Dry Run Creek
Landowner Watershed Awareness Survey:
2005 & 2008 Perspectives
Prepared for
Black Hawk Soil and Water Conservation District
2950 Southland Drive
Waterloo, IA 50701
(319) 296-3185
by
Kathleen G. Scholl, Ph.D., CTRS
R2S
Recreation Research & Service
Wellness Recreation Center-University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0241
319-273-6316
kathleen.scholl@uni.edu
1
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures
2
Report Summary- Selected Findings
Landowner Water Quality Beliefs and Awareness
Landowner Environmental Beliefs
Landowner Conservation Involvement
3
3
3
4
Introduction
5
Purpose and Objectives of the Study
5
Methodology
9
Findings
Landowner Characteristics
Landowner information Sources about DRC Watershed Project
Awareness of DRC Water Quality Issues
Concerns and Attitudes about Non-point Pollution Sources
Landowner Level of Awareness and Specific Storm Water Pollutant
Concerns
Landowner Level of Willingness to Participate in Conservation Practices
Landowner Environmental Perceptions
Bearing the Cost of Improving DRC Water Quality – Landowners versus
Taxpayers
9
9
10
11
11
12
Conclusions
20
References
21
Appendix: 2008 Landowner Survey
22
14
15
16
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
2
List of Tables
Table 1
Recent Studies on Citizen Perceptions, Concerns and Awareness of
Storm Water Issues
6
Table 2
Recent Studies on Resident Behavior Related to Car washing, Vehicle
Care, and Pet Waste
7
Table 3
Studies of Resident Behavior Related to Yard Waste Disposal and
Lawn Fertilizer Application
8
Table 4
Number of Years Landowners have Owned, Operated, or Resided
within Watershed
10
Table 5
Landowner Information Sources on DRC Watershed Project
11
Table 6
Landowner Beliefs on DRC Water Quality
12
Table 7
Landowner Concerns and Attitudes about Various Non-Point Source
Pollutants
14
Table 8
Landowner Willingness to Donate their Time to Reduce DRC Water
Pollution Problems
15
Table 9
Level of Environmental Identity, and Environmental Concerns and
Attitudes.
17
Table 10
2005 & 2008 Environmental identity and level of interest in
conservation practices
18
List of Figures
Figure 1
Type of Landowner
10
Figure 2
Are you aware of the water quality issues regarding the DRC
watershed today?
11
Figure 3
Landowner Willingness to Participate in Conservation Practices
15
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
3
Report Summary
Landowner Water Quality Beliefs and Awareness
Landowner awareness about water quality issues in DRC increased by 27% between 2005 and
2008.
2005 DRC awareness = 25.9% of watershed landowners
2008 DRC awareness = 52.8% of watershed landonwers
Top three (3) sources of landowner information regarding DRC:
City of Cedar Falls Currents (60.2% of respondents)
Waterloo Courier Articles (53.9% of respondents)
SWCD newsletters (31.3% of respondents)
2008 landowners general environment opinions:
The DRC water quality is declining (p<.001)
Water contamination is an important environmental issues (p.<.006)
We are approaching the limits of how much contamination DRC can handle (p<.012)
2008 landowners specific pollution concerns:
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC (p<.003)
Runoff from paved surfaces including parking lots affect water quality of DRC (p<.005)
New construction and development have increased the amount of soil loss in this area
(p<.01)
Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC (p<.021)
Between 2005 and 2008, there was no statistical significant change in landowner
perceptions as to the cause of non-point source pollution to DRC (paved surface runoff, new
construction, septic system, lawn or agriculture fertilizer, livestock)
76.4% of 2008 landowners agree or strongly agree that runoff from paved surfaces affect
water quality (+7.8% since 2005).
Between 2005 and 2008, there was a change in landowner opinion about DRC water quality:
Landowner who were unsure of declining water quality in 2005 were now able to give an
definitive response.
In 2008, there was increase (+2.3%) in the number of landowners who agreed that the
water quality of DRC was declining.
In addition, there was in increase of landowners (+4.9%) who disagreed that the water
quality of DRC was declining.
However, over 50% of all DRC landowners are still unsure about declining water quality,
indicating continued need for more public information and education.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
4
Landowner Environmental Beliefs
For all questions regarding landowner beliefs about environmental use, there was a
significant difference in between a landowner’s environmental perspective and their opinions
regarding the effects of water pollution on DRC, their willingness to participate in
conservation practices, or willingness to give a few hours a month of time towards improving
the watershed.
No change in landowner worldview about the environment (anthropocentric versus ecocentric).
As in 2005, anthropocentric landowners are more likely to ‘disagree’ that non-point
source pollutants affects water quality.
As in 2005, anthropocentric landowners indicated little to no interest in conservation
practices versus landowners who hold ecocentric or preservation worldview.
Landowners with opposing environmental viewpoints are more likely to disagree on the
following:
Water contamination is an important environmental issue in DRC
We are approaching the limits of how much contamination DRC can handle.
Runoff from paved surfaces including parking lots affect the water quality of DRC
New construction and development increased the amount of soil loss in this area.
Landowner Conservation Involvement
Slight increase (10%) in landowners’ overall willingness to participate in conservation practices.
In 2008, 30% of landowners would be willing to volunteer a few hours a month to help reduce
DRC pollution problems; 34% of landowners would not.
24.7% of landowners believe that regulations protecting DRC watershed limit their choices and
personal freedom.
Anthropocentrics are more likely agree than biocentics that regulations limit choices and
personal freedom (F(2, 81)=4.260, p.<.017)
A small percentages of practices were adopted during the three year period:
Windbreaks around Dwellings (6.6% of landowners)
Permeable Paving (3.8% of landowners)
Backyard Conservation/Wildlife Habitat Improvement (3% of landowners)
Urban Construction Control (2.7% of landowners)
Inlet Protection for Storm Sewers (2.1% of landowners)
Minimal use of Lawn and Garden Fertilizers and Pesticides (1.6% of landowners)
Native Landscaping/Wildflower Gardens/Rain Gardens (0.7% of landowners)
In 2008, landowners intensified their belief that taxpayers should bear the cost of DRC
watershed improvements versus the individual landowner bearing the cost of these
improvements. This may be due to implementation of a monthly National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) fee to all Cedar Falls landowners commencing in July of 2006. This
belief of taxpayers bearing the cost of improvements may also be related to decrease in
landowner interest in specific conservation practices.
Landowner interest in specific conservation practices decreased since 2005. This may be due
to landowners learning about the different practices only to discover that they are not
appropriate for their particular situation.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
5
Introduction
Storm water runoff pollution, the untreated water of rain or snow melt that picks up pollutants
en route to area Iowa’s streams, rivers, and water bodies, has been cited as a great threat to water
quality (Iowa DNR, n.d). Understanding storm water runoff as a source of non-point pollution is a
relatively new focus. Twenty years ago, business, industry, and large public facilities across the United
States represented the largest water quality threats. However, years of regulation applied to point
source water pollution discharges has substantially reduced the contaminants these entities produce
(Bartlett, 2006). The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research now shows that individual
landowner behavior creates a serious threat to water quality. Today, attempts must be made to
educate residents, landowners, developers, and city officials about their role and responsibilities with
regard to water quality.
Storm water survey literature that identifies citizens’ knowledge and awareness of storm water
issues is minimal and the majority of previous surveys conducted around the country were “snapshots”
in that they were only designed to be administered at a single time. Few snapshot respondents in any
state perceived their local water quality as ‘excellent’ or ‘poor.’ Most respondents in these previous
studies perceived water quality as ‘somewhat acceptable’ and typically choose answers like ‘fair’ or
‘good.’
Studies prior to 2003 indicated that residents considered industry as the greatest threat to
local water quality. Since 2003, residents began to consider individual behavior and cite concerns such
as automotive fluids, construction and parking lot runoff, septic systems and pesticides as threats to
local water quality. Today, residents are beginning to associate water pollution attributed to these
individual behaviors, nevertheless a large percentage of residents “don’t know” or “unsure” of local
water quality problems (see Table 1). Behaviors such as car washing, disposal of vehicle fluids, pet
waste, yard waste, and use of lawn fertilizer have been measure in five studies since 2002 (see Tables
2 & 3) illustrating that efforts are needed to change citizen behaviors that directly effect storm water
quality.
Purpose and Objective of the Study
The purpose of this study was to measure Dry Run Creek (DRC) watershed landowners’
awareness and opinions regarding water quality and their opinions on pollutants that can negatively
affect storm water runoff. This study also sought to identify any changes in landowner awareness and
attitudes regarding the DRC watershed between 2005 and 2008; the timeframe in which initial efforts
from Black Hawk Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) were made to install various storm water
management practices and educate DRC community members about the affects of storm water to
local waters.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
6
Table 1: Recent Studies on Citizen Perceptions, Concerns and Awareness of Storm Water Issues
Perceived Threats to
Concerns about
Study
Water Quality
Water Quality
2006
Iowa
(Wagner &
Thompson, Iowa
State Univ.)
2006
North Carolina
60% of developers perceive agricultural land
uses as responsible for the majority of water
pollution.
89% of all respondents agree that runoff from
city streets like contain pollutants.
2005
Iowa
(Scholl, Univ. of
Northern Iowa)
69% of respondents ‘agree’ or ‘strongly
agree’ that runoff from paved surfaces affect
water quality.
56% of respondents ‘agree’ or strongly agree’
that new construction & development
increase soil loss.
52% of respondents ‘agree’ or ‘strongly
agree’ that septic systems can affect local
water quality.
Public employees cite malfunctioning septic
systems, automotive fluids, litter, &
incorrect household waste disposal as a
major cause of water pollution
Top 3 severe impacts: pesticides, oil from
cars, & industrial discharges).
Dry Run Creek
watershed, Black
Hawk County
2004
Maine
2003
Tennessee
2002
South Carolina
Residents perceive Ag, auto fluids, and
construction runoff as biggest water quality
treats. Commercial/industry & individuals
activity also have negative impacts
Residents perceive industry as larger threat
than cities.
1998
Colorado
One-fifth of residents do not consider
automotive fluid as a water quality threat.
1993
Michigan
(Wayne County)
Residents consider business & industry as
having the greatest impact on local water
quality.
80% of respondents indicated that streams and
lakes were ‘somewhat acceptable’ or
acceptable. 12% of residents & 17% of city
officials & developers perceive streams as
“unacceptable.’
More respondents perceive water quality of
streams, lakes, & rivers as good. Urban
dwellers rate more positively than rural or
suburban.
70% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that water
contamination is an important environmental
issue.
Awareness of
Storm water
31.5% of residents & developers perceive a
problem with local storm water.
42% of residents “don’t know” if there is a
local storm water problem.
75% of respondents were ‘unaware’ or ‘not
sure’ of a local water quality issues.
Public expressed concern about water quality
but feel that their water is good.
Erosion is serious problem to waters, but only
6% of general population considered it a source
of water pollution. *(This represents progress in
outreach efforts, since no one cited erosion as
water quality problem in 1996).
Most Tennesseans rate water as good, but city
residents are more inclined to label water
quality as 'fair' and express concern about the
future.
50% of state residents consider storm water
as having a great impact on water quality.
Only little more than 25% know that storm
water is not treated.
Less then 50% of state residents understand
that storm water is not treated before
entering local water bodies.
Residents perceive their local river’s water
quality as poor due to business & industrial
waste.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
7
Table 2: Recent Studies on Resident Behavior Related to Car washing, Vehicle Care, and Pet Waste
Survey
Car washing
Vehicle care
location
2006
North Carolina
75% of residents own a vehicle. Of this group,
40% wash their vehicles at home: 56% wash
vehicle in drive, 41% let soapy water flow
into grass, dirt, or gravel. Urban dwellers
more likely to let run into street or driveway
than rural or suburban dwellers.
2003
Tennessee
25% of residents wash vehicle in their
driveway.
2003
Utah (Salt Lake
Co.)
25% or residents wash their vehicles at home;
of this group 52% wash vehicles in the their
driveway.
2003
Vermont
68% of residents routinely wash vehicles in
their driveway.
(Chittenden Co.)
*as cited in
Bartlett, 2006
2002
South Carolina
76.9% use commercial oil change facilities.
17% change their own car oil. Of this group:
32% place used oil with other garbage for
disposal; 20% take to recycling facilities; 22%
dump onto a designated part of their lawn;
20.6% pour used oil down storm drains.
25% of residents change their own oil; 42% use
commercial take-back programs.
Pet waste
Residents that rarely or never pick up pet
waste:
• 59% of rural pet walkers
• 49% of suburban
• 47% of urban
Women more likely to properly dispose of
pet waste.
50% of residents see pet waste as a source
of water pollution, yet no data collected
on their behavior.
41% of residents own pets, but few bag pet
waste deposited in public places (as
opposed to their own yards).
Most residents don’t dispose of pet waste
regardless of whether the waste was
deposited at home or on walks.
Close to 1/3 of residents ‘rarely’ or ‘never’
pick up dog waste. Female are more likely
than males to properly dispose of pet
waste.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
8
Table 3: Recent Studies of Resident Behavior Related to Yard Waste Disposal and Lawn Fertilizer Application
Survey location
Yard Waste
Lawn Fertilizer
2006
North Carolina
96% report that they have a yard that they
personally mow. 54% report leaving clippings in the
yard; 17% use clippings for mulching & compost;
1.5% rake or blow grass into storm drains.
39% of residents claim to fertilize their own lawns. Of this group, 58%
report fertilizing once per year, 36% report fertilize 2-3x/year; 5%
fertilize monthly.
If respondents fertilized lawns, 44% reported testing their soil to
determine fertilizing needs
60% of residents use fertilizer regularly, with 25% doing so four
times/year. Only 25% using fertilizer also use soil tests. Residents with
higher incomes & incomes tested their soil more than other groups.
Close to 49% of residents report that they fertilize regularly –no data
collected on soil testing.
2003
Tennessee
Very few residents report disposing lawn clippings
in storm drains
2003
Utah
75% of residents mow their own grass – no data
collected on clipping disposal
(Salt Lake County)
2002
Minnesota
63% of yard mowers leave grass clippings on their
lawn
71% fertilization rate – no data on soil testing collected
(Tanners Lake Watershed;
Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District)
2002
South Carolina
6% of residents dispose of their grass clippings in
ditches.
Low rate of soil testing by homeowners in all communities and lawn
care companies.
1/3 of residents fertilize once per year, w/rural residents showing the
lowest frequency.
Less then 1/3 consult their local cooperative extension for soil tests
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
9
Methodology
Prior to Iowa Watershed Improvement Review Board (WIRB) funding to install storm water
demonstration projects within Dry Run Creek (DRC) watershed, a landowner survey was mailed in
January 2005 to 348 randomly selected property owners within DRC watershed to identify their
awareness, concerns, and attitudes of the water quality issues to this specific watershed. There was a
61% response rate in 2005. In 2008, the same landowners were again contacted to identify any changes
in their awareness and attitudes regarding the DRC watershed within the three-year period. At this
time, another 86 surveys were sent to additional landowners due to changes in property ownership or
city official or developer participation in educational workshops on watershed improvement strategies
occurring after the 2005 data collection. The individuals sent a questionnaire in 2008 fell in one of the
following categories:
236 landowners who returned the survey in 2005 still own property in DRC watershed
111 landowners still live in the watershed but did not return survey in 2005
52 landowners were not landowners in 2005 but owned watershed property in 2008
34 contractors and city officials were sent surveys due to participation in SWCD educational
workshops on watershed improvement strategies.
Findings
In 2005 and 2008, 556 individual urban, rural and commercial landowners, contractors, and city
officials were mailed a survey specific to Dry Run Creek water quality issues. In all, 306 individual
landowners responded to either the 2005 survey, the 2008 survey, or both for a 56% response rate. The
list below indicates when a landowner’s survey was returned during the study period.
Returned survey in 2005 & 2008 – 44.7%
Did not return survey in 2008 but did return in 2008 – 7.3%
Returned survey in 2005 but not in 2008 – 38.3%
New landowner in 2008 – 3.0%
Returned survey in 2005 but no longer landowner in 2008 – 4.0%
Developer or city official attended watershed improvement workshop in 2006 or 2007 – 2.7%
In 2008, 173 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 40%. Of the respondents who
were sent a survey in 2005, 77.6% (n=132) returned survey in 2008; and 12.4% (n=21) of individual who
did not return survey in 2005, did so in 2008. In addition, 10% of respondents were initially sent a
survey in 2008 because they were new landowners of the original 2005 sample properties (5.3%; n=9),
or were contractors or city official who attended educational workshop (4.7%; n=8).
Landowner Characteristics: Respondents identified which landowner characteristic that best
represented the type of property they owned, operated, or resided within the DRC watershed. Figure
1 illustrates that the landowner type did not changed between the 2005 and the 2008 samples. The
number of years that a landowner owned property within the watershed increased over the past three
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
10
years, which is to be expected in a stable Iowa real estate market (see Table 4). Sixty-two percent
(62%) of landowners indicated that they have lived or operated within the DRC watershed for more
than 15 years. It is noteworthy that 16 respondents (10%) specifically stated that they have lived in the
watershed well over 25 years year, with 10 landowners stating that they have lived in this watershed
for approximately 50 years. One respondent indicated living 85 years within the DRC watershed.
Survey Repsondants by Landowner Type
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Urban Landowner
Rural Landowner
Absentee
Business Owner
*Municipal official
Developer
2008
64.10%
14.10%
7.70%
6.40%
6.40%
1.30%
2005
65.40%
15.60%
7.80%
8.60%
0
2.50%
Landowner type
*City official was added in 2008
Figure 1: Type of Landowner
Table 4: Number of Years Landowners have Owned, Operated, or Resided within Watershed
2008 survey respondents (n=161)
0-5 years – 16.1%
6-15 years – 22.4%
15 years or more – 61.5%
2005 survey respondents (n=243)
0-5 years – 24.5%
6-15 years – 21.2%
15 years or more – 54.5%
Landowner Information Sources about DRC Watershed Project: In 2005, landowners identified the best
means to acquire information from eight different options indicating that newsletters, and
newspapers/news releases as the best source of information. In 2008, respondents were then asked to
indicate the local news format where they learned about DRC’s water quality status over the previous
24 months (see Table 5).
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
11
Table 5: Landowner Information Sources on DRC Watershed Project
Local News Format (n=128)
Frequency (%)
77
69
40
38
30
27
23
21
16
City of Cedar Falls CURRENTS newsletter
Waterloo Courier Articles
Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) newsletters
KWWL News Channel 7
Cedar Falls Times Articles
Cedar Falls City News – Local Access Channel
College Hill Neighborhood Association newsletter
Emails from Rebecca Kauten, SWCD watershed coordinator
Other information sources
(60.2%)
(53.9%)
(31.3%)
(29.7%)
(23.4%)
(21.1%)
(18.0%)
(16.4%)
(12.5%)
The survey itself
Direct observation
Word-of-mouth & direct communication with others
DNR & IGS communication
UNI facilities
15 (11.7%)
9 (7.0%)
Erosion & Sediment Control event brochures & mailings
IOWATER Volunteer Monitoring newsletter & updates
Awareness of DRC Water Quality Issues: Survey respondents were asked their overall awareness of the
DRC watershed water quality on a three point scale (1=unaware; 2=not sure; and 3=aware) both in
2005 and in 2008. Matching the 2005 landowner watershed awareness responses to their 2008
responses revealed a significantly reliable difference between the 2005 mean (Mean = 1.88, s.d.=.815)
and the 2008 watershed mean (Mean = 2.37, s.d. = .770) indicating an increase in their awareness of
the specific water quality issues (t(123) = 5.819, p<.001). Landowners’ unawareness of DRC water
quality issues decreased by 34% and the awareness of the respondents from 2005 to 2008 increased by
27% (see Figure 2).
Are you aware of the water quality issues regarding the DRC
watershed today?
60.00%
Percentage of
landowners
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Unaware
Not Sure
Aware
2005 landowners (n=259)
53.30%
20.80%
25.90%
2008 landowenrs (n=163)
19.60%
27.60%
52.80%
DRC Watershed Awareness
Figure 2: Are you aware of the water quality issues regarding the DRC watershed today?
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
12
Concerns and Attitudes about Non-point Pollutions Sources: Landowners were asked nine questions in
2005 and 2008 about their opinions concerning specific non-point source pollutions impact on the
watershed. Three additional questions were added to the survey in 2008 on the respondents’ opinion
of: (a) the limits to how much contamination the creek can handle, (b) watershed regulations limiting
personal choices and freedoms, and landowner (c) willingness to spend a few hours a month to help
reduce DRC pollution problems.
In matching 2005 responses to landowner responses in 2008 with the original nine pollutant
questions, there were no significant changes in landowners’ perceptions as to what might be causing
non-source point pollution to DRC with one exception (see Table 6). Landowner who were unsure of
declining water quality in 2005 were more likely to give an definitive opinion in 2008. In 2008, there
was increase (+2.3%) in the number of landowners who agreed that the water quality of DRC was
declining. In addition, there was in increase of landowners (+4.9%) who disagreed that the water
quality of DRC was declining (2005 mean = 3.47, SD= .871 and 2008 mean = 3.27, SD=.831; t(122) =
2.516, p<.013).
Even though there was a decrease in the number of landowner who indicated they not sure
whether the water quality of DRC was declining, over 50% of all DRC landowners are still unsure about
declining water quality, indicating more public information and education is needed.
Table 6: Landowner Beliefs on DRC Water Quality
Do you believe that the water quality of
Dry Run Creek is declining?
t(122) = 2.516, p<.013
Water contamination is an important
environmental issue in Dry Run Creek
We are approaching the limits how much
contamination Dry Run Creek can handle
Poor water quality in Dry Run Creek
affects economic development in this
area of Iowa
Regulations protecting Dry Run Creek
watershed limit my choices and personal
freedom
Year
2005
(n=257)
2008
(n=159)
2005
(n=256)
2008
(n=162)
2005
2008
(n=161)
2005
(n=258)
2008
(n=161)
2005
2008
(n=85)
Strongly
Agree
9.7%
Agree
25.7%
Not
Sure
59.5%
Disagree
3.9%
Strongly
Disagree
1.2%
7.5%
30.2%
52.2%
6.9%
3.1%
20.3%
50.4%
25.0%
3.1%
1.2%
26.5%
47.5%
20.4%
2.5%
3.1%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.8%
21.1%
55.9%
7.5%
3.7%
4.3%
26.4%
43.4%
21.3%
4.7%
6.2%
23.0%
44.1%
23.0%
3.7%
NA
5.9%
NA
18.8%
NA
29.4%
NA
32.9%
NA
12.9%
In 2008, landowners were asked an additional question on their belief whether DRC was
approaching the limits of pollution the creek could handle. Even thought 56% of landowners were
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
13
unsure of the pollution limits of the creek, landowners who indicated DRC awareness, then they were
more likely to agree that the creek is at the limits of its pollution handling capacity (F(2,155) = 4.565,
p<.012).
It is interesting to note that 74% of the 2008 respondents felt that water contamination is an
important environmental issue in DRC, up 4% from 2005. For those landowners who held opposing
beliefs on the negative effects of storm water pollutants, 26.7% of landowners did not feel that poor
water quality in DRC affected economic development in this area of Iowa, and 24.7% of landowners
believe that regulations protecting DRC watershed limit their choices and personal freedom. While
44.1% of landowners were unsure of the economic effects of having poor water quality in their local
surface waters, the floods of June 2008 hit Iowa three months after the data collection period. Since
this record-breaking event, it is anticipated that concerns over water quality in Eastern Iowa will
increase in the years to come.
Landowner Level of Awareness and Specific Storm Water Pollutant Concerns: Landowners were asked
their opinion about six different non-point source pollutants and their affect on DRC water quality (see
Table 7). The majority of landowners agreed or strongly agreed that the following pollutants affect
DRC:
76.4% of all landowners agree that runoff from paved surfaces including parking lots affect
water quality of DRC
61.5 % of all landowners agree that new construction and development have increased the
amount of soil loss in this area (p<.01)
54.7% of all landowners agree that septic systems can affect the water quality of DRC
Survey responses in 2005 and in 2008 revealed that a landowner’s level of awareness of DRC was
related to three specific non-point source pollution concerns. Landowners who indicated an awareness
of DRC were also likely to ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the following statements:
Runoff from paved surfaces including parking lots affect water quality of DRC (p<.005)
New construction and development have increased the amount of soil loss in this area (p<.01)
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC (p<.003)
In 2005, there was no difference between a landowner’s awareness of DRC water quality issues and
their belief about the impacts of lawn fertilizers to water quality. Yet in 2008, the belief that lawn
fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC was related to the level of landowner
awareness (F(2,155) = 3.092, p<.021). There was a decrease in the percentage of all landowners who
disagreed on effects of possible pollutants on DRC, with one exception. In 2008, over 12% of
landowners disagreed that lawn fertilizers impact DRC water quality; a 3% increase from those
landowners who responded to the survey in 2005.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
14
Compared to 2005, business owners, developers, and city officials in 2008 are more likely to
‘agree’ with the following practices effecting DRC water quality:
Do you believe that the water quality is declining?
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC
Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC
Runoff from paved surfaces including parking lots affects water quality of DRC.
In 2008, over 30% of rural landowners ‘disagreed’ on the following statements:
Do you believe that the water quality is declining?
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC
Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in DRC
Livestock production contributes to the reduction of DRC water quality
Table 7: Landowner Concerns and Attitudes about Various Non-Point Source Pollutants
Run off from paved surfaces including
parking lots affect the water quality of
Dry Run Creek
New construction and development have
increased the amount of soil loss in this
area
Septic systems can affect the water
quality of Dry Run Creek
Lawn fertilizers have significantly
impacted the water in Dry Run Creek
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly
impacted the water quality in Dry Run
Creek
Livestock production contributes to the
reduction of water quality of Dry Run
Creek
Year
2005
(n=258)
2008
(n=161)
2005
(n=256)
2008
(n=160)
2005
(n=256)
2008
(n=161)
2005
(n=257)
2008
(n=161)
2005
(n=257
2008
(n=161)
2005
(n=257)
2008
(n=162)
Strongly
Agree
18.2%
Agree
50.4%
Not
Sure
25.6%
Disagree
3.9%
Strongly
Disagree
1.9%
24.2%
52.2%
19.3%
3.7%
0.6%
17.2%
39.1%
32.8%
9.0%
2.0%
19.4%
41.9%
28.8%
6.9%
3.1%
11.3%
41.0%
35.9%
10.2%
1.6%
14.3%
40.4%
36.0%
8.7%
0.6%
12.5%
31.1%
47.5%
7.4%
1.6%
13.7%
34.2%
41.0%
9.9%
1.2%
10.5%
24.9%
52.1%
9.7%
2.7%
12.4%
31.1%
46.6%
7.5%
2.5%
5.1%
24.5%
50.6%
15.6%
4.3%
10.5%
27.8%
43.8%
15.4%
2.5%
Landowners’ Willingness to Participate in Conservation Practices: Landowners were asked their
general “willingness to participate in DRC conservation practices (minimum=1; moderate=2;
maximum=3) (see Figure 3). Matching the 2005 landowner responses to their 2008 responses indicated
a slight increase (+10%) in their global willingness to participate in conservation practices
(t(106)=2.008, p<.047).
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
15
Landowner Willingness to Participate in Conservation Practices
80.00%
60.00%
Percentage of
Landowners
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Minimum (learning more)
Moderate (participate in a Maximum (make a change
task force)
on property)
2005 landowners (n=232)
72.40%
14.70%
12.90%
2008 landowners (n=151)
62.90%
15.90%
21.20%
Figure 3: Landowner Willingness to Participate in Conservation Practices
A second question about a landowner’s willingness to contribute a few hours each
month on helping to reduce DRC pollution problems was added to the survey in 2008. The
responses to this second question of donating time reveals consistency in landowners’
responses to the willingness to participate in conservation practices above: 30% of
respondents would be willing to help and 34% of respondents would not be willing to donate
their time to this community effort (see Table 8).
Table 8: Landowner Willingness to Donate their Time to Reduce DRC Water Pollution Problems
Year
I would be willing to spend a few hours a
2005
month of my own time helping to reduce
2008
Dry Run Creek pollution problems
(n=153)
Strongly
Agree
NA
6.5%
Agree
NA
23.5%
Not
Sure
NA
25.9%
Disagree
NA
27.5%
Strongly
Disagree
NA
6.5%
Interestingly, when respondents indicated their interest in learning about or implementing 17
specific conservation practices that would assist in improving water quality, landowner interest
decreased for all specific practices between 2005 and 2008, yet landowners did indicated adopting the
following conservation practices indicating in actual increase from 2005:
Windbreaks around dwellings – +6.6%
Permeable Paving - +3.8%
Backyard conservation/wildlife habitat
improvement – +3.0%
Urban construction control - +2.7%
Inlet protection for storm sewers - +2.1%
Minimal use of lawn & garden fertilizers &
pesticides - +1.6%
Native landscaping/Wildflower
gardens/rain gardens - +0.7%
Landowners’ Environmental Perceptions: Landowner’s were asked 11 questions that when totaled
indicated the landowner’s sensitivity towards preserving the environmental health of the watershed.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
16
The higher the landowner’s score the more environmentally sensitive the landowner. Matching the
2005 landowner environmental perceptions responses to the same landowner’s responses in 2008 with
their total environmental perception score revealed that was no changes in landowner scores over the
three year time period (2005 mean =37.8 and 2008 mean=38.1).
As in 2005, there was no significant difference between the type of landowner or the years that
a landowner has lived in the watershed and their environmental score in 2008.
Yet, there was a significant difference in landowners’ environmental perspective and
their opinions regarding the effects of water pollution, their willingness to participate in
conservation practices, or willingness to give a few hours a month of time towards improving the
watershed (see Tables 9 & 10). There was a reliable and significant difference between a landowner’s
global willingness to participate in improving DRC water quality and their environmental score both in
2005 and 2008. Those landowners indicating a willingness to participate in a task force or make
changes to their property had a higher environmental score then those respondents indicating a
minimum effort they would be willing to put forward on improving local water quality (F(2,144) =
19.382, p<.001).
As in 2005, there was also a significant in a landowner’s awareness of DRC and their
environmental score in 2008. Once again, landowners indicating awareness of the local water quality
issues also related to a higher environmental score (F (2,151)=3.993, p<.020).
Bearing the Cost of Improving Water Quality of DRC – Landowners versus Taxpayers: Landowners were
also asked whether the “landowners should bear the cost of improving the watershed” (=5.5) or if
“taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the watershed” (=0.5). Matching the 2005 landowners’
responses to their 2008 responses revealed a significantly reliable difference between 2005 (Mean =
2.5; s.d.=1.26) and the 2008 perspective (Mean = 2.22; s.d. 1.18) indicating a increase in that
landowners consider that the taxpayers should bear the cost of DRC watershed improvements (t(108) =
2.193, p<.03).
In July of 2006, the City of Cedar Falls, IA began levying a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) fee to all landowners within the city limits as part of its mandated storm
water management program (CF Ordinance 2569, 2006). Each residential property are assessed $3.00
per month. For commercial property, a base fee of $3.00 per month, plus $5.00 per month for each
10,000 sq. ft. of impervious area (City of Cedar Falls, 2006). This fee may be the reason that
landowners are more like to feel that “taxpayers” should bear the cost of improving the water quality
of DRC. This fee could also have affected landowner interest in implementing conservation practices
within this particular watershed.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
17
Table 9: Level of Environmental Identity, and Environmental Concerns and Attitudes.
Do you believe that the
water quality of DRC is
declining?
Numbers are means of counts, not percentages
Environmental Identity
Anthropocentric
Moderate
Ecocentric
Year
World view
Environmental World view
Identity
2005
2.84
3.27
3.67
Sig.
F(2, 252)=14.156,
p <.001
F(2,151)=10.688,
p <.001
F(2, 251)=29.847,
p <.001
F(2,151)=21.288,
p <.001
2008
2.69
3.15
3.61
Water contamination is an
important environmental
issue in DRC
2005
2.89
3.74
4.23
2008
2.92
3.69
4.33
Poor water quality in DRC
affects economic
development in this area
of Iowa
Agriculture fertilizers
have significantly
impacted the water in
DRC
Lawn fertilizers have
significantly impacted the
water in DRC
2005
2.40
3.03
3.23
F(2, 253)=7.245,
p <.001
2008
2.54
2.92
3.26
2005
2.6
3.24
3.54
2008
2.62
3.38
3.65
F(2,153)=4.815,
p <.009
F(2, 252)=10.858,
p <.001
F(2,153)=8.427,
p <.001
2005
2.9
3.46
3.59
2008
3.15
3.34
3.74
New construction and
development have
increased the amount of
soil loss in this area
Septic systems can affect
the water
quality of DRC
2005
2.68
3.49
3.97
2008
2.92
3.39
4.13
2005
2.95
3.41
3.75
2008
3.15
3.47
3.79
Livestock production
2005
2.75
3.19
contributes to the
reduction of water quality 2008
2.92
3.13
of DRC
Run off from paved
2005
3.10
3.71
surfaces including parking
lots affect the water
2008
3.31
3.69
quality of DRC
We are approaching the
2005
NA
NA
limits of how much
2008
2.61
3.03
contamination DRC can
handle
Regulations protecting
2005
NA
NA
DRC watershed limit my
2008
3.38
2.94
choices and personal
freedom
I would be willing to
2005
NA
NA
spend a few hours a
2008
2.08
2.57
month of my own time
helping to reduce DRC
pollution problems
1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=not sure; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree
3.08
3.5
4.11
4.33
NA
3.68
NA
2.39
NA
3.52
F(2, 252)=5.528,
p <.004
F(2,153)=4.833,
p <.009
F(2, 251)=19.597,
p <.001
F(2,153)=18.807,
p <.001
F(2, 251)=9.011,
p <.001
F(2,152)=4.450,
p <.013
F(2, 252)=2.420,
NS
F(2,153)=3.922,
p <.022
F(2, 253)=15.850,
p <.001
F(2,153)=19.838,
p <.001
F(2,153)=15.607,
P <.001
F(2,81)=4.260,
P <.017
F(2,146)=26.912,
P <.001
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
18
Table 10: 2005 & 2008 Environmental identity and level of interest in conservation practices
Environmental Identity
Assistance in disposal of
household hazardous waste
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Permeable paving
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Inlet protection for storm
sewers
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Native landscaping/
Wildflower & Rain gardens
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Backyard conservation/
Wildlife habitat improvement
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
informationalready adopted practice
Urban construction control
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
All landowners
Anthropocentric
World view
2005
2005
2008
2008
Moderate
Environmental
Identity
2005
2008
Ecocentric
World view
2005
2008
2005
x2 Sig.
2008
x2 Sig.
p<0.001
p<0.001
34%
46.4%
31.3%
49.3%
82.4%
5.9%
76.9%
7.7%
37.9%
42.4%
33.8%
49.3%
78.7%
60.4%
19.7%
57.6%
19.6%
19.3%
11.8%
15.4%
19.7%
23.3%
20.9%
22.7%
p<0.001
p<0.001
50.6%
48.5%
50.3%
45.6%
0.9%
4.1%
94.1%
5.9%
84.6%
15.4%
58.3%
40.2%
63.3%
34.3%
1.5%
2.9%
30.8%
69.2%
30.8%
63.1%
6.2%
p<0.001
p<0.007
47.6%
47.2%
48%
44.6%
5.2%
7.4%
94.1%
5.9%
84.6%
15.4%
52.7%
41.2%
54.3%
37.1%
31.1%
64.4%
33.8%
58.5%
6.1%
8.6%
4.4%
7.7%
p<0.001
p<0.001
33.9%
55.9%
46.4%
43.1%
10.2%
10.5%
88.9%
11.1%
100%
40.2%
48.5%
58.6%
34.3%
15.9%
50.7%
24.3%
60%
11.4%
7.1%
11%
15.7%
p<0.001
p<0.001
37.7%
50.8%
46%
40%
11.4%
14%
94.7%
5.3%
100%
45.5%
41.8%
57.1%
34.3%
13.6%
73.5%
23.9%
53.7%
12.7%
8.6%
12.5%
22.4%
p<0.001
p<0.003
45.5%
49.8%
54.1%
38.4%
4.7%
7.5%
100%
92.3%
7.7%
56.8%
36.4%
59.4%
30.4%
18.9%
77.8%
40.6%
53.1%
6.8%
10.1%
3.3%
6.3%
p<0.001
Wetland restoration
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Minimal use of lawn & garden
fertilizers/pesticides
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
p<0.001
51.1%
43.9%
58.8%
37.8%
5.1%
3.4%
100%
100%
61.2%
32.8%
69.9%
27.5%
24.7%
70.8%
39.4%
56.1%
6%
2.9%
4.5%
4.5%
p<0.001
p<0.001
36.6%
40.5%
37.9%
37.3%
23.2%
24.8%
100%
76.9%
7.7%
40.6%
36.1%
50%
30%
17.6%
54.9%
18.6%
50%
15.4%
23.3%
20%
27.5%
31.4%
Continued
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
19
Table 10 - continued
Environmental Identity
Conservation cover
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Waterways
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Filter strips along the creek
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Rock check dams
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
All landowners
Anthropocentric
World view
2005
2008
2005
2008
41.1%
45.3%
52.5%
34.8%
94.7%
5.3%
100%
13.6%
12.8%
Moderate
Environmental
Identity
2005
2008
Ecocentric
World view
2005
2008
51.1%
34.6%
65.2%
25.8%
14.6%
69.7%
29%
51.6%
14.3%
9.1%
15.7%
19.4%
p<0.001
p<0.001
43.6%
41.9%
55.3%
34.8%
14.5%
9.9%
100%
100%
50%
32.3%
64.5%
25.8%
22.8%
64.1%
37.9%
50%
17.7%
9.7%
13.1%
12.1%
p<0.001
p<0.001
46.6%
43.3%
55.1%
34.7%
10.1%
10.2%
100%
100%
56.7%
29.9%
65.2%
27.5%
20.9%
71.4%
35.4%
49.2%
13.4%
7.2%
7.7%
15.4%
p<0.001
p<0.032
55.2%
40.9%
62.5%
34%
3.9%
3.5%
94.1%
5.9%
100%
63.1%
32.3%
63.8%
31.9%
35.6%
61.1%
53.2%
43.5%
4.6%
4.3%
3.3%
3.2%
p<0.001
p<0.005
Community sewage treatment
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
2005
x2 Sig.
2008
x2 Sig.
p<0.001
p<0.001
52.4%
33.9%
59.6%
32.2%
88.2%
5.9%
13.7%
8.2%
5.9%
100%
61.1%
28.2%
64.3%
25.7%
33.3%
47.8%
46.9%
45.3%
10.7%
10%
18.9
7.8%
p<0.001
Terraces
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Windbreaks around dwellings
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Contour strips
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
Private septic system upgrades
no interest/not applicable
interested but need more
information
already adopted practice
NS
51.9%
36.6%
69.3%
25.7%
11.5%
5%
100%
91.7%
8.3%
59.7%
29.1%
71.2%
21.2%
31.5%
55.6%
62.9%
33.9%
11.2%
7.6%
13.5%
3.2%
P<0.002
p<0.001
49.8%
33.6%
46.8%
28.4%
16.6%
23%
88.9%
11.1%
92.3%
52.6%
31.6%
57.1%
22.9%
37.1%
42.7%
38.5%
40%
7.7%
15.8%
20%
20.2%
29.2%
p<0.001
p<0.002
60%
31.7%
69.7%
24.1%
8.3%
6.2%
94.1%
5.9%
100%
65.1%
24.8%
76.5%
14.7%
46.1%
47.2%
56.3%
39.1%
10.1%
8.8%
6.7%
4.7%
p<0.001
p<0.035
70%
21.9%
83%
13.1%
8%
3.9%
100%
100%
77%
15.6%
90%
7.1%
54%
35.6%
72.9%
21.4$
7.4%
2.9%
10%
5.7%
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
20
Conclusions
How long a landowner has lived in the DRC watershed or the type of landowner one might be
(urban, rural, commercial, city official, etc) has no association with their opinions on the DRC
environmental conditions or the willingness of the landowner to participation in conservation
practices. However, there is a strong association with the landowner’s environmental beliefs and
their concern and willingness to take steps towards improving the water quality within the
watershed.
Research shows that current land use practices affect the water quality of lake, rivers, and
streams. Recommendations for Black Hawk SWCD or other land agencies or municipalities are to
develop strategic communication messages to persuade landowners to behave in a way that will help
to reduce storm water pollutants. This entails designing messages that influence landowner behavior,
whether it be changing negative behaviors, reinforcing positive behaviors, or creating a new behavior
that improve the improving water quality by the reduction of illicit discharges.
Behaviors are based on values and attitudes. Since we were able to get the information on
landowners general beliefs, more information is needed on actual conforming and non-conforming
landowner behaviors and the presence of situational and internal factor that make the behavior easy
or difficult for the landowner to perform conservation practices that might improve water quality.
To influence landowner behavior, specific conservation practices and behaviors must be the
focus of the educational and communication effort. For example, since landowners are more like to
differ in their opinion on the effects of runoff from paved surfaces on the water quality, focused
educational effort is focused solely on informing landowners on the effects of impervious surface
water runoff cause to water quality. If a persuasive communication campaign is undertaken by the
SWCD, it will be important to first gather detailed information on three categories of beliefs
landowner have specifically to the behavior that is desired from the landowner: behavioral beliefs,
normative beliefs, and control beliefs (Ham, et.al, 2007). These three categories of beliefs are as
follows:
Behavior beliefs: what landowners believe the likely outcome or consequence of the specific
behavior and their positive or negative judgment about each of these outcomes.
Normative beliefs: how they believe other people of importance to them think about the
landowner complying with the specific behavior, including the landowner’s motivation to
comply wishes of these important others.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
21
Control beliefs: the landowners belief about the presence of internal or situational factors that
make the encouraged behavior easy or difficult to carry out, and how much each factor
facilitates or inhibits performing the specific behavior.
If Black Hawk SWCD chooses to developed an educational campaign for the improving the water
quality of Dry Run Creek and similar watersheds within the county, it is recommended that they target
their efforts on the following: (a) specific behaviors that add pollutants directly to storm sewers by
the runoff of impervious services, (b) specific construction and development behaviors that increase
the amount of soil discharge into creek water.
References
Bartlett, C. (2006). Stormwater Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors: A 2005 Survey of North Carolina
Residents. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Online:
http://www.ncstormwater.org/pdfs/stormwater_survey_12506.pdf Retrieved May 23, 2008.
City of Cedar Falls (2006). Storm Water Management Program. Currents! 16(2), 8. Online:
http://www.cedarfalls.com/archives/73/Currents_V16-2.pdf Retrieved June 1, 2008
(CF Ordinance 2569). (2006). Storm Water Management Program.
http://www.cedarfalls.com/DocumentView.asp?DID=18 Retrieved June 1, 2008
Ham, S., Brown, T., Curtis, J., Weiler, B., Hughes, M., & Poll, M. Promoting Persuasion in Protected
Areas: A guide for Managers. Sustainable Tourism Coopertive Research Center.
Iowa DNR. (n.d). Improving Stormwater. Iowa DNR Watershed Improvement. Online:
http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/stormwater.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Salt Lake County, Utah. (2003). Salt Lake County Storm Water Study. Online:
http://www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/surveys/SL_Watershed_Report.pdf Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Scholl, K. (2005). Dry Run Creek Watershed Development Grant Survey Results.
Wagner M., & Thompson, J. (2006). Social Dynamics Assessment of Iowa Urban Stormwater Issues.
Iowa DNR Watershed Improvement. Online:
http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/stormwater.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
22
Appendix A
2008 “Dry Run Creek” Watershed Survey
Three years ago, you received a similar survey from Black Hawk Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD).
SWCD is now asking you to complete this survey to identify your current concerns and attitudes regarding the
water quality of Dry Run Creek, which runs through the City of Cedar Falls, Iowa. Your completion of this survey
will assist SWCD in their continued efforts to include citizen perspectives in addressing non-point sources of
pollution to Black Hawk County waterways.
For each question, please give the answer you think is correct most of the time from your point of view. We would
like to know what your answer is to each question. Your answers are confidential.
Section A
1. Different people will have different levels of knowledge about the Dry Run Creek Watershed. Please indicate (a)
your level of awareness with the following statement.
Are you aware of the current water quality issues
regarding the Dry Run Creek watershed today?
Aware
Not
Sure
Unaware
2. Different people will have different concerns and attitudes about various non-point source pollutants (NPS). NPS
means that there is no single location that a pollutant comes from. Please indicate (a) your level of agreement or
disagreement with the following statements.
Strongly
Agree
Do you believe that the water quality of Dry Run
Creek is declining?
Water contamination is an important environmental
issue in Dry Run Creek
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the
water quality in Dry Run Creek
Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water
in Dry Run Creek
Poor water quality in Dry Run Creek affects
economic development in this area of Iowa
New construction and development have increased
the amount of soil loss in this area
Septic systems can affect the water quality of Dry
Run Creek
Livestock production contributes to the reduction of
water quality of Dry Run Creek
Run off from paved surfaces including parking lots
affect the water quality of Dry Run Creek
We are approaching the limits how much
contamination Dry Run Creek can handle
Regulations protecting Dry Run Creek watershed
limit my choices and personal freedom
I would be willing to spend a few hours a month of
my own time helping to reduce Dry Run Creek
pollution problems
Agree
Not
Sure
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
23
3.
Attitudes: Please indicate your attitude about the Dry Run Creek watershed by identifying where you would
place yourself between each statement. Please place a check (a) along the line.
Wanting to utilize the watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Wanting to preserve the watershed
Disinterested in the watershed
In cooperation with the
watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
An advocate of the watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
In competition with the watershed
Detached from the watershed
Very concerned about the
watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Connected to the watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Indifferent about the watershed
Not at all protective of the
watershed
Very protective of the watershed ..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Superior to the watershed
Very passionate towards the
watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Inferior to the watershed
Not at all passionate towards the
watershed
Not respectful of the watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Very respectful of the watershed
Independent of the watershed
Sentimental thinking about the
watershed
Landowners should bear the
cost of improving the watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
Dependent of the watershed
Emotionless thinking about the
watershed
Taxpayers should bear the cost of
improving the watershed
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
..….!.........!.........!.........!..........!.......
4. Please indicate whether you learned about Dry Run Creek’s water quality status through the following local news
formats in the past 24 months.
YES
NO
City of Cedar Falls CURRENTS newsletter
KWWL News Channel 7
Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) newsletters
Cedar Falls City News – Local Access Channel
College Hill Neighborhood Association newsletter
Waterloo Courier Articles
Cedar Falls Times Articles
IOWATER Volunteer Monitoring newsletter & updates
Erosion & Sediment Control event brochures & mailings
Emails from Rebecca Kauten, SWCD watershed coordinator
Other: _______________________________________________
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
24
5. Please indicate (a) if you are interested in implementing or learning more about the following practices for the Dry
Run Creek watershed:
Interested but
need more
information
Wetland restoration
Private septic system upgrades
Conservation cover
Native landscaping/Wildflower gardens/Rain gardens
Permeable Paving (Alternatives to traditional paved surfaces
that provide the support but allow water to infiltrate)
Backyard conservation/Wildlife habitat improvement
Filter strips along the creek
Waterways
Inlet protection for storm sewers
Urban construction control
Terraces
Minimal use of lawn and garden fertilizers & pesticides.
Rock check dams
Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste
Contour strips
Community sewage treatment
Windbreaks around dwellings
No
interest
Not
Applicable
to my property
Already
Adopted
Practice
6. At what level would you be willing to participate in conservation practices to help improve the stream water quality
of Dry Run Creek?
Minimum (e.g., learn more about conservation practices by newsletters or attending a meeting)
Moderate (e.g., participate a few hours each month by becoming a member of a watershed committee or task force)
Maximum (e.g., commit to making a change in my conservation practices on my land/property)
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008
25
Section B: SWCD is collecting the following information in order to better understand the characteristics of our survey
participants. All of the information will be kept completely confidential and will only be reported at the group level.
7. Which category best represents you?
Urban resident of Cedar Falls
Rural Resident in and around Cedar Falls
Industrial Park Business
Cedar Falls Business outside of Industrial
Park
City of Cedar Falls official
Rural farmer in and around Cedar Falls
Absentee land owner
University of Northern Iowa facility management
personnel
Developer who is/has worked on projects
within/around Cedar Falls
8. How long have you owned, operated, or resided at your present location? ___ 0-5 years ___6-15 years___>15 years
9. Have you noticed changes to Dry Run Creek over the time you have owned, operated, or resided at this location?
No
Yes (if yes, please describe change)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
10. Do you have any other comments about Dry Run Creek related to potential conservation practices or environmental
improvements that will enhance water quality?
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________ _________
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. The success of improving the water quality of Dry Run Creek depends on
the amount of support received from the watershed community and land users. Your response by April 18, 2008 is
greatly appreciated. Please use the enclosed envelope and be returned to:
Kathleen G. Scholl, Ph.D., CTRS
203 WRC.
University of Northern Iowa.
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614-0241
2
DRC Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R S UNI Spring 2008