WHIDBEY ECO NET: FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS
Applied Research Northwest and ECO Net Members
June, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Four focus groups were held across Whidbey Island in the first two weeks of June. The
purpose of the focus groups was to help ECO Net members identify key understandings
about water quality among active, retired residents. Members recruited participants from
a variety of groups with special care taken to avoid recruiting people who were already
engaged in water quality education and activism. Because members used personal
contacts, it’s possible that the knowledge and attitudes expressed may be more aligned
than those of active seniors in general. However, focus groups finding are never
considered generalizable in any formal way. They only provide indicators of what might
be the experiences and attitudes within the population they are drawn from.
Twenty seven retirees participated in the discussions, 57% of whom were male. The
average time they had lived on Whidbey Island was 15 years, though half had lived on
the island less than 11 years. Most were under age 70 (57%) as shown in figure 1
below. Many were retired military or spouses of retired military. Some had children and
other family nearby.
Figure 1. Age distribution of focus group participants (n=27)
80-84
11%
85 or
more
0%
50-59
11%
60-64
14%
75-79
18%
70-74
14%
65-69
32%
Whidbey ECO Net Focus Group Findings
The key questions that the ECO Net wanted to answer in the focus groups were:
1. Do people even think about marine or fresh water? Is water quality important to
them?
2. What do people believe or know about the things that impact marine and fresh
water quality?
3. What do they think about small sources of impacts (e.g. runoff from a residence,
roads or small businesses)?
4. What information do people use to decide if marine or fresh water quality is good
or bad?
5. Who do they think is responsible for marine and fresh water quality?
Government? Citizens? Industry, etc.
6. Who would they trust for reliable information about water quality?
7. Have they come across or actively sought information about water quality?
Where did they get their information?
FINDINGS
Findings pertaining to each of the questions is discussed in this section.
Do people even think about marine or fresh water? Is water quality important to
them?
Participants were asked to reflect on the reasons they came to Whidbey Island, and then
prompted to talk about the importance of marine water in making that decision. It is
clear from their responses that the marine environment was at least a highly valued
attribute of the island if not a driving factor for most of them. Participants were poetic
and sentimental in describing their attachment to the island and the marine environment.
Things that they appreciated about the island included:

Rural character

Inherent limits to growth

Proximity to major cities

Safety

Natural beauty

Access to marine recreation including boating, fishing, clamming and crabbing
Most were adamant that the marine environment was superior to other aquatic settings
such as lakes or creeks. They talked about how often the marine environment changes,
how active it is in terms of wave action, sea life and human activity, and many talked
about the emotional benefits they got from being near the water. People who had
waterfront homes or boats seemed to think about and be more expressive about marine
waters than those who did not.
Applied Research Northwest
-2-
June, 2012
Whidbey ECO Net Focus Group Findings
You can see mountains, not the asphalt jungle. You can hear the water, birds,
it’s serene, quiet, dogs and kids, joggers, people greet each other with a friendly
attitude.”
-Group 3
Participants were then asked “In the past year or so, have you heard or read anything
about water quality on Whidbey Island?” They were prompted to talk about both marine
and fresh water quality issues.
Nearly every group began with lengthy discussions and conversations about their
drinking water quality. Nearly all the participants drew their water from wells, most as
part of a shared water resource association. The balance either had private wells or
were on Oak Harbor’s water system. In every group one or two participants were on the
board of their home water association and actively engaged in water testing and drinking
water issues. Everyone knew where their water came from and most mentioned having
reviewed water quality test data recently.
Another common topic that arose were septic systems. Most participants were on
shared or private septic and some had attended trainings on septic system maintenance
in order to have fees waived. The predominant belief is that island septic systems are
well maintained. When issues of fouled septic systems arose, there was some
difference of opinion about how serious of a problem they posed. Some participants felt
that the filtering effects of the ground would protect ground water sources from failing
septic systems, and while beach closures were sometimes attributed to failing septic
systems, the evidence has not been convincing.
“I went to one of those septic meetings. It seemed to me they were pushing
something over on us. No sewage runs into the Sound. Those polluted areas
where you can’t go clamming are not from septics. It comes from Victoria or
boats. There is nothing to this claim that septic is the problem.” – Group 3
Some were concerned about Waste Water Treatment Plants and if they’re doing a good
job. In group 3, someone said,
“Crescent Harbor Valley is an ecological wonder and has been draining septics
for years. There’s never been a problem. It never polluted the estuary. Oak
Harbor Bay WWTP polluted and killed shellfish. Now they want everybody to
hook up to sewer.” Group 3
Applied Research Northwest
-3-
June, 2012
Whidbey ECO Net Focus Group Findings
Participants were aware of the aquifer and to an extent, some at least partially
understood the connections between rainwater, runoff, septic systems and drinking
water sources, though there is room for more exploration about this. There was mixed
understanding of how and if these things impacted marine water quality (split about 5050 between the groups).
Most had heard about topics from the local news, some from internet searches.
In summary, these participants were quite knowledgeable about drinking water, septic
systems and their interconnections.
Other water quality issues that arose included:

Yard and gardening practices

The recent fire and sinking of a derelict vessel in Penn Cove

Salt water intrusion (someone in two of the four groups mentioned this)

Impacts of development and construction run off on water quality – both marine and fresh water

Pet waste

Litter
What do people believe or know about the things that impact marine and fresh
water quality?
Participants were asked to list anything they could think of that impacted water quality.
They were prompted to consider marine water, runoff or storm water, and fresh or
drinking water. They were invited to mention both things that degrade water quality and
things that enhance it. Table 1 shows what each group came up with.
For reference, Group 1 consisted of people recruited predominantly from the Yacht Club.
Group 2 was held in Coupeville, but included some South Island residents. Group 3 was
recruited predominantly from the Senior Center. Group 4 was Freeland and Clinton area
residents, many of whom were boat owners and waterfront property owners. Group 3
was least knowledgeable about impacts, though Group 4 could think of nothing that
might impact drinking/fresh water, even after a fairly robust conversation about septic
systems.
Table 1. Known impacts on water quality
Storm water/Runoff
Group 1.
Sewage
Litter
Pesticides
Applied Research Northwest
Marine/Saltwater Beaches
Group 1.
Boats –
 oil leaks, gas
-4-
Drinking Water
Group 1.
Perk/leaching
Cows
Demand/use, drawing down
June, 2012
Whidbey ECO Net Focus Group Findings
Big animals (dogs, horses,
cows)
Group 2.
Agricultural runoff
Products used on yards and
gardens
Cat waste
Group 3.
Pet waste (homes and parks)
Car washes
 Paint
 Fecal matter
 Trash
Tsunami debris
Submerged debris
 Fishing vessels
 Litter-like
Litter, Pesticides
Big animals (dogs, horses,
cows)
Group 4.
Boats
Cars
Group 2.
Marinas
Boats
Algae blooms
Discharged ballast water
_____________________
Positive impacts:
Group 1.
Treatment
Filters/retention – Rain Garden
Group 3.
Chemicals (from open sewer)
Japan disaster
Poor functioning sewage
plants
Group 2.
Policies, e.g. permeable
pavement
Cleaning up after dogs
Group 4.
Slides, erosion
Septic systems
Storm water
Boats, Cars
High tides
Livestock
Development
Garbage, Debris
_________________
Positive impacts:
Group 1.
Dredging for harbor cleaning
Group 4.
Rain gardens
Swales
Retention ponds
aquifer
Litter
Pesticides
Big animals (dogs, horses,
cows)
Group 2.
Failing septic systems
Pet products / flushable
Saltwater intrusion
Limited aquifer
Group 3.
Chemicals – cleaners,
gardening, deck cleaner
Ozone layer
Rainwater
Pet waste
Car washes
___________
Positive impacts:
Group 1.
Conserving water (car
washing, landscaping)
Clean pipes
Filtering
Group 2.
Conservation
Pet products/flushable
Group 3.
Chemicals that treat water
Group 3.
Good functioning sewage
plants
What do they think about small sources of impacts (e.g. runoff from a residence,
roads or small businesses)?
For the most part, participants didn’t recognize any large polluters on the island. One
mentioned her concerns about failing sewage treatment in Coupeville. Two times the
Navy base was mentioned, but the belief is that the Navy is taking appropriate
precautions to avoid harming water quality. One mentioned gas stations as a source,
but described car-owner behavior as the problem (careless spills of fuel). Instead,
Applied Research Northwest
-5-
June, 2012
Whidbey ECO Net Focus Group Findings
participants saw most of the pollution problems on the Island as coming from residents
and residences.
What information do people use to decide if marine or fresh water quality is good
or bad?
Nearly all the groups mentioned simple sensory cues for checking water quality. Taste,
smell and color were most commonly mentioned regarding drinking water. Garbage was
most often cited as the key to knowing if marine water is clean. One also mentioned
robust animal life, and another mentioned stagnation and algae blooms with regard to
marine water quality.
Who do they think is responsible for marine and fresh water quality?
Government? Citizens? Industry, etc.
Every group described the responsibility of individuals as being key to water quality.
Others mentioned included:

County government

Health department

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Department of Ecology

Environmental Protection Agency

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Water districts
Who would they trust for reliable information about water quality?
The most commonly trusted source mentioned regarding drinking water was water
associations. The health department was also very high on the list. A few mentioned
the Department of Fish and Wildlife. One mentioned the Conservation District. For the
most part, county government was also considered a trusted source, though with
caveats. Some also mentioned local non profits such as Beach Watchers and
Watershed Stewards.
Have they come across or actively sought information about water quality?
Where did they get their information?
Most residents were being delivered information about their drinking water on an annual
or more frequent basis. Some were having their wells tested on a regular schedule, and
others were having independent tests run on city or water association source drinking
water. Most participants mentioned using the internet to find information, which is useful
to know about this population. The Department of Fish and Wildlife was mentioned as
another source of information.
Applied Research Northwest
-6-
June, 2012
Whidbey ECO Net Focus Group Findings
KEY LEARNINGS

Whidbey Island seniors appear to be fairly aware of their drinking water. They are cognizant of the
connections between various types of water quality, and that degradation of one source can
impact another.

Many have a broad but superficial or misinformed understanding of water quality issues. They are
confused about what agencies govern which water issues. They also tend to misremember or
misunderstand detailed information. Broader topics or those with which they have ample personal
experience are well understood.

They trust government sources for information (especially the health department and Fish and
Wildlife), but are also skeptical of agencies’ motivation and the reliability of some information.
They are most skeptical of government directing them to enact specific measures on their
property.

They are easily thrown off by hearsay, so conflicting information can quickly undermine their
understanding.

There is a strong attachment to the marine environment, but little awareness of any problems.

There is a common interest in using the marine environment as a food source (fishing, clamming,
crabbing, shellfish farming).
Applied Research Northwest
-7-
June, 2012