110 0-40

Mean 6.48 6.58

g. Forest/Woodland (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-220 0-100

Mean 21.30 10.37

h. Conservation set aside/CRP

(n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-26 0-15

Mean 1.87 1.26

i. Non-row crops for energy

(n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-0 0-0

Mean 0.00 0.00

j. Other (n=23) (n=19)

Range 0-0 0-0

Mean 0.00 0.00

27. Over how many of these acres in the Flowers Creek watershed was manure spread?

2016 (n=24)

2014 (n=19)

Range 0-610 0-250

Mean 65.17 44.47



28. What percentage of the manure originated inside the Flowers Creek watershed?

29. How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please enter a zero.

2016 2014

a. Dairy cattle (n=7) (n=20)

Range 0-1,000 0-100

Mean 171.43 5.85

b. Beef cattle (n=7) (n=20)

Range 0-120 0-130

Mean 27.71 10.50

c. Hogs (n=7) (n=20)

Range 0-4,000 0-8,000

Mean 1,150.00 1,000.00

d. Poultry (n=7) (n=20)

Range 0-11 0

Mean 1.57 0.00

e. Other (n=0) (n=20)

Range 0-0 0-6

Mean 0.00 0.30

2016 (n=6)

2014 NA

Range 0-100 NA

Mean 83.33 NA




31. Does the property you manage touch a stream, river, lake, or wetland?

32. Do you plan to improve your drainage within the next 10 years?

33. If yes, how do you plan to finance it? See Appendix I

34. Five years from now, which statement will best describe your farm operation?

2016 2014 (n=24) (n=22) 12 10 It will be about the same size as it is today 6 6 It will be larger 1 0 It will be smaller 5 6 I don’t know

2016 (n=22)

2014 (n=20)

Range 10-66 4-55

Mean 33.45 31.35

2016 (n=23)

2014 (n=22)

No 5 4

Yes 18 18

2016 (n=23)

2014 (n=22)

No 5 8

Yes 18 14



VIII. About You

35. What is your gender? 2016 2014 (n=25) (n=24) 23 23 Male 2 1 Female

36. What is your age?

37. What is the highest level of school you completed? 2016 2014 (n=25) (n=24) 0 0 Some formal schooling 12 9 High school diploma / GED 2 4 Some college 4 4 2 year college degree 4 5 4 year college degree 2 2 Post-graduate degree


work on someone else’s farm for pay) (n=36) 2016 2014 (n=25) (n=21) 14 8 None 4 3 1-49 days 1 3 50-99 days 0 3 100-199 days 6 6 200 days or more

2016 (n=25)

2014 (n=24)

Range 28-89 26-87

Mean 57.64 55.96



Appendix I: “Other” Responses to Survey Questions Q33. (Farming Operations) If yes [improving drainage within next 10 years], how do you plan to finance it?

2016 2014 (n=17) (n=12) Cash (n=4) Cash (n=2) Myself (n=1) Cash flow (n=2) Myself like always (n=1) It will have to fit into the cash flow from profits of

row crop farming (n=1) NRCS (n=1) No (n=1) On my own (n=1) Not sure-hopefully Ag Production (n=1) Operations (n=1) Pay as I go (n=1) Out of pocket (n=1) Self (n=4) Pay as I can afford (n=1) Pay as I go (n=1) Pay cash (n=1) Row crop profits (n=1) Self (n=2) Well, by ‘improve’, I intend to restore (n=1)

Q39. (Farming Operations) How many of the following animals are part of your farming operation? If none, please enter a zero.

6 [type of livestock not listed]



Appendix II: Significant Differences from Paired T-Tests

2. The items listed below are sources of water quality pollution across the country. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following sources in your area?

9. How much do the following factors limit your ability to implement grassed waterways?


Mean N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

i. Littering/illegal dumping of trash

-0.316 19 0.582 0.134 -2.364 18 0.030

Mean N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean


b. Time required -0.438 16 0.727 0.182 2.406 15 0.029

Mean N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean



1.250 4 0.500 0.250 5.000 3 0.015


Meeting Review: December 5th 2016

Notes from the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Landowner and Producer Meeting Prepared by Belyna Bentlage of the Purdue University Social Science Team

Monday, December 5th 2016 Manchester University This meeting took place just about six months since the last Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Landowner and Producer Meeting (January 25, 2016). The goal of the previous meeting was to provide an opportunity for the watershed’s producers to learn about the project’s progress and to learn more about conservation practices and cost-share opportunities. The purpose of the December 5, 2016 was to update producers about the watershed’s nutrient budget, installment of a two-stage ditch in the watershed, water quality projects, and to discuss future steps now that the EDF funding has come to an end. Project partners in attendance included Susi Stephan (SWCD), Adam Jones (Wabash NRCS), Jerry Sweeten, Herb Manifold, and environmental scholar Dylan Scott (Manchester University), Jill Reinhart (State NRCS), Dan Davis (NE Area NRCS), Bobby Hettmansperger (producer and Vice-Chairman Wabash County SWCD Board), and Belyna Bentlage (Purdue University). There were about 14 producers in attendance. The room was set up with three long tables in a U-shape with the open end facing the screen. Although most of the producers sat at the table facing the screen, attendance felt well-balanced between producers and project collaborators with about Welcome – Susi Stephan

A microphone was passed around the room and Susi invited everyone to introduce themselves and to briefly describe their role within the project. Nutrient Budget/Water Quality Monitoring – Herb Manifold

Since the last meeting in January, Herb has become the environmental studies grant coordinator at Manchester University. His presentation was a follow-up on the water quality work he was conducting as a master’s student with Dr. Joe Magner at the University of Minnesota. At the previous meeting, Herb provided preliminary findings for the watershed’s nutrient budget and at the current meeting, he was able to present final numbers. Herb explained that the storage of nutrients in the watershed is the difference between nutrient inputs (e.g., commercial fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, and soil mineralization) and exports (e.g., grain export and stream transport). Through assessing the amount of nitrogen entering and exiting the watershed in 2015, Herb calculated that about 300,000 pounds of nitrogen remain in the watershed. Herb said it is important to ask:

1. Where in the watershed is the excess nitrogen being stored and; 2. Where are the opportunities to reduce that number?

He proposed that tile flow and shallow ground water hold high quantities of nitrogen and that these locations are prime spots to target for denitrifying conservation practices.


Two-Stage Ditch Project – Dylan Scott

As the environmental scholar at Manchester, one of Dylan’s tasks has been to assist with the two-stage ditch project recently constructed on the Runkel’s property. Dylan explained that the goal of a two-stage ditch, which is trapezoidal in shape, is to create a flood plain for water during high flow times. This area slows down the velocity of the water and reduces stream bank erosion.

The two-stage ditch on Runkel’s property was constructed using funds from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This site was unique because the creek was heavily lined with trees. Jerry Sweeten, who spearheaded the two-stage ditch project for many years, said he and other researchers used to consider trees along a ditch to be “sacred.” Because of this thinking, Jerry noted that receiving approval and funding for the two-stage ditch has been difficult due to the presence of trees. USFWS eventually funded the project under the conditions that habitat and water quality assessments are to be conducted to track impacts of the two-stage ditch on wildlife in the area. Dylan reported that to measure the impacts of the project, Manchester University will be conducting fish, mammal, and bird surveys as well as water quality monitoring to collect pre-two-stage-ditch and post-two-stage-ditch data. Construction of the ditch and tree removal began on September 9, 2016 and was completed two weeks later on September 23, 2016. Upon completion, a permanent seeding of warm season grasses and a straw blanket were planted and placed on the banks.

Positive results from the two-stage ditch are already being quantified. Dylan reported that a 0.8-inch rain occurred in late November, causing the water in the ditch to rise up onto the benches which visually proved the two-stage ditch was doing its job. Data from late fall of 2016 also supports that the two-stage ditch is fulfilling its expectations for improving water quality. November 2016 water quality data show a “dramatic” decrease in phosphorus compared to 2014 and 2015 data. Relative to those previous years, 2016 also shows an increase in dissolved oxygen. Reduced phosphorus and increased dissolved oxygen can be partially attributed to the new algae that has appeared in the ditch’s water. While this is currently good news that the algae tie up phosphorus and produce oxygen, the algae will eventually die, releasing phosphorus back into the system. Other positive results from the installment of the two-stage ditch and removal of the trees are increases in riffles in the creek and a lack of leaves falling into the creek. It is believed that decomposition of the leaves led to critically low levels of dissolved oxygen which resulted in a fish kill in 2015.

Jerry Sweeten, who led the two-stage ditch project for many years, said that it is rare to see such drastic water quality improvements in such a short amount of time. He believes fish kills in the area will cease and hopes that IDNR and NRCS will notice the benefits of tree removal in situations such as this one. Jerry also hopes that water quality monitoring continues at the site and that the data will help affect changes to NRCS policy.

Jill Reinhardt informed everyone that NRCS does have cost-share opportunities for two-stage ditches, but current cost-share requirements do not provide for tree removal. Because of the uniqueness of the two-stage ditch installed in the Beargrass Creek watershed, Jill said NRCS is looking at this site with policy implications in mind. NRCS is weighing the pros and cons of having trees along a ditch. Jerry said that most of the research that supports having trees along ditches has been conducted in mountain streams, not in agricultural fields. Jerry believes that although removing the trees means some edge-of-field bird species will no longer be found where the two-stage ditch is located, there will be an


increase in grassland bird species. Overall, Jerry is convinced that there are few negative consequences but a multitude of benefits to removing trees along an agricultural waterway when constructing a two-stage ditch.

At one point during the two-stage ditch discussion, Susi pointed out that most people in the room know where the two-stage ditch is located and that the producers deserve recognition for their willingness to have the practice installed on their property. Gary Runkel was quick to thank Jerry for his long hours and hard work. Gary was especially appreciative of Jerry coming to the site early on in the project’s development and listening to the Runkels’ perspective on the ditch and the trees. Jerry recognized that when he visited the proposed site with the Runkels, the “scales kind of fell from my eyes” and he realized that the trees needed to be removed if the two-stage ditch was to be successfully installed.

Jill also noted that two-stage ditches in general are a tough sell to producers and landowners because taking land out of production is often necessary. She thanked the Runkels for their willingness to contribute land to the two-stage ditch and to the buffer on both sides of the ditch. The Runkels agreed to a 120-foot buffer for the ditch, the maximum width suggested by NRCS. Bobby also commended the Runkels for their decision and said he looks forward to seeing the benefits of having the buffer zone, such as the increase in grassland species, insects, and butterflies. Bobby said the Runkels went “above and beyond” with their 120-foot buffer and that makes the site even more unique and important.

Some questions about the two-stage ditch were asked. A producer asked where the 120-foot decision came from and what the NRCS buffer requirements for the practice are. Adam said CRP “field borders” require buffers with a minimum of 30 feet and a maximum of 120 feet in width. He said the buffer requirement for filter strip buffers is slightly different, with a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum of 120 feet. Bobby voiced his opinion that it is best to have at least 40-50 feet as a buffer because 30 feet or less does not protect wildlife and essentially sets up a “buffet line” for predators. Another question was asked about cost. Herb and Dylan said a two-stage ditch costs about $15/linear foot. Jerry added that with tree removal, the installation runs about $40-45/linear foot.

Break

After discussion about the two-stage ditch winded down, Susi called for a short break for people to get up and stretch their legs, refresh their drinks, and use the restroom. Most everyone stood up and talked with people near them during the break. A group of producers talked in the back of the room with Jerry. Susi was reluctant to break up the discussion, but called for everyone to come back together in the interest of time and also noted that there would be more time to talk during lunch.

Social Science Report – Belyna Bentlage

Susi introduced Belyna and thanked the producers who participated in all of the social science investigative activities. Belyna also thanked the producers and brought attention to the value of these types of meetings where producers, university researchers, and agency staff can engage in conversations about conservation, as evidenced by the exchange between Gary and Jerry during the two-stage ditch discussion.


Belyna gave a brief update focusing on the challenges, benefits, and successes of the project that the Purdue Social Science team found in the most recent round of surveys and interviews. Challenges related to the project differed between agency staff and producers. Agency staff reported recruiting producers into the project and communicating with project partners as their main challenges, while producer challenges largely centered on the difficulties of managing cover crops. Both groups would have liked to have seen more conservation practices implemented in the watershed and had difficulty evaluating success of the project based on water quality goals because interviewees said that three years of data may not be enough on which to evaluate success.

The main success reported by agency staff and producer interviewees, and which was supported by survey data, was that producer awareness of different conservation practices increased throughout the project. Interviewees said before the project they were unfamiliar with practices such as bioreactors, saturated buffers, stream channel restoration, and two-stage ditches. Many interviewees described the Beargrass project as “eye-opening” and “a learning process.” Survey data showed that awareness of bioreactors, saturated buffers, stream channel restoration, and two-stage ditches increased in the watershed between 2014 and 2016. Compared to the Flowers Creek watershed, where no watershed-wide project occurred during the same time frame, awareness of bioreactors and saturated buffers in the Beargrass Creek watershed increased to levels statistically significantly different from Flowers Creek. Outreach efforts and points of project success were attributed to specific project partners who were often mentioned by name in the interviews: Susi, Adam, Jerry, Joe Magner, and Joe Updike.

Moving forward, Belyna noted that there is momentum within the watershed to continue with conservation efforts. Survey data shows that producers mostly agree that they play a key role in reducing nutrient loading in the watershed. Producers also mostly agree that the 45% nutrient reduction goal is achievable. Belyna reported that the Purdue team believes the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project laid the foundation for conservation efforts and practice implementation in the area and that continued partnerships between local agency staff and producers will likely lead to future success of conservation projects in the watershed.

Jill emphasized the fact that just because the EDF funding is ending, it does not mean that conservation will cease in the watershed. She said NRCS, SWCD, and the university are still here and will continue to work toward conservation and improved water quality.

Other Water Quality Projects – Jerry Sweeten

Jerry announced that he is entering a “phased retirement” over the next two years. He introduced Dr. Suzanne Beyeler as a new assistant professor of biology and environmental sciences. Jerry’s presentation centered on multiple water quality projects in the area, including:

Dam removal at Mexico: This dam was one of the first concrete dams in the state, constructed in 1910. Jerry said the removal of this dam reconnected about 500 miles of river, including various creeks and tributaries. Manchester University was mentioned in a PBS documentary about dam safety, see Over, Under, Gone: The Killer in Our Rivers.

Fish ladder installation at Stockdale: Because this historical dam will not be removed, a fish ladder will be installed, which will allow for enhanced connectivity of fish populations throughout the Eel River. The fish ladder is fully funded and construction is planned to begin in the spring of 2017. Fish will be tagged to monitor their movement.


Mussel reintroduction: Clubshell mussels were native to the Eel River, but have not been found live for many years. Mussels from Pennsylvania were shipped to Manchester, where 150 mussels were electronically tagged and placed in the river. Later, 149 mussels were found alive, proving that survival is occurring. Over the summer, 10 student interns from Manchester placed 1,000 clubshell mussels at 3 different locations in the Eel. These 3,000 mussels were covered in glitter. Over time, clubshells found without glitter will be proof that the mussels are successfully reproducing. This project was in partnership with Brant Fisher, a non-game aquatic biologist from IDNR.

Upper Middle Eel: Herb is putting together a water management plan for the watershed.

Smallmouth bass research: It has been unknown where smallmouth bass are going in the Eel River. Smallmouth bass have been tagged with acoustic tags so researchers can track where the fish are going in the river.

With all of the research in the area, Jerry said “we have a lot of momentum” toward continuing conservation efforts. In continuing conversations about conservation, Jerry said partnerships are of critical importance, as is the acquisition of funding.

The Next Steps – Bobby Hettmansperger

Bobby called the Beargrass project a success because producers “got together as a community” and worked together toward a common goal. He said now they, as a community, need to find ways to “carry it forward.” One way to move forward according to Bobby is to get some practices, especially bioreactors and saturated buffers installed. He said installing one of these practices is not just beneficial to the producer and landowner who install it, rather the whole community benefits. In Bobby’s words, “we need to see one to learn one.” This idea of seeing a practice in action was expressed by some producer interviewees as well.

In addition to adopting new conservation practices in the watershed, Bobby said it is critical to continue the water quality monitoring. He reported that the district kept some funding back which will now be used for ongoing monitoring. However, these funds will end and Bobby appealed to the producers in the room to think about ideas about how to continue water quality monitoring into the future, indefinitely. Bobby said Susi, the SWCD board, Adam, and Jerry have discussed the idea of donating grain at the local elevator. The money from this will go towards a fund for water quality monitoring efforts. It sounds like this will be an ongoing conversation, to find ways for producers in the watershed to collectively contribute to water quality monitoring efforts.

Cost-Share Assistance – Adam Jones

Two brochures with information about cost-share and conservation practice opportunities were passed out as Adam began speaking about EQIP and “dedicated funding.” He and Jill explained that normally, producers from the whole Northeast Indiana region (22 counties) compete for EQIP dollars. However, with dedicated funding, producers only compete with other producers in the Beargrass Creek watershed. They also explained the difference between 319 and EQIP requirements for cover crops: 319 cost-share allows producers to try cover crops on a small number of acres for one year, whereas EQIP contracts will typically last 3 years. Both cost-share opportunities cannot be used at the same time for the same acres in cover crops.


Susi put a map on the screen that showed the cover crop acres in the watershed and thanked the producers who have been willing to try the practice. She said last week she was out doing the tillage transect for the entire county and it is great to see where there is green cover, especially with the first snow of the season. Lunch

Susi then dismissed the group for lunch. No sessions were planned for after the meal to keep the meeting short, per recommendations in the Purdue Social Science report. Susi encouraged everyone to stay if they could to ask questions and to discuss the next steps. Kevin Cordes led the group in prayer, giving thanks for the opportunity to be stewards of the land and for continued guidance on being good stewards. During lunch, most producers stayed to talk with each other and other project partners. Susi went around to ask individual producers about their ideas for funding future water quality monitoring efforts in the watershed. The meeting lasted from 9:30am and lunch began around 11:30am. All attendees seemed engaged throughout the meeting. Most questions and discussion occurred during the two-stage ditch portion of the meeting. As this was the final meeting for the project, no date was set for another meeting.


Appendix I: Interview Guides 2014

Producers

Interview Guide

In this interview, I will ask you several questions regarding your area/land and local conservation initiatives. I will also

ask you about the factors that you believe contribute to conservation success. We will use your responses to achieve a

clearer picture of land management in this area.

Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. While none of your responses will be released to the

general public, information may be shared confidentially with other members of our working group. You may skip any

questions you do not want to answer and you can stop the interview at any time.

Are you willing to participate in the interview? Do you mind if I record this interview for transcription purposes?

Questions Specifically for Farmers (If subject is a farmer):

Describe your relationship with local agricultural conservation staff (SWCD/NRCS/TNC/other). Which agencies have

you worked with? What types of assistance have you received?

Probe: How did you feel you benefitted by working with local staff? Were there any challenges?

What has been your experience with past NRCS/ SWCD/ other entities initiatives?

Have there been any major conservation projects or initiatives that have focused specifically on your area/land?

Probe: If so, can you describe?

Adoption rates of existing in-field BMP’s – cover crops, no-till, grassed waterways

In your opinion, what are the most important factors for successful conservation efforts?

In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges to successful conservation efforts?

Are there any legal/assessed drains on your property? How are they currently managed by the drainage district? How

do you feel about this management?

Describe how water drains from your land. Do you have patterned tile drains? Tile risers? Grassed waterways? Open

ditches? Have you made substantial changes to drainage systems on the land that you manage within the last 5 years?

If you have issues with flooding or ponding, how do you address them? Have you sought guidance on these issues? If

so, from whom?

Would you consider taking a substantial amount (multiple acres) of land out of agricultural production to provide a

water quality benefit?

Do you think other farmers or landowners in your county would consider taking a substantial amount (multiple acres)

of land out of agricultural production to provide a water quality benefit?

What do you think is the most pressing environmental issues associated with farming? Why did you rank this as worse?

Do you view nutrient accumulation in surface water as a result of agricultural practices as a serious concern? What

have you heard about this issue?

This map was produced for another watershed in Indiana and shows where conservation practices could be placed for

maximum benefit in terms of nutrient management.

1) If you saw a map like this for the Beargrass, what would you think?

2) If a practice was recommended for your property, what would you do?

3) How would you like to learn about a map like this? Meeting with other farmers? Individually?


Are you aware of any demonstration sites that address on-farm conservation? If so, demonstrating what? Who are they

ran by? And how are you made aware of such sites and events?

Have you ever attended demonstration sites? Frequency? Demonstrating what? (if no skip the next two questions)

In what ways have you found demonstration sites to be useful in informing your practices?

Can you talk about other benefits to demonstration sites aside from the demonstration?

Do you expect to attend demonstration sites in the future? If yes, demonstrating what and why do you want to attend /If

no, why not?

What type of practices would you like to see demonstrated?

How could your overall experience at demonstration sites be improved? In what ways do you feel connected or

attached to the land you farm?

Probe: How long has your family owned the land?

What made you interested in farming?

How long has your family lived and farmed in this area?

Probe: In what ways do you feel connected or attached to the community in which you live?

What do you think your land, being a farmer, and the way you take care of it says about you as a person (e.g., identity)?

What do you think the community in which you live says about you as a person (e.g., identity)?

What is it about your land that makes you think it is (or is not) ideal for farming?

What is it about this community that makes you want to stay (or leave) here?

Do you have any additional comments or questions?


Agency Staff

Interview Guide A working group drawing from multiple public and private agencies has identified your watershed as a place with high capacity to achieve success with landscape-level conservation initiatives. We have invited you to participate in this survey because of your detailed knowledge of your area’s conservation activities. We are particularly interested in your view on innovative conservation practices as well as your opinions about nutrient concerns. In this survey, I will ask you several questions regarding your area and local conservation initiatives. I will also ask you about the factors that you believe contribute to conservation success. We will use your responses to achieve a clearer picture of land management in this area and also to expand our contact base for future interviews. Your participation in in this interview is completely voluntary. While none of your responses will be released to the general public, information may be shared confidentially with other members of our working group. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer and you can stop the interview at any time. Are you willing to participate in the interview? Do you mind if I record this interview for transcription purposes? What is your name? Questions Specifically for Agency Personnel (If subject is a conservation staff member): What organization or agency do you work for? How long have you worked for this organization/agency? What is your job title? Have there been any major conservation projects or initiatives that have focused specifically on your area? Adoption rates of existing BMP’s Can you give examples of existing collaborations between multiple agencies (such as ?) Have these projects been successful? Why or why not? Do you think there is interest in pursuing additional projects like this in the future? Are there any paid watershed coordinators or other staff members who operate beyond “normal” service boundaries? How are they funded? Have there been or are there currently any private sources (foundations, organizations, universities) providing significant funding or other support for conservation projects in your area? Has there been any major event (fish kill, landfill siting, algal bloom) that brought natural resource issues to the public’s attention?


In your opinion, what are the most important factors for successful conservation efforts? Would you say that many (any) of the largest producers in your region are conservation-minded? Are other high-profile producers in your region conservation-minded? Are there any major “farmer-leaders” with significant influence over local management trends? Do local producers trust the natural resource agencies? Do you know of many instances where landowners have worked with their neighbors for joint conservation projects? Are Farm or Commodity organizations partners on conservation projects in your area? Which ones? Are Farmer or Commodity groups generally supportive of conservation in your area? Which ones? Is there substantial conflict between any local agencies/organizations? Describe your general approach to doing conservation. What are the overall specific objectives, if any, that you have set for the district? What scale do your programs operate at? County, watershed, farm-level etc.? How does addressing water-quality issues at a watershed –level differ from a farm or field level approach? In-field vs. downstream approach, incorporating catchments. Does your agency employ a landscape or watershed-based approach? If so, what have been the relative advantages and disadvantages of a landscape or watershed-based approach compared with a farm-level approach? What obstacles and barriers have you encountered when attempting this approach? If, not, why not? What might be some relative advantages and disadvantages of a landscape or watershed-based approach compared with a farm-level approach? What obstacles and barriers do you anticipate encountering when attempting to implement this approach? How compatible is (the conservation practice) with current farming systems in the watershed? Controlled drainage, bio-reactors, grass waterways, re-saturated buffers/ riparian buffers, two-stage ditches, vegetated and hyporheic ditches; channel geometry restoration, stream-bank stabilization Are there any policies or laws that might impact the ability to site and implement in-ditch or in-stream practices? Can you describe the permitting process (if any) for in-ditch or in-stream structures such as two-stage ditches?


What software tools do you currently use for conservation planning? I.e. the siting and implementation of conservation practices. How could these tools be improved for watershed level, downstream filter practice? Do you feel you have enough time and support to be trained with new tools for watershed planning? More open-ended Do you have any additional comments or questions? Questions Specifically for Farmers (If subject is a farmer): Describe your relationship with local agricultural conservation staff (SWCD/NRCS/TNC/other). Which agencies have you worked with? What types of assistance have you received? What has been your experience with past NRCS/ SWCD/ other entities initiatives? Have there been any major conservation projects or initiatives that have focused specifically on your area? Adoption rates of existing in-field BMP’s – cover crops, no-till, grassed waterways How compatible is (edge of field conservation practice) with current farming systems in the watershed? Controlled drainage, bio-reactors, grass waterways, re-saturated buffers/ riparian buffers, two-stage ditches, vegetated and hyporheic ditches; channel geometry restoration, stream-bank stabilization What are the relative advantages/disadvantages of (the conservation practice)? In your opinion, what are the most important factors for successful conservation efforts? Are there any legal/assessed drains on your property? How are they currently managed by the drainage district? How do you feel about this management? Describe how water drains from your land. Do you have patterned tile drains? Tile risers? Grassed waterways? Open ditches? Have you made substantial changes to drainage systems on the land that you manage within the last 5 years? If you have issues with flooding or ponding, how do you address them? Have you sought guidance on these issues? If so, from whom? Do you think other farmers or landowners in your county would be willing to work together – example of two-farmer practice Do you think other farmers or landowners in your county would consider taking a substantial amount (multiple acres) of land out of agricultural production to provide a water quality benefit? (community norms)


What do you think is the most pressing environmental issues associated with farming? Why did you rank this as worse? Do you view nutrient accumulation in surface water as a serious concern? What have you heard about this issue? Do you have any additional comments or questions?


Appendix II: Surveys 2014

Beargrass Creek


Flowers Creek


Appendix III: Interview Guides 2016

Producers

Interview Guide for Beargrass Producers

In this interview, I will ask you several questions regarding your area/land and local conservation

initiatives. I will also ask you about the factors that you believe contribute to conservation success and

we will talk specifically about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project. We will use your responses to

evaluate the project and to provide recommendations how to improve future projects.

Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. While none of your responses will be

released to the general public, information may be shared confidentially with other members of our

working group. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer and you can stop the interview

at any time.

Are you willing to participate in the interview? Do you mind if I record this interview for transcription

purposes?

Field Information

Just so I can get an overall picture of the demographics of people I am interviewing, do you mind telling

me:


2. Do you work full time on the farm? Part-time?

3. How many total acres do you rent? How many landlords?

4. How many total acres of farmland do you own in Indiana?

5. How many acres, if any, do you rent out?

6. What crops do you grow on your land?

7. Do you have any livestock?

If yes, what kind?

Conservation/Management Practices

Now let’s talk about conservation practices on your farm.

8. Have you implemented any conservation practices on your land? e.g., cover crops,

conservation tillage, two-stage ditches, rotational grazing

Probe: If so, can you describe them?

9. [If they are a tenant], how supportive or unsupportive would you say your landlord is in

terms of trying new management practices?

10. Do you currently have an integrated conservation-production plan or a nutrient or nitrogen

management plan?

11. Is your farmland currently or has it previously been enrolled in other conservation programs?

e.g., CRP, Conservation Stewardship Program, Wetland Reserve Program, EQIP, etc? Have

you utilized cost-share funds for practice implementation?


12. When seeking information about farming practices and topics related to agriculture, where do

you prefer to get information from? e.g., the internet, other farmers, CCAs, University

Extension

Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Now let’s talk about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project.

13. From whom/how did you first hear about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project?

14. How, if at all, interested/involved would you say you’ve been with the Beargrass Creek

Watershed Project?

a. If not much/not at all: Why/not? What, if anything, would have helped to get you more

involved in the project?

b. If involved:

i. Why did you decide become involved in the project?

ii. What have been some of the benefits of being involved with the project?

Challenges?

iii. Have you attended any Beargrass Creek Watershed Project meetings? If so, could

you tell me about those meetings?

Probe: What parts of those meetings were useful, e.g., Jerry Sweeten’s

presentations on water quality/monitoring, Herb’s presentations on monitoring

and making a nutrient budget, Joe Magner’s presentations on conservation

practices, Purdue’s social science updates?

Probe: What improvements would you recommend to make those meetings more

useful or productive?

15. [Show LIDAR map] This is the LIDAR map of the Beargrass Watershed, overlaid with

practice opportunities. Have you seen this map before? If so, where have you seen the map

before?

a. If not seen:

i. What do you think about the map?

ii. How, if at all, do you think this type of map motivates you or other producers to

adopt conservation practices?

iii. Would you be interested in learning more about maps like this? If so, what would

be your preferred way of learning? e.g., one-on-one, group, CCA…

iv. How, if at all, do you think this type of map violates privacy?

b. If have seen:


ii. How, if at all, do you think this type of map motivates you or other producers to

adopt conservation practices?

iii. Have any practices been recommended to you for your operation based on this

map?


iv. Have you, or do you plan to, adopt any new conservation practices due to this

map or your involvement with the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project? Why/not?

Have you, or do you plan to increase existing conservation practices due to this

map or your involvement with project?

v. Have you met with Joe Magner and/or Susi Stephan? If so, could you describe

that meeting? If no, why not? Probe: How, if at all, was this map used during that

meeting?

vi. How, if at all, would you prefer to learn about this map? e.g, one-on-one, group,

with CCA’s, NRCS, Extension

vii. Have you talked with other farmers about the map? Family members?

viii. How accurate do you consider this map to be?

ix. How, if at all, do you think this type of map violates privacy?

16. [Show practice opportunity booklet] Have you seen this booklet before?

a. If not seen: [let them look over the booklet]

i. What do you think about this booklet? How useful, if at all, do you think this

booklet would be for you and your operation?

ii. How do you prefer to learn about conservation practices?

b. If have seen:

i. What do you think about this booklet? Are the practice descriptions easy/difficult

to understand? How useful, if at all, do you think this booklet is for you and your

operation?


17. If involved: Overall, how would you define success for the Beargrass Creek Watershed

Project? How, successful, if at all would you say the project is?

a. What are some recommendations or lessons learned you would tell a producer in another

watershed that is planning to implement a similar project?

b. If you could change/improve anything about the project, what would it be?

18. If not involved: What factors do you think contribute to the success of conservation

projects/programs?

Sustainability

Now let’s talk about the concept of sustainability.

19. What does “sustainability” mean to you?

20. Could you describe what “sustainable agriculture” means to you?

21. What are the biggest challenges farmers face when trying to adopt and maintain sustainable

agricultural practices?

22. What are some ways farmers can overcome those challenges when adopting and maintaining

sustainable agricultural practices?

23. What do you think are the most pressing environmental issues associated with farming?


24. What does “supply chain sustainability” mean to you?

25. What role do you think you play in supply chain sustainability?

26. What do you think about corporations that promote supply chain sustainability?

Demographics Again, just so I can get an overall picture of the demographics of people I am interviewing, do you mind

telling me:

27. In what year were you born?

28. What is the highest grade in school you have completed?

29. How would you describe your political affiliation? e.g. very conservative, conservative,

moderate, liberal, very liberal?

Thank you! Final Comments? Thank you very much for your time and information! Are there any

final comments that you would like to add? We’re always trying to improve the interview process: Are

there any questions I didn’t ask that you think I should have? Are there any questions I asked that you

think I shouldn’t have asked?


Agency Staff

Interview Guide for Beargrass Agency Staff

In this interview, I will ask you several questions regarding your area/land and local conservation

initiatives. I will also ask you about the factors that you believe contribute to conservation success and

we will talk specifically about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project. We will use your responses to

evaluate the project and to provide recommendations how to improve future projects.

Your participation in in this interview is completely voluntary. While none of your responses will be

released to the general public, information may be shared confidentially with other members of our

working group. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer and you can stop the interview

at any time.

Are you willing to participate in the interview? Do you mind if I record this interview for transcription

purposes?

Beargrass Creek Watershed Project Now let’s talk about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project.

30. From whom/how did you first hear about the Beargrass Creek Watershed Project? How did

the project begin? Who or what group(s) were integral in getting the project off the ground?

31. How would you describe your role in the project?

Probe: How involved would you say you’ve been with the Beargrass Creek Watershed

Project?

a. If not much/not at all: Why/not? What, if anything, would have helped to get you more

involved in the project?

b. If involved:

i. Why did you decide become involved in the project?

ii. What have been some of the benefits of being involved with the project?

Challenges?

iii. Have you attended any Beargrass Creek Watershed Project meetings? If so, could

you tell me about those meetings?

Probe: What parts of those meetings were useful, e.g., Jerry Sweeten’s

presentations on water quality/monitoring, Herb’s presentations on monitoring

and making a nutrient budget, Joe Magner’s presentations on conservation

practices, Purdue’s social science updates?

Probe: What improvements would you recommend to make those meetings more

useful or productive?

32. [Show LIDAR map] This is the LIDAR map of the Beargrass Watershed, overlaid with

practice opportunities. Have you seen this map before? If so, where have you seen the map

before?

a. If not seen:



ii. How, if at all, do you think this type of map motivates producers to adopt

conservation practices?

iii. How, if at all, do you think this type of map violates privacy?

b. If have seen:


ii. How, if at all, do you think this type of map motivates producers to adopt

conservation practices?

iii. Have you heard of any producers in the watershed who are willing or planning to

adopt any new conservation practices due to this map or your involvement with

the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project? Probe: Why/not? How

receptive, if at all, do you think producers have been regarding this map?

iv. [Susi: How have the meetings with producers and Joe gone?]

v. How accurate do you consider this map to be?

vi. How, if at all, do you think this type of map violates privacy?

33. [Show practice opportunity booklet] Have you seen this booklet before?

a. If not seen: [let them look over the booklet]

i. What do you think about this booklet? How useful, if at all, do you think this

booklet would be for you and your operation?


b. If have seen:

i. What do you think about this booklet? Are the practice descriptions easy/difficult

to understand? How useful, if at all, do you think this booklet is for producers?

For you, when working with producers?


34. If involved: How do you feel you have been supported, if it all, during the Beargrass project?

Do you feel as though you have enough time or support with the Beargrass project?

35. If involved: Overall, how would you define success for the Beargrass Creek Watershed

Project? How, successful, if at all, would you say the project is?

a. What did you hope to see from the project? Did you see these things, did you see other

things happen? Do you have any regrets about the project?

b. If you could change/improve anything about the project, what would it be?

36. If not involved: What factors do you think contribute to the success of conservation

projects/programs?

37. What would you tell an agency staff member in another watershed that’s interested in using a

similar approach or conducting a similar project like the one in Beargrass? Lessons learned?

Recommendations?

Thank you! Final Comments? Thank you very much for your time and information! Are there any final comments that you

would like to add? We’re always trying to improve the interview process: Are there any questions I didn’t ask that you think I

should have? Are there any questions I asked that you think I shouldn’t have asked?


Appendix IV: Surveys 2016

Beargrass Creek


Flowers Creek

social science portfolio - purdue university...mar 21, 2017 · social science portfolio beargrass...

Documents