Lake Champlain: Public Awareness, Opinions and Preferences - US EPA grant

Introduction

This project was funded by a grant from the Lake Champlain

Basin Program to Plattsburgh State University of New York, which

provided technical assistance to the Lake Champlain Basin Program

for the development and administration of a survey instrument.

The survey was administered by telephone to a total of 1003 New

York and Vermont residents between August 10 and August 23, 2001.

This report presents the results of this public opinion survey on

the specific topics identified by Basin staff. In addition, it

summarizes the details of a focus group interview that was

conducted in Quebec on September 26, 2001.

Acknowledgements

Lake Champlain Basin Program staff, advisory board members and

volunteers.

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

Office of Claude Bechand, Député de la circonscription fédérale

de Saint-Jean.

Wayne Glass, Bryan Higgins and Tim Mihuc from the State University of New York at Plattsburgh.

Technical data processing support from Michael Stephenson and Ethan Sullivan with Technical Assistance Center of the StateUniversity of New York.

Research Foundation of the State of New York.

Resolution Research and Marketing Inc.

i

Printed on 30% post-consumer fiber content paper.

ii

Table of Contents

Section Title Page

Introduction i

Acknowledgments i

Table of Contents ii

1. Water Quality in Lake Champlain

1

2. Concern with Select Lake Champlain Pollution

Issues 2

3. Recreational Use of Lake Champlain

6

4. Awareness of Lake Champlain Basin Program

Initiatives 8

5. Sources of Learning about Lake Champlain

11

6. Preferences for New Funding, if Available

12

7. Status of Select Environmental Conservation

Activities 17

8. Geodemographics 20

9. Survey Methodology

22

10. Focus Group

24

Attachments

A. Survey questions

iii

B. Tabulated open-ended comments

C. Map of “Don’t know” respondent spatial distribution

D. Data file (on disk)

iv

1. Water Quality in Lake Champlain

This report is based upon a random sample telephone survey of

residents of the Lake Champlain Basin. A detailed description of the

methodology is presented in chapter 9 of this report. In terms of

accuracy, the sample size of 1000 respondents allows for a 95 percent

certainty that the figures reported for the entire basin are within 3.1

percentage points (plus or minus) of what they would be if we had

interviewed all individuals in the targeted counties. The more specific

results for New York and Vermont, with 500 respondents each, allow for 95

percent certainty that these figures are within 5 percentage points (plus

or minus). Table 1 summarizes the responses to the question about the

water quality in Lake Champlain shown below. Given the large number of

respondents who answered "Don't know," even though a "Don't know" response

was not explicitly offered, this question indicates that a third of the

respondents are effectively "undecided" on this question. Since residents

of the Lake Champlain Basin may live up to fifty miles away from Lake

Champlain and many do not directly experience the Lake, this distance and

lack of direct contact may have influenced responses to this question. It

should be noted, though, that these "Don't know" responses are spatially

distributed throughout the entire Basin and include many respondents from

Lake Champlain shoreline towns. For example, 84% of the 346 respondents in

this "Don't know" category said they did not swim in Lake Champlain. As a

result, this undecided opinion about water quality is in fact the largest

category and appears to be a noteworthy issue of its own within the Lake

Champlain Basin. It is also noted that 221 or 64% of these "Don't know"

responses are females and 125 or 36% are males.

Nearly half (45%) of the New York residents said they "Don't know,"

compared to 24% for Vermont respondents. Vermont residents were slightly

more likely to either say Lake Champlain was "Getting worse" with 30%

compared to only 21% of New York respondents or "About the same" with 30%

compared to 20% for New York.

Table 1: In your opinion, compared with five years ago, is the quality of

1

the water in Lake Champlain getting better, about the same, or getting worse?

Total New York Vermont————— ———————————————————— ————————————————————

Base 1003 500 503

Getting better 154 73 81 15% 15% 16%

About the same 249 100 149 25% 20% 30%

Getting worse 254 104 150 25% 21% 30%

Don't know 346 223 123 34% 45% 24%

2. Concern with Select Lake Champlain Pollution Issues

The LCBP survey asked respondents to indicate which of five

particular issues concerned them very much, somewhat, not very much or not

at all. All of these issues registered substantial concern as more than

seventy five percent of the respondents said they were either "very much'

or "somewhat" concerned with each of these issues. Toxic discharges

clearly registered the most concern with 70% of the respondents saying they

were "very concerned" with this issue. Next, both nuisance species and

phosphorus from municipal sewage registered strong concern as shown in

table 2 below. Finally, phosphorus from agriculture and urban areas also

registered substantial concern, although significantly less intense, since

less than half of the respondents said they were "very much" concerned with

either of these. Table 2 shows the basinwide response to this group of

issues and then each of the five issues is considered independently in

sections A-E below.

Table 2: Concern with Select Lake Champlain Pollution Issues

Very Somewhat Not very Not at all

2

Don't knowToxic industrial discharges 70% 19% 6% 4% 1%Nuisance species 63% 25% 7% 3% 1%Phosphorus from municipal sewage 62% 23% 8% 4% 3%Phosphorus discharges from agriculture 46% 37% 10% 6% 1%Phosphorus from urban areas 40% 37% 16%5% 1%

A. Toxic industrial discharges

Toxic industrial discharges scored the highest concern with

respondents in the Lake Champlain Basin. In fact, 70% said they were "very

much" concerned. New York and Vermont respondents registered similar

concerns with this question. Table 3, below, summarizes the responses to

the question "Please tell me whether each of the current issues concerns

you very much, somewhat, not very much, or not at all".

Table 3: Toxic industrial discharges within the Lake Champlain watershed.


Base 1003 500 503

Very much 699 337 362 70% 67% 72%

Somewhat 191 99 92 19% 20% 18%

Not very much 61 33 28 6% 7% 6%

Not at all 39 23 16 4% 5% 3%

Don't Know 13 8 5 1% 2% 1%

B. Nuisance species

3

The second strongest concern was noted for nuisance species with 63%

saying "very much" and 88% either "very much" or "somewhat". New York and

Vermont respondents again registered similar levels of concern.

Table 4: Does the presence or spread of nuisance species such as sea lamprey, water chestnut, and zebra mussels in Lake Champlain concern you ...


Base 1003 500 503

Very much 635 307 328 63% 61% 65%

Somewhat 254 121 133 25% 24% 26%

Not very much 72 44 28 7% 9% 6%

Not at all 31 21 10 3% 4% 2%

Don't Know 11 7 4 1% 1% 1%

C. Phosphorus from municipal sewage

The next highest level of concern was registered for phosphorus from

municipal sewage treatment plants, with 62% "very much" concerned. New

York and Vermont respondents stated similar levels of concern on this

issue.

Table 5: Does Phosphorus from municipal sewage treatment plants concern you...


Base 1003 500 503

Very much 618 316 302 62% 63% 60%

Somewhat 232 110 122

4

23% 22% 24%

Not very much 77 37 40 8% 7% 8%

Not at all 44 24 20 4% 5% 4%

Don't Know 32 13 19 3% 3% 4%

D. Phosphorus discharges from agriculture

Phosphorus discharges from agriculture also registered

substantial concern, with 83% saying they were either "very much" or

"somewhat" concerned. The intensity of this concern was

considerably less though, as only 46%, or less than half, said they

were "very much" concerned, compared to 70% for toxic discharges.

New York and Vermont respondents were similar in their level of

concern.

Table 6: Phosphorus is a nutrient found in human and animal waste and in fertilizers. It helps plants to grow.

Do Phosphorus discharges from agriculture into Lake Champlain concern you...


Base 1003 500 503

Very much 463 237 226 46% 47% 45%

Somewhat 374 174 200 37% 35% 40%

Not very much 96 48 48 10% 10% 10%

Not at all 59 33 26 6% 7% 5%

Don't Know 11 8 3 1% 2% 1%

5

E. Phosphorus from urban areas

Phosphorus from urban areas also registered significant concern, with

77% of respondents saying they were either "very much" or "somewhat "

concerned. The intensity of this concern was more reduced though, with

only 40% saying they were "very much" concerned. New York and Vermont

responses were similar to this question.

6

Table 7: How about Phosphorus from urban areas including residential lawns and gardens. Do they concern you ...


Base 1003 500 503

Very much 399 190 209 40% 38% 42%

Somewhat 374 195 179 37% 39% 36%

Not very much 164 77 87 16% 15% 17%

Not at all 54 31 23 5% 6% 5%

Don't Know 12 7 5 1% 1% 1%

7

3. Recreational Use of Lake Champlain

Roughly half (52%) of the respondents either swam, fished, or boated

in Lake Champlain during the past year. Since the survey was designed to

sample public opinion throughout the entire Lake Champlain Basin, and not

only along the shoreline or in the Lake Champlain valley, a large number of

respondents did not use Lake Champlain for these particular recreation

activities. Participation rates for various recreational activity

combinations in this sample are shown in table 8.

Table 8: In the last year, did you or any of your family swim, fish orboat in Lake Champlain?

YesBoat 436

43%

Swim 40841%

Fish 32633%

Boat, Swim or Fish 52252%

Boat, and Swim 28529%

Boat and Fish 24024%

Swim and Fish 21221%

Boat, Swim and Fish 17317%

A. Boating in Lake Champlain

A total of 436 or 43% of the residents in the entire Basin went

boating during the last year. Half of the Vermonters went boating, while

only 37% of the New Yorkers did so.

8

Table 9: In the last year, did you or any of your family boat in Lake Champlain?


Base 1003 500 503

Yes 436 183 253 43% 37% 50%

No 566 316 250 56% 63% 50%

Don't Know 1 1 0 0% 0% 0%

B. Swimming in Lake Champlain

A total of 408 or 41% of the residents in the Lake Champlain Basin

went swimming in Lake Champlain during the past year. Almost half (48%) of

the Vermonters went swimming and only 34% of the New Yorkers did so.

Table 10: In the last year, did you or any of your family swim in Lake Champlain?


Base 1003 500 503

Yes 408 169 239 41% 34% 48%

No 595 331 264 59% 66% 52%

Don't Know 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%

C. Fishing in Lake Champlain

9

A total of 326 or 33% of the Basin respondents or any of their family

had gone fishing in Lake Champlain during the past year. New York and

Vermont responses were similar to this question.

Table 11: In the last year, did you or any of your family fish in Lake Champlain?


Base 1003 500 503

Yes 326 155 171 33% 31% 34%

No 676 344 332 67% 69% 66%

Don't Know 1 1 0 0% 0% 0%

10

4. Awareness of Lake Champlain Program Initiatives

A. Awareness of the Lake Champlain Basin Program

Overall, half of the respondents said they were aware of the Lake

Champlain Basin Program. More Vermonters (55%) said they were aware than

New Yorkers (44%).

Table 12: Are you aware of the federally funded project called Lake Champlain Basin Program, which was established in 1991?


Base 1003 500 503

Yes 494 219 275 49% 44% 55%

No 509 281 228 51% 56% 45%

Don't Know 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%

B. Awareness of Champlain 2000

Approximately one third (31%) of the respondents said they had ever

seen Champlain 2000. A total of 37% of the New York respondents recalled

seeing the program versus 26% in Vermont. Since the undecided segment with

water quality (Table 1) may be pivotal in the future, it is noted that only

22% of these undecided respondents had ever seen Champlain 2000.

Table 13: Have you ever seen the TV news series entitled, "Champlain 2000"that has aired on WPTZ Channel 5 on Mondays during the 6 PM newscast?(for the past two years)


Base 1003 500 503

Yes 313 183 130 31% 37% 26%

11

No 686 315 371 68% 63% 74%

Don't Know 4 2 2 0% 0%

0%

C. Awareness of the phosphorus reduction plan

Overall, less than half of the respondents in the Lake Champlain

Basin were aware of the phosphorus reduction plan. In New York this

awareness was substantially lower with 178 or 36% aware of the plan

compared to 253 or 50% in Vermont. Interestingly, 75% of the respondents

who said, "Don't know" to question 1, about the water quality in Lake

Champlain, said they were aware of the plan; which is much higher than the

43% overall with this question. This undecided segment with water quality

was also more aware of the Lake Champlain Basin Program with 237

respondents or 68% saying "Yes' to the question in table 12, compared to

49% overall.

Table 14: Are you aware that there is a 20 year plan, approved by the States of New York and Vermont and the federal government, to reduce phosphorus from many sources in Lake Champlain?


Base 1003 500 503

Yes 431 178 253 43% 36% 50%

No 572 322 250 57% 64% 50%

Don't Know 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%

D. Opinion on the timing of the phosphorus reduction plan

It should be noted that a large number (263 or 26%) of the

respondents said they "Don't know" on this question, even though this was

not offered as an explicit option. The largest number of respondents (392

or 39%) selected the "About right" alternative to this question. Thus, the

12

combination of the large undecided segment (26%) and "About right" (39%),

means that a minority of respondents (348 or 35%) thought the schedule

should be changed. Only 221 or 22% said the scheduled plan for phosphorus

reduction was too long. New York respondents leaned slightly more toward

"Too long" with 127 or 25% compared to 94 or 19% for Vermonters. In turn,

Vermonters leaned slightly more toward "Too short." Finally, the "Don't

know" category was greater than either of the change categories.

Table 15: We are now in the 5th year of the 20 year schedule for reducing the amount of phosphorus in Lake Champlain. In your opinion, isthe current amount of time for reducing phosphorus too short, about right, or too long?


Base 1003 500 503

Too short 127 47 80 13% 9% 16%

About right 392 187 205 39% 37% 41%

Too long 221 127 94 22% 25% 19%

Don't know 263 139 124 26% 28% 25%

E. Opinion of laws and regulations related to the lake and lakeshore environment

A substantial number of respondents (155 or 15%) said "Don't know" to

this question as an unsolicited response. The greatest number of

respondents (420 or 42%) think that laws and regulations have not gone far

enough and nearly the same number (386 or 38%) think the balance has been

about right. Very few respondents (42 or 4%) think the laws and

regulations have gone too far. New Yorkers were slightly more likely to

say they "Don't know" and Vermonters to say things were "About right."

Table 16: Overall, in thinking about Lake Champlain at the present time, do you think laws and regulations related to the lake and lakeshore environment have ...

13


Base 1003 500 503

Gone too far 42 24 18 4% 5% 4%

Struck about the right 386 171 215 balance, or 38% 34% 43%

Not gone far enough 420 209 211 42% 42% 42%

Don't Know 155 96 59 15% 19% 12%

14

5. Sources of Learning About Lake Champlain

Table 17 indicates how many Vermonters learned about Lake Champlain

through a variety of communication mediums and Table 18 shows New York

responses. Slightly more Vermonters site cite television (73% vs 63%),

newspapers (82% vs 66%), and environmental or community groups (31% vs 20%)

for learning about Lake Champlain.

Table 17: Now, I'd like to know how you've learned about Lake Champlain issues within the past 12 months. In the past year, have you learned about Lake Champlain issues from any of the following sources .... please answer yes or no.

VERMONT RESPONDENTS————————————————————

Yes No Don't Know—————— —————— ——————

Television 365 138 0 73% 27% 0%

Newspaper 411 90 2 82% 18% 0%

Email / Internet 32 471 0 6% 94% 0%

Environmental or community158 345 0 groups 31% 69% 0%

Something else 124 379 0 25% 75% 0%

Table 18: Now, I'd like to know how you've learned about Lake Champlain issues within the past 12 months. In the past year, have you learned about Lake Champlain issues from any of the following sources .... please answer yes or no.

NEW YORK RESPONDENTS————————————————————

Yes No Don't Know—————— —————— ——————

Television 317 183 0 63% 37% 0%

Newspaper 328 172 0

15

66% 34% 0%

Email / Internet 32 468 0 6% 94% 0%

Environmental or community102 398 0 groups 20% 80% 0%

Something else 97 403 0 19% 81% 0%

6. Preferences for New Funding, if Available

Overall, the greatest number of respondents cited support for

scientific research as shown in Table 19 below. A similar and slightly

lower number cited increasing funding for cleaning up Lake Champlain and

reducing phosphorus. A majority also supported cultural heritage and

recreation, although the number citing "strong support" for these

alternatives was substantially less. The responses in Vermont and New York

were similar to all five of these alternatives. Table 19 shows the

basinwide response to this group of alternatives and then each of the five

options is considered independently in sections A-E below.

Table 19. Summary of Funding Preferences

Level of support Strong Moderate TotalA. Funding scientific research 63% 31% 94%B. Increasing funding for cleaning up Lake Champlain 58% 30% 88%C. Reducing phosphorus 53% 35% 88%D. Developing or improving cultural heritage projects or programs 43%

41% 84%E. Increasing or improving recreational access 38% 39% 77%

A. Funding scientific research

16

This option registered the strongest overall support for future

funding (94%) and almost no opposition. However, not all segments of this

survey viewed this option similarly. For example, 71% of those who swam in

Lake Champlain strongly supported this option. Interestingly, a slightly

smaller percentage (58%) of the undecided segment with water quality in

Lake Champlain, shown in table 1, said they strongly supported this option.

The level of support for this item was the same in New York and Vermont,

although New Yorkers registered slightly more "strong" support for this

option.

Table 20: Scientific research to find better ways to manage the water quality and natural resources of Lake Champlain.


Base 1003 500 503

Strongly support 627 319 308 63% 64% 61%

Moderately support 307 146 161 31% 29% 32%

Neutral or undecided 38 20 18 4% 4% 4%

Moderately oppose 15 7 8 1% 1% 2%

Strongly oppose 8 4 4 1% 1% 1%

Don't Know 8 4 4 1% 1% 1%

B. Increasing funding for cleaning up Lake Champlain

This funding option was also strongly supported (88%), although at a

slightly lower intensity than scientific research. Again, not all segments

viewed this option the same. For example, 71% of those who swam and 67% of

those who boated or fished on Lake Champlain strongly supported this issue,

which is significantly higher than the basinwide average. Interestingly,

only 44% of the undecided segment with water quality in Table 1 said they

17

strongly supported this item. Although the levels of support were similar

in New York and Vermont, Vermonters registered slightly more "strong"

support for this item.

Table 21: Increasing public funding for cleaning up Lake Champlain.


Base 1003 500 503






Don't Know 10 3 7 1% 1% 1%

C. Reducing phosphorus discharges

Reducing phosphorus was also strongly supported (88%) but scored in

the middle of these five funding alternatives with slightly less "strong"

support than cleaning up Lake Champlain or funding scientific research.

New York and Vermont responses were similar for this question. Examining

the responses of different survey segments to this question indicates that

respondents who swim, fish or boat in Lake Champlain supported this option

slightly more than those who do not, as shown below in tables 22A, 22B, and

22C. A crosstabulation of the question on water quality in Lake Champlain

(Table 1) with this phosphorus question shows that respondents who were

undecided about water quality supported this item but, at the lowest

intensity (45%) as shown in table 22D. When interpreting these and other

crosstabulation tables it should be noted that since two separate questions

18

are involved, and each is accurate to plus of minus 3%, that the

individual question variance becomes amplified in these crosstabulation

tables to plus or minus 6.2% at the 95% confidence level.

Table 22: If new funding becomes available for improving Lake Champlain and its watershed, please state your preferences for the following alternatives...

Reduce phosphorous discharges into Lake Champlain


Base 1003 500 503






Don't Know 12 5 7 1% 1% 1%

Table 22A: Crosstabulation of : Do you swim in Lake Champlain (Table 10) with Your opinion of reducing phosphorus discharges (Table 22)

Swim Do not Swim Strongly support 239 291 58% 48%

Moderately support 138 214 34% 36%

Table 22B: Crosstabulation of : Do you fish in Lake Champlain (Table 10) with Your opinion of reducing phosphorus discharges (Table 22)

19

Fish Do not Fish Strongly support 185 345 57% 51%


Table 22C: Crosstabulation of : Do you boat in Lake Champlain (Table 10) with Your opinion of reducing phosphorus discharges (Table 22)

Boat Do not Boat Strongly support 255 275 58% 49%


Table 22D: Crosstabulation of : Your opinion of water quality in Lake Champlain (Table 1) with Your opinion of reducing phosphorus discharges (Table 22)

Strongly Support Moderately SupportGetting Better 82 57

53% 37%

About the Same 121 98 48% 39%

Getting Worse 173 63 68% 24%

Don't Know 154 134 45% 39%

D. Improving cultural heritage projects and programs

20

Improving cultural heritage projects and programs was strongly

supported (84%), although the intensity of "strong" support was

substantially less than for the top three funding alternatives. It is also

noted that the three different kinds of recreational users did not rate

this question in a significantly different manner as their opinions were

less than 6 percentage points apart from the basinwide responses shown

below. New Yorkers were slightly more likely to be in favor of this

alternative than Vermonters.

Table 23: Developing or improving of cultural heritage projects and programs (i.e. historical or preservation of cultural sites), related to Lake Champlain.


Base 1003 500 503






Don't Know 13 3 10 1% 1% 2%

21

E. Increasing or improving recreational access

Increasing or improving recreational access of Lake Champlain was

strongly supported (77%), although both overall support and the intensity

of "strong" support was considerably less than for the other options. This

alternative also registered the highest opposition, although only 8% said

they opposed it either strongly or moderately. It is also noted that the

three different kinds of recreational users did not rate this question in a

significantly different manner as their opinions were less than 6

percentage points apart from the basinwide responses shown below. This

lack of stronger support by recreationists is interesting, since this

funding option directly effects such users. New Yorkers were slightly more

likely to support this option and Vermonters to oppose it.

Table 24: Increasing or improving recreational access of Lake Champlain.


Base 1003 500 503






Don't Know 15 7 8 1% 1%

2%

22

7. Status of Select Environmental Conservation Activities

Substantial use and interest was identified with a number of

environmental conservation activities that relate to Lake Champlain. More

than half of all the respondents said they had either taken these actions

or may consider them in the future. When you also consider those who said

they "Don't know, " significant potential appears for increasing all of

these activities. Reducing the use of pesticides or toxic cleaners

elicited the greatest positive response in both New York and Vermont.

Reducing fertilizer use also registered substantial interest, although

significantly fewer people said they have already done so. Switching to

phosphate free dishwasher detergent has only been done by 28% of the

respondents but more people stated an interest in considering this

alternative (44%) than any other. Very few people have tested their soil

to see if fertilizer is needed but, a significant number (38%) may consider

such action or "Don't know" (25%). Table 25 shows the basinwide response to

this group of activities and then each of the five activities is considered

independently in sections A-D below.

Table 25: Status and opinion of select environmental conservation activities

Have done May consider Never Don't knowA. Reduce use of pesticides or toxic cleaners 50% 35% 7% 7%B. Reduce fertilizer use 35% 25% 10% 30%C. Switch to phosphate free dishwasher detergent 28% 44% 7% 22%D. Testing soil to see if fertilizer needed 18% 38% 19% 25%

A. Reduce your use of pesticides or toxic household cleaners.

Reducing the use of pesticides or toxic household cleaners was the

activity that the greatest number of respondents said they had already done

(50%). It also registered strong potential interest (35%). A slightly

higher percentage of Vermonters (53%) said they had already done this and

23

slightly more New Yorkers (44%) would either consider this activity or

"Don't know".

Table 26: Reduce your use of pesticides or toxic household cleaners.


Base 1003 500 503

Have already done this 503 235 268 50% 47% 53%

May consider doing this in the 356 181 175future 35% 36% 35%

Would never consider doing 72 42 30 this 7% 8% 6%

Don't Know 72 42 30 7% 8% 6%

24

B. Reduce fertilizer use at home

Reducing fertilizer use also scored positively, although

substantially fewer (35%) respondents have already done this, compared to

reducing the use of pesticides and toxic cleaners. Significantly fewer

(25%) respondents said they may consider this option as well. The highest

number of respondents (30%) said they "Don't know" about this option.

Although this segment would likely be more difficult to engage than the

"may consider," segment, it also presents a substantial opportunity for

future programs. Slightly more Vermonters (38%) said they had already done

this and slightly more New Yorkers (57%) would either consider this

activity or did not know.

Table 27: I am going to read a short list of individual activities that could help improve the Lake Champlain watershed. For each action, please tell me if you or others in your household have already done this, may consider it in the future, would never consider such an action or it is not applicable.

Reduce use of fertilizer at home.


Base 1003 500 503



Would never consider doing103 55 48 this 10% 11% 10%

Don't Know 304 157 147 30% 31% 29%

C. Switch to phosphate free automatic dishwasher detergent

Although only 28% of the respondents said they had already switched

to phosphate free automatic dishwasher detergent, a very large number (44%)

said they may consider doing this in the future, in fact the most for any

of these four options. Furthermore, the combination of 44% who may

25

consider doing this and 22% who said they "Don't know," presents the

largest composite group (66%) with potential interest. New York and

Vermont responses were similar to this question.

26

Table 28: Switch to phosphate free automatic dishwasher detergent.


Base 1003 500 503



Would never consider doing 68 26 42 this 7% 5% 8%

Don't Know 217 121 96 22% 24% 19%

D. Soil testing to see if fertilizer was needed

Fewer respondents said they had already done this activity than with

any of the other four options. It should be noted though that the survey

did not ask if respondents had applied fertilizer, so it is not possible to

consider this aspect. As with the previous question, a very substantial

number (63%) either said they may consider this in the future or did not

know. It should also be noted that a significant number (19%) said they

would never consider doing this, which was highest number of any of these

four options. New York and Vermont responses were similar to this

question.

Table 29: Had your soil tested to see if fertilizer was needed.


Base 1003 500 503



Would never consider doing187 102 85 this 19% 20% 17%

27

Don't Know 255 120 135 25% 24% 27%

28

8. Geodemographics

A. Sex

The LCBP survey is similar in the proportion of females and males as

indicated by the 1990 Census figures for these counties. The LCBP survey

had 55.5% female respondents and 44.5% male and the 1990 Census indicated

50.5% female and 49.5% male.

B. Age

The LCBP survey is similar in the proportion of different age groups

represented as indicated by the 1990 Census figures for these counties.

The LCBP survey had 8% between the ages of 18-24, 34% between 25-45, 39%

between 45-64, and 19% 65 years old or older. This compares to 13% between

the ages of 18-24, 39% 25-45, 31% between 45-64, and 16% 65 years old or

older as shown in the 1990 Census.

C. Education

The LCBP survey is similar in regard to education levels as indicated

by the 2000 Census. The LCBP survey had 7% without a high school degree,

33% high school graduate, 21% some college, 38% college graduate and 0.2%

don't know. Unfortunately, the Census 2000 information currently available

does not correspond to these same categories. Comparison of figures from

similar categories in the 1990 Census indicates the distribution is similar

for these educational categories.

D. Spatial distribution

The LCBP survey has a spatial distribution of respondents shown in Map 1 below.

29

30

9. Survey Methodology

The State University of New York at Plattsburgh provided technical

assistance to the Lake Champlain Basin Program as they developed the Lake

Champlain survey instrument and protocol. The administration and coding of

the survey was handled by Resolution Research and Marketing Incorporated

(RRMI). The sample file of eight thousand potential respondents represent

random digit numbers with prefixes found in the following counties of the

Lake Champlain Basin: Clinton, NY; Essex, NY; Franklin, NY; Warren, NY;

Washington, NY; Addison, VT; Chittenden, VT; Franklin, VT; Grand Isle, VT;

Lamoille, VT; Rutland, VT; Washington, VT. The total number of telephone

numbers selected from each county was proportional to the relative size of

the county within the Lake Champlain Basin as identified by US Census

population figures in 2000. Although a small portion of Bennington,

Caledonia, Orage, Orleans and Windsor counties in Vermont are within the

Lake Champlain Basin, they were not sampled because the population of each

of these counties that lies within the Lake Champlain Basin is less than

10,000 according to the US Census 2000.

The sample file was selected from a June 2001 listing of telephone

numbers. A total of 25% of the telephone numbers from each county were

random telephone numbers plus one. That is, one digit was added to the

random number selected, in order to connect with unlisted and new telephone

numbers. Within each household the survey protocol targeted the first

person over 18 years of age who could be contacted. Telephone methodology

was selected due to its high level of efficiency, accuracy and speed for

this type of study.

RRMI researchers conducted the interviews between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m.

EST from August 10, 2001 to August 23, 2001 via Computer Assisted Telephone

Interviewing (CATI) workstations. While the survey was being conducted,

each response was individually and instantaneously recorded into the

database. At the same time, RRMI project managers monitored a minimum of

10% of all surveys. Additionally, a minimum of 10% of all surveys were

verified by managerial callbacks. Table 30 shows the disposition of all

31

the telephone calls for this survey. As a result, 1003 interviews were

completed out of 1794 connections for a response rate of 56%.

Table 30. Disposition of callsCompleted 1003Schedule Callback 7 No answer-busy 4983Respondent refused 760Disconnected-Wrong number 528Interview terminated 31

The findings can be regarded with considerable confidence since the

sample size of 1000 respondents allows at least a 95 percent certainty that

the figures reported are within 3.1 percentage points (plus or minus) of

what they would be if we had interviewed all individuals in the targeted

counties. Expressing it another way, if we repeated the study 20 times,

the results would come out within 3.1 percentage points (plus or minus) of

the figures reported here in 19 of those 20 studies. In short, one can

treat these findings as quite reliable. However, it should be noted that a

number of questions include a substantial number of respondents who replied

"Don't know," even though this response was never explicitly offered in

this survey. With such questions, the uncertainty of the distribution of

responses between the given items effectively increases directly in

proportion to the number of such "Don't know" responses.

Even if one looks at the regional samples individually (500

respondents in Vermont, 500 respondents in NY), the findings allow a 95

percent certainty that the figures are within a maximum of five percentage

points (plus or minus) of what they would have been if we had interviewed

all individuals in the targeted counties of Vermont as well as New York.

Additional studies would show the same patterns of data reported herein.

Again, in questions where "Don't know" responses are noted, these increase

the uncertainty for the given responses in the same manner described above.

32

10. Focus Group

A focus group was convened on September 26, 2001 in St. Jean

sur Richelieu, Quebec with assistance from the office of Claude

Bachand, Député de la circonscription fédérale de Saint-Jean, which

was instrumental in securing the participants. Present were:

Joan Gosselin, Staff from Claude Bachand's OfficeMr. Bachand is the deputy minister in the region. He was not ableto attend, but sent Ms. Gosselin.

Caroline Rousseau, Directrice générale, Les Amis du Canal de ChamblyMs. Rousseau represented the interests of PARC Canada, which was not able to send a representative, as well as the agency responsible for the Chambly Canal, connecting the Champlain systemwith the St. Lawrence.

Lise Berry, Maire, Municipalité de Venise-en-QuebecMs. Berry is the Mayor of a municipality on the shores of Lake Champlain in Quebec and which depends on the Lake for tourism and recreation.

Kathleen Berry, citizen, Municipalité de Venise-en-QuebecMs Berry is a lifetime resident of Venise-en-Quebec and very familiar with the changes in the Lake and water quality. She willalso be coordinating the environmental activities planned as part of the 4th Triangle of Excellence Symposium.

Michelle Durand, présidente, Centre d'interprétation du milieu écologique du Haut-Richelieu (CIME)

Ms. Durand and her associate, Ms. Gagnon represent a not-for-profit organization charged with education and programs related tothe environment and ecology of the upper Richelieu River. Her organization has been working with Vermont on cleanup of areas of Quebec threatening Vermont with water chestnut and other nuisance species.

Reneé Gagnon, Centre d'interprétation du milieu écologique du Haut-Richelieu

Cmd. Yves M. Lymburner, P, Commandant d' escadrille, Escadrille FortSaint-Jean

33

Messrs. Lymburner and Hodgson represent a large organization of both sailing and power boating enthusiasts.

.Raymond Hodgson, président, Festival nautique du Haut-Richelieu and

Officer à la formation et Capitaine de port, Escadrille Fort Saint-Jean

Gilles Bérube, le Canada FrancaisMr. Bérube is a reporter for the newspaper le Canada Francais and reports on environmental issues. He provided input to the focus group process as well.

The representation of the focus group was very beneficial, as

those present were very familiar with the historical setting of Lake

cleanup efforts, as well as the Basin Program and other initiatives.

Although some of the individuals lived outside of the basin itself,

their organizations were involved and the staff knowledgeable on

Lake Champlain water quality and other issues. The group was

provided a very brief introduction to the purpose of the meeting and

the LCBP study, as well as a short history of the Basin Program.

The focus group discussion interview utilized a four stage

interview strategy. First, all participants were asked to identify

what they thought were currently the one or two most important

environmental issues in the Lake Champlain/Richelieu region.

Second, all the key topics covered with "Plans for Action" in the

LCBP Pollution Prevention, Control and Restoration Plan were presented. The

participants were asked to comment on these and their relevance in

the Quebec portion of the Lake Champlain Basin. Third, the issue of

trans-border planning for the Lake Champlain Basin was discussed

including local watershed planning as well as educating and

involving the public. Finally, a closing period was used to

summarize any comments not otherwise discussed.

34

The comments are summarized for each discussion area.

Individual comments are not identified to preserve the

confidentiality of the participants.

The initial open-ended question about key environmental issues

revealed several key topics that were prevalent in subsequent

discussions. The infiltration of the region by the non-native water

chestnut was identified as a key concern. The plant has choked

several areas in the Richelieu valley of Quebec and has recently

been found in the Pike River watershed of the Missisquoi Bay region

in Quebec. This nuisance aquatic plant has been the subject of

removal efforts by CIME, Vermont environmental agencies, and other

organizations. Water quality, as it relates specifically to tourism

and recreation was another key concern. The perception of the group

was that the quality of the Lake has declined over the last few

decades, to the detriment of those communities that depend on the

Lake for tourism. Algae and pollution were cited as the primary

causes of this degradation. Zebra mussels were also identified as

key concern, especially among boaters.

From your perspective, in Southern Quebec, what are the most important environmental issue(s), not necessarily in regards to LakeChamplain?

Water quality was the major topic of discussion for this

topic. The general consensus was that water quality of the Lake has

degraded over the past few decades and that this has impacted

recreation, fishing, tourism and health. Specific examples of water

quality issues of concern are non-native nuisance species,

agricultural runoff and algae. One unique aspect of the algae

problem was identified in that the algae weakens winter ice, so that

winter skating and other ice-related recreation is adversely

35

affected. The beach at Venise-en-Quebec was closed this year for

the first time in thirty years, due to a blue-green algae bloom.

A second unique perspective was that the shoreline of the Lake

is one of the Basin's greatest assets and that this needed to be

preserved against development. Both the beauty of the shore and its

role in protecting against sediment and fertilizer runoff was

important.

The group agreed that improvements were being made by not-for-

profit, citizen and government efforts, but that these were not

solving problems expeditiously.

Nutrients and non-point source pollution?

The consensus was that the government (of Quebec) was not

doing enough, due in part to a strong lobby on the part of the

agriculture industry. Of particular concern were large corporate

farms. While the group knew of some changes in agriculture (i.e.,

fertilizing techniques), these were not seen as sufficient to reduce

the pollution caused by large operations. Awareness and education

was felt to be needed, in addition to stronger regulations.

In addition, pollution from 2-cycle outboard motors was

identified as a problem in and around marinas and for the Lake in

general. It was suggested that an incentive was needed to encourage

boaters to retire these engines, which have a long useful life.

What is the extent of the problem between agriculture and residential use of fertilizers and pesticides - is there any perceived difference in importance?

There is some education currently available in Quebec for

homeowners, through a Quebec equivalent to the LCBP. Residential

use of chemicals is known to cause problems but is not currently

perceived as so important a source as agriculture.

36

Toxic pollution and human health issues?

There was an expressed concern about the lack of information

regarding companies, past and present that might be causing

pollution to the Lake and Basin, both in the U.S. and Canada. The

group realized that pollution might be occurring, but lacked

information to make informed decisions. It was also noted that

serious sources of toxic pollution have been found along the lower

Richelieu River and St. Lawrence River.

Fish & wildlife and wetlands preservation?

Endangered species was a concern, specifically the spiny soft-

wheeled turtle and the problems associated with human presence that

has led to changes in the turtle's habitat. It was suggested that

there should be some effort to return Lake circulation to nearer its

natural flow to better control sedimentation and pollution.

Specifically, the bridge and causeway at the mouth of the Missisquoi

Bay was mentioned. The group was curious as to what plans were in

place to address the issue of water circulation and restoring the

natural flows of Lake Champlain.

To what extent do those who fish have concern for the protection of particular species?

The group knew of no particular concerns in this area.

Non-native and nuisance species?

Discussion centered on the potential of the Chambly Canal as a

route for the entrance of non-native species to the Basin. No

specific mitigation plans were noted for the Chambly Canal. The

37

need to address the broader context of large ocean-going- ships was

mentioned.

Recreation and cultural heritage?

There is a great deal of interest in Quebec for the Richelieu

River and Lake Champlain for both historical and cultural reasons,

as well as recreational. The upcoming region-wide festival centered

on the anniversary of Champlain's discovery of the region was cited

as an example of inter-agency cooperation.

Boaters have concerns about the development along the

shoreline and the effect of restricting access to the water. While

they viewed public access to Lake Champlain in New York and Vermont

as adequate, they felt that such access points were not well

publicized.

To what extent are you aware of or involved in trans-border planning? Specifically, how familiar are you with the LCBP? Have you ever participated in an LCBP meeting?

No one in the group had ever attended a Lake Champlain Basin

Program meeting. About half were familiar with the Basin Program.

The Triangle of Excellence Symposium was mentioned as one

productive cross-border initiative. CIME is working with Vermont

environmental offices on water chestnut removal efforts and is an

excellent example of local watershed planning.

Any final comments?

Concern was expressed at the increases in shipping through the

ports of Montreal and New York City and the effect that could have

on increasing non-native infiltration. Also concerns about the

proliferation of cormorants and the destructive effect they have on

the natural environment and, potentially, fishing. It was noted

38

that cross-border cooperation appears to be easier when the effort

is focused on a particular project, rather than a more global issue

like environmental improvement.

There was also concern that boaters coming from Canada into

the U.S. have to pay a fee to a private marina owner in order to

stop and report to the U.S. Customs office. This was seen as

contradictory to promoting aquatic tourism and recreation, when

people who drive into the U.S. do not pay any fee.

Concern was expressed at the U.S.'s willingness to use

lampricides in the Lake Champlain Basin to control the sea lamprey.

The question was raised as to whether the U.S. had a phosphate

agreement with Canada, similar to the one between New York and

Vermont. The group felt that such an agreement did exist.

39

Lake Champlain: Public Awareness, Opinions and Preferences - US EPA grant

Documents