Program Evaluation
Landowner Survey (1995)
A survey was sent to 590 Indian Lake Watershed landowners. The survey had three sections
covering general areas of water quality perception; knowledge level of the project; main water
quality issues and concerns. The stakeholders gave their opinions, ideas and viewpoints about
the project and the main issues in the watershed. A 31 percent return rate was achieved. The
complete survey results and survey questions can be seen in Appendix A.
Results
Eighty-seven percent indicated the Indian Lake water quality to be "fair" to "very good." They
indicated there are environmental problems in the watershed, but over half indicated they have
seen changes in the watershed in the last five years.
The respondents indicated the top three water quality problems for the lake are erosion,
littering, and faulty sewer/septic systems. Pesticides and petroleum products were indicated
as the "major threat" of contaminants to the lake even though the 1989 Ohio EPA study stated
there were no violations of Ohio's Water Quality Standards made by agricultural chemicals.
Soil erosion, faulty sewer and septic systems, chemical runoff, littering and watercraft
pollution and the Canada geese population were indicated as the top pollution problems
"affecting" Indian Lake. The landowner survey respondents later indicated the top issues
"needing attention" were conservation farming practices, sewer system improvements, educational
programs for lake users, increased dredging, and decreasing the geese population. The
respondents' ranking of the top problems "affecting" water quality and the top issues "needing
attention" correlate well.
Landowner survey respondents rated "everyone" and "lake users" as those who benefit the most
from improved water quality. They also selected "everyone" as responsible for improving water
quality with "lake users" in third place. Again, this suggests a closely connected response.
Even though soil erosion is the highest ranked pollution problem, "farmers" ranked seventh on
the list of those responsible for improved water quality. Farmers ranked last on "who benefits"
from improved water quality. Farmers are asked to make the biggest sacrifices to improve the
water quality, but have the least to gain according to these results. Farmers also receive the
least credit for the accomplishments made.
Lake User Survey (1995)
Indian Lake had over 1.5 million visitors in 1995 which is 0.3 million higher than the average
attendance rate. The visitors are an important source to tap when seeking information from
stakeholders because the lakeuser group uses the lake and can see trends in water quality and
notice changes easier than a non-user. The close connection to the lake makes them a valuable
resource. Lake User surveys were sent to 410 people and 52 percent were returned. Four types
of lake users were surveyed and the explanation of how the individuals were chosen is detailed
below. The complete survey results and survey questions can be seen in Appendix B.
Results
The respondents indicated they use the lake greater than thirty times a season, and 74 percent
use it more than they did five years ago. This is a favorable connection of improved water
quality since 48 percent indicated water quality had "much" to "very much" of an affect on
their decision to use the lake. The water appearance was rated as "fair" to "good" this past
season. When comparing the lake water appearance in 1995 to years past, the respondents ranked
it as follows: 58 percent indicated it was better than earlier this year; 62 percent indicated
it better than last year; 71 percent indicated it better than five years ago; and 66 percent
indicated it was better in appearance this year than ten years ago. Eighty-five percent
indicated the appearance of the lake as "fair" to "very good."
Boating and fishing ranked highest among uses for the lake and were the top uses by the
respondents. The most frequently used boats were pontoons and fishing boats. Forty-seven
percent of the respondents indicated unlimited horsepower should be allowed on the lake.
Thirty-five percent indicated a limit to horsepower should be enforced.
The Lake User survey respondents indicated the top pollution problems "affecting" Indian Lake
as: soil erosion from cropland, Capada geese population, littering, increasing algae growth and
watercraft pollution. The respondents later indicated the following top five issues as "needing
attention" at the lake: increased dredging, conservation farming practices, decreasing the
geese population, sewer and septic system improvements, and educational programs for lake
users.
When asked who is responsible for improving the water quality "state government," "everybody
affected" and "lake users" were the top three responses. "Farmers" ranked fifth down the list
of who is responsible. The respondents indicated "lake user fees," "setting up a foundation"
and "taxing groups responsible" as the top ways to develop revenue to fund the project.
Sixty-five percent of the respondents had heard of the HUA project before. This may have helped
in receiving the 52 percent return rate for the lake user survey.
Public Meeting (1995)
A public meeting was advertised in local newspapers and the watershed newsletter as well as
flyers mailed out to watershed stakeholders. Radio interviews and personal phone calls were
also conducted to inform the public about the meeting. Over 60 people participated in the
meeting. The public meeting was successful in attendance and in the material gained.
Results
Siltation is the biggest concern. More and stricter boating regulations are desired on boat
motor horsepower and on the use of jet skis.
Sewer and septic systems remain a topic of concern among residents. Mandatory hookup and
mandatory inspection for all systems are wanted. The participants contend the private land and
small villages should be inspected for properly functioning sewer systems. They also want the
issue of storm-water runoff from business and the lack of storm sewer drains investigated.
The meeting respondents were mostly lake residents and expressed their concern over the
increased amount of algae growth on the lake. The increased algae is causing problems not
associated with muddy water. The major problem associated with the algae is stains on boats,
decks and clothes, and there is also an increased odor associated with the decaying algae. The
majority of participants indicated they would rather have the muddy water (which can be washed
off) over the algae growth.
The respondents indicated they would like to see more educational programs for lake users on
lake regulations and littering. The consensus is that more information needs to be distributed
to the public of the work being accomplished by the watershed project. More information on how
lake users can help clean up the lake is also wanted.
Participants questioned what the project is willing to do about reducing the Canada geese
population. The geese issue is receiving more complaints every year according to the state
park manager. He told the individuals in attendance that ODNR's Division of Wildlife was
working on more ways to reduce the geese population.
Lake user fees and the development of a foundation were the top two mentioned revenue systems
to establish funding for the project. People coming to visit the region could help pay for the
improvements of the area by paying a user fee. A foundation was also favored, as the respondents
felt it would allow the project sufficient funding and more flexibility for future programs.
The topic of becoming part of the Miami Conservancy District was received poorly and would not
be a consideration by those in attendance.
Focus Groups (1995)
Focus groups were brought together to discuss certain topics, focusing the discussion on matters
of interest in an attempt to discern patterns and trends that develop among participants. The
vision of the focus groups was to bring in representatives from the agriculture, residential
and business groups to gather their input on watershed issues. Focus groups are well suited
for uncovering information on human perceptions, feelings, opinions and thoughts. Focus groups
are not intended to obtain numbers that represent a population, because representatives are
limited in a large population of many. Focus groups are unique from other procedures because
they allow for group interaction and greater insight into certain opinions.
Results
The issue receiving the most attention from the "residents" focus groups was the problem of
littering. The littering issue ranged from trash thrown into the lake by fishermen and boaters
to storm-water runoff from lake-side businesses. Another trash/littering issue receiving
attention was dumping grass clippings and leaves into the lake. The group respondents want
leaf burning and dumping of leaves and grass into the lake outlawed. They want a compost
facility placed near the lake area.
Soil erosion and the sediment-laden, muddy water received much discussion. The overall majority
of the group respondents did not know of the watershed project and the work being conducted to
reduce the amount of sediment entering Indian Lake. The "farmer" groups felt they are not being
credited enough for the work they have performed to reduce soil erosion.
The major issue to come out of all three types of focus groups was more information and
educational programs were needed. Group participants want information distributed to lake
users on not littering, on lake rules and regulations and polluting the lake with leaves and
grass clippings. The next issue of concern was the need for more monitoring of water quality
improvement programs. The farmers in the groups want to use monitoring to check where more
work is needed and where improvements are being made.
A lake user fee system was the most popular choice of future funding. The group participants
were in favor of making all who use the lake pay to improve conditions instead of just those
who live around the lake. They felt it's reasonable to ask users to pay for the services
received. The consensus was the park brings in a lot of money and more of the money should be
put back into lake improvements.
Interviews with Equipment Buy-Down Participants (1995)
A telephone survey of participants in the equipment buy-down program and program files were
used to provide information on the effect of the equipment buy-down program on the decision to
switch from conventional to non-till production methods. While conventional and no-till systems
may be equally profitable once in use, switching from one to the other can be costly. This
evaluation looked at how costly this switch was for participants and how much the program
helped to defray these costs.
Results
The participants in the Equipment Buy Down Program can be divided into three types. Type 1
participants switched to no-till equipment but incurred a financial cost. That is, they replaced
their old equipment sooner than normal, and the level of financial incentive offered did not
fully compensate this accelerated purchase. Type 2 participants switched to no-till and because
of the program were able to do so without incurring financial costs. Type 3 participants are
those for whom switching from conventional to no-till systems was already cheaper than
continuing to use the conventional equipment.
There are three conclusions that were drawn from this evaluation. The financial incentive
component of the Equipment Buy-Down Program did accelerate the purchase of no-till equipment in
the Indian Lake Watershed. On the whole, participants purchased no-till drills and planters
sooner than without the incentive.
More than half (58 percent) of the participants in the Indian Lake Equipment Buy Down were type
2, with equal numbers (21 percent) of type 1 and 3.
Finally, since purchase of no-till technology was relatively more accelerated for type 1 than
type 2 and 3, the program's greatest value per dollar spent was on participants in group 1,
followed by group 2, and finally group 3.
Focus Groups "HELP WQ" (1995)
The participants were asked to comment on the "HELP Water Quality" resource manual, on how
water quality affected area businesses and how the watershed project can reach non-farm
audiences. The participants were pulled from many different sectors of the community. The
"HELP WQ" manuals were given to area businesses to answer customers questions about water
quality. The project expected the businesses would pass on this information to local residents
and visitors alike.
Results
The conclusions were participants noted the many changes taking place in the watershed. They
believed water quality benefits and affects everyone. Businesses wanted the project to
disseminate more information so they could in turn relate environmental information to their
clientele. The "HELP Water Quality" resources manual was determined to contain excellent
information and material but the distribution of the resource needed to be increased and cover
more sectors of the population. They agreed they would use the material if they had easy
access.
Interviews with CRP Contract Holders (1994)
Indian Lake Watershed Project is one of the leaders in acreage designated under the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP). Approximately 18 percent (8,100 acres) of the cropland acres are
enrolled in CRP. CRP was developed as a voluntary land retirement program by the 1985 Food
Security Act (the farm bill). By supplementing farmers' income the payments' objectives were
to improve the farmers' financial position, reducing total agricultural output and reduce soil
erosion by taking highly erodible land (HEL) and marginal tillage land out of production.
One third of the watershed CRP contract holders' contracts will expire between 1995 and 1998.
The project was concerned over what the contract holder's intentions were for the land once the
CRP payments stopped. In particular, returning the land to agricultural production was seen as
reversing gains made in watershed-wide erosion abatement.
Results
While post-CRP erosion is predicted to be less than half the pre-CRP rate, the erosion would be
more than the watershed average rate for all cropland, which is less than three tons/acre/year.
This indicates watershed-wide erosion levels for all cropland will increase. Consequently, the
magnitude of known social costs of soil erosion, measurable in sediment delivery to drainage
ditches, creek beds, and ultimately to Indian Lake will also increase when CRP contracts expire.
Pollutants transported with sediment and runoff, such as nutrients and pesticides, might increase
when CRP contracts expire, but the magnitude of these effects is not predicted in this study.
There is already considerable interest in using conservation tillage techniques on CRP land,
both with row cropping and hay production. There will likely be a demand for educational
programs specifically tailored to using conservation tillage methods on this highly erodible
land.
The results from this survey inspired the development of the Intensive Grazing Project as an
option for post-CRP contracted land.
Economic Simulation Analysis (1994)
For a typical Indian Lake Watershed crop farm, an economic comparison of possible production
practices can show the most productive use of cropping inputs. On a per-acre basis, a
corn-soybeans rotation with conventional tillage is the system with the highest return, at $140
per acre. A no-till system with corn, soybeans and wheat produced over a six-year rotation
will return about $101 per acre.
A whole-farm perspective tells a different story, however, accounting for the fixed costs of
machinery ownership, typical field time constraints, and proper machine sizing considerations.
If these are taken into account, profits are roughly equal between conventional and no-till
systems.
This comparison shows conservation tillage is economically optimal on typical Indian Lake
cropland, given choices over new equipment. This indicates conservation tillage shows real
long-run cost savings. However, the absolute cost savings of conservation tillage over
conventional regimes is slight, and perhaps insufficient to motivate farmers to change systems
in the short run. For instance, equipment replacement is not likely to take place until the
discounted value of expected net return begins to decline.
Results
Indian Lake Watershed programs such as the equipment buy-down, conservation tax incentive, and
resource management plans, have attempted to deal with the short-term needs by offering a
financial incentive to farmers.
Programs that provide a financial incentive to change agricultural practices have sped up the
adoption of conservation tillage. However, our education efforts have yielded substantial
return as well. Evidence shows only about half of the conservation tillage adoption in the
watershed can be directly attributed to financial incentives. The other half is theorized to
be the result of education, farmer-to-farmer contact, and a compelling economic logic favoring
some form of conservation systems, including conservation tillage.
Agricultural Producer Interviews (1993)
These interviews were a follow-up to the focus groups (1992) concerning participants and
non-participants of watershed programs. The survey was conducted to obtain information about
farmers in the watershed, and in particular, opinions of both users and non-users on the
programs provided by the Indian Lake Watershed Project. The survey contained 21 questions and
asked respondents their opinions about the watershed project in general, the programs they
attended, and their opinions regarding the impact these programs have had on their farm
operations. The survey was administered to 55 farmers who farmed acreage in the watershed.
Of the total farmers surveyed, 37 were users of the Indian Lake Watershed Project programs,
and 18 were non-users.
Results
The results from the Indian Lake Watershed farmer survey indicate there may be several
fundamental differences between farmers who use watershed project programs and those who do not.
Overall, the farmers as a group still consider economics to be the number one factor in adopting
new technology. However, among the users of watershed project programs, time savings is rapidly
becoming a major factor. There may be several reasons for this change, including: loss of family
labor, larger farming operation, off farm employment, or a combination of these.
Results also imply the non-users are more isolationists compared to the program users. The
users seem more willing to integrate public sentiment or environmental change into their
decision making process regarding farming operations. Based upon the results of this survey,
the non-users do not appear to consider the perceptions of the general public, and this feeling
seems to carry over into the issue of developing partnerships. The users feel more of a need
to form partnerships with groups outside of agriculture to ensure sound public policy. The
non-users tended to feel the traditional farm organizations are the most important.
Overall, the results of this survey indicate the Indian Lake Watershed Project team has made an
impact on those farmers who have participated in one or more of the project programs. The
target audience is made up of farmers with very diverse opinions and practices. If the
watershed project team is to connect with all farmers in this watershed, the team must approach
the farmers from many different directions.
Focus Groups (1992)
The farmer/landowner focus groups sought to identify the awareness level of watershed farmers
and landowners about the watershed project; why they did or did not participate in project
programs; reactions to working with government agencies; changes in attitudes, perceptions,
and/or aspirations in regards to the project and BMPS; and changes in farming practices. Data
gathered from three farmer/landowner focus groups indicated farmers who participated in
watershed project programs and adopted conservation practices were for primary economic reasons.
Focus group participants expressed a willingness to improve the environment, but this was
clearly a secondary priority.
Results
Several presentations and papers have been published on the results of the
participating/non-participating landowner focus groups and follow-up interviews. There were
numerous reasons given by both user and non-user groups for non-adoption of conservation
measures. These reasons can be grouped into three general categories; economic concerns,
technology, and lack of information and knowledge. Some farmers consider conservation tillage
a financial risk to their operation, especially when purchasing higher priced no-till planters
and drills. Several non-user group participants expressed misconceptions and incorrect
information concerning the watershed project programs and conservation practices. The user
groups were more knowledgeable about most types of conservation practices.
User group participants felt government agencies were inefficient, do not work well together
and should not be involved in water quality any more than now. However, they did concede working
with agencies through the watershed project has had a positive effect on their perceptions,
especially in regard to the state's water quality regulatory agency. The non-user group felt
government is blaming all Indian Lake pollution on farmers, and expressed a more intense
distrust toward government and government agencies. This may have caused some farmers to forgo
participation in soil conservation cost-share programs.
Agency Cooperation and Agency Resources Survey (1992)
The agency cooperation survey had two parts; (1) to define the level of cooperation and
interaction among the participating agencies, and (2) to determine the resources used by each
participant and compare to the 1991 Indian Lake HUA Unit Plan. The written survey was given to
team members and Joint Board of Supervisors.
Results
The results were never formulated or published. The results were determined not to be of any
benefit to the project's operation or future.
Lake User Survey (1992)
The purpose of the Lake User Survey was to document the perceptions, knowledge and attitudes of
the lake users and homeowners regarding Indian Lake Water Quality.
Results
Respondents had very little knowledge of any efforts to improve Indian Lake water quality. Of
the ongoing water quality efforts, respondents were substantially less familiar with the Indian
Lake Watershed Project than the four other activities listed in the survey.
Respondents saw farmers, because of erosion and the use of agricultural chemicals, as the lead
contributor to pollution problems at Indian Lake. Lake users saw themselves as the group next
most responsible for pollution.
Respondents thought taxing the groups responsible for the pollution was the most acceptable way
to increase revenue to cover the cost of cleaning up the lake. Respondents rated water quality
as a neutral factor in making decisions to visit Indian Lake. However, the survey found the
number of visits to the lake was positively correlated with perception of water quality.
Respondents indicated they would commit time and money to clean-up Indian Lake. Respondents
who perceived Indian Lake water quality was improving and who were familiar with existing water
quality efforts were the ones most likely to make a commitment of time and/or money.
Other Evaluation of Interest
In May 1992 at the Water Quality/Quality Disputes and Resolution Conference held in Washington
D.C., a presentation was given by Fred Hitzhusen, a Professor of Agricultural and Resource
Economics with The Ohio State University. The other writers/presenters included Robert
Macgregor, Somskaow Bejranonda and Timothy Tehman. The title of the research presentation was:
To Dredge or Not to Dredge: The Political Economy of Sedimentation in Ohio's State Park Lakes.
This report was a joint research effort to determine the effects of sedimentation issues facing
Ohio's State Park Lakes. The paper develops both a conceptual basis and an institutional
context for the dredging of Ohio State Park Lake sediments. The report analyzes the dredging
activities to explain the activity, determine the cost, lost boater values and recreational
impacts. A copy of this evaluation as well as the other evaluation efforts can be obtained by
contacting the watershed project office.
To Top
|
