Indiana Conservation Partnership
2014 Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report
May 20, 2015
The Partnership is comprised of eight Indiana agencies and organizations who share a common goal of promoting conservation. To that end, the mission of the Indiana Conservation Partnership is to provide technical, financial and educational assistance needed to implement economically and environmentally compatible land and water stewardship decisions, practices and technologies.
For more information, contact the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. [email protected]
317.232.8770
Table of Contents
Indiana Conservation Partnership ....................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Annual Workload Accountability Data Flow ........................................................................................ 5
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments Map .................................................................................... 6
County Breakdown of Conservation Practices by Program ................................................................... 7
Initiatives and Program Descriptions .................................................................................................. 9
Indiana Conservation Partnership Websites ...................................................................................... 12
2014 Sediment Load Reduction Map ................................................................................................ 13
2014 Nitrogen Load Reduction Map .................................................................................................. 14
2014 Phosphorus Load Reduction Map ............................................................................................. 15
2013-14 Cumulative Sediment Load Reduction Map and Data ........................................................... 16-17
2013-14 Cumulative Nitrogen Load Reduction Map and Data ............................................................ 18-19
2013-14 Cumulative Phosphorus Load Reduction Map and Data ....................................................... 20-21
Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Infographic ......................................................................... 22
This document along with information about Indiana’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy can be found online at http://www.in.gov/isda/2991.htm.
Indiana Conservation Partnership:
Indiana Conservation Partnership - http:/icp.iaswcd.org/
Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and our 92 SWCDs - http://iaswcd.org/
Indiana Department of Environmental Management - http://www.in.gov/idem/
Indiana Department of Natural Resources - http://www.in.gov/dnr/
ISDA Division of Soil Conservation - http://www.in.gov/isda/2342.htm
Purdue Cooperative Extension Service - https://www.extension.purdue.edu
State Soil Conservation Board - http://www.in.gov/isda/2361.htm
USDA Farm Service Agency - http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/stateoffapp?mystate=in&area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service - http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/in/home/
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 1
Introduction: The Indiana Conservation Partnership is comprised of eight Indiana agencies and organizations who share a common goal of promoting conservation. To that end, the mission of the Indiana Conservation Partnership is to provide technical, financial and educational assistance needed to implement economically and environmentally compatible land and water stewardship decisions, practices and technologies. In 2013, members of the Indiana Conservation Partnership (ICP) began using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Region 5 Nutrient Load Reduction Model to determine the impact of installed conservation practices implemented by the ICP Conservation Implementation Teams on Indiana's water quality. The ICP adopted the Region 5 Nutrient Load Reduction Model to analyze conservation practices funded by state programs such as the Indiana State Department of Agriculture's Clean Water Indiana Program and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources' Lake and River Enhancement Program, as well as federally funded programs including EPA's Section-319 Program and USDA’s Farm Bill Programs. A federal furlough and the late passage of the 2014 Farm Bill resulted in a decrease in installed practices for calendar year 2014. Enrollments for many of the Farm Bill programs including CRP and EQIP were delayed resulting in a shorter window for planning, surveying and construction of conservation practices to occur. Even with the long delay, the ICP Conservation Delivery Teams installed 21,012 conservation practices. A total of 11,365 of those practices could be analyzed using the Region 5 Nutrient Load Reduction Model, which estimated annual reductions of sediment, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus tied to sediment erosion (pages 12-14). These reductions continue for the life of the practices modeled (e.g., grassed waterways are designed to be 10-year practices, while cover crops are 1-year practices, established annually). Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model. The remaining ICP practices were not modeled because they were not associated with sediment loss, or were not covered by the EPA Region 5 Model. This effort represents ICP-assisted conservation in Indiana. Data does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance. New in 2014, are the introduction of cumulative nutrient load reduction analyses based upon 2013 and 2014 sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus load reductions per HUC 8 watersheds (pages 15-17). The analysis encompassed a breakdown of 2013 and 2014 conservation practices by lifespan including 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 40 years (according to USDA-NRCS Field Office Technical Guide). For example, grassed waterways are designed to be 10-year practices, while cover crops are 1-year practices, established annually. The maps reflect all of the practices, minus the 2013 practices with a lifespan of one year (10,533), totaling 15,042 practices. Indiana is the only state in the country to adopt a model among so many partners to estimate conservation impact on a statewide scale. As part of Indiana’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, this modeling effort illustrates the continued success and challenges of conservation and serves as a tool to help set watershed priority and reduction targets, manage conservation resources, and to further stakeholder involvement at all levels of government within and across Indiana.
2013 and 2014 Conservation Accomplishments Comparison
Practices Installed
Region 5 Model Analyses
Sediment (tons/year)
Phosphorus (lbs./year)
Nitrogen (lbs./year)
CY2013 30,502 15,332 1,661,636 1,469,926 2,780,790
CY2014 21,012 11,365 996,762 1,137,921 2,120.554 Four practices which were analyzed in 2013 including brush management, drainage water management, sand filters and waste treatment were no longer analyzed in 2014. In an effort to keep data consistent, these practices were not included in the 2013-14 cumulative analysis. The Region 5 Model captures nutrient load reductions tied to sediment, and these specific practices do not fit this criterion.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 2
Methodology:
The Indiana State Department of Agriculture’s (ISDA) use of the EPA Region 5 load reduction model to estimate Nutrient and Sediment load reductions in Indiana is part of a collective effort by the Indiana Conservation Partnership (ICP) http://icp.iaswcd.org/ to generate a comprehensive statewide picture of voluntary conservation impact across the state. Cooperation in this effort by local, state and federal partners in the ICP allows for conservation tracking and load reduction estimation at an order of magnitude greater than any single agency or entity could achieve alone. The ICP utilizes the end products of this process to establish baselines and measure load reduction trends by watershed for each calendar year, allowing for prioritization of workload and staffing needs, all while serving as a tangible component of the Indiana Nutrient Reduction Strategy.
The collection of practice data for the model is the first step in this effort. Several members of the ICP participate on this front end, which makes the Division of Soil Conservation’s (hereafter referred to as the Division) use of the model and subsequent mapping possible. Practice information from several sources is consolidated by our Accountability and Technology Program Manager and then run through the model by Division field staff1. These data include Clean Water Indiana and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program conservation tracking data in Microsoft SharePoint (ISDA, Soil and Water Conservation Districts), practice data from Farm Bill programs (NRCS/FSA), practice data from EPA-319 funded projects (IDEM) and practice data from the Lake and River Enhancement program (IDNR).2 It should be noted that data not related to the Region 5 model is also consolidated in this way, though it is instead published in reports online.3 These include tillage transect data and ICP financial reports. For utilizing the Region 5 model, practice data from ICP partners is collated into an Annual ICP Conservation Accomplishments datasheet, which included Best Management Practice (BMP) types, practice locations, measurements and other necessary attributes to enter into the Region 5 model. Practice data are then divided up by county and assigned to Division staff (4-6 assigned counties each).4 By distributing workload on a county basis, practice data can be run through the model by Division staff on a manageable timeline. All practices within a given calendar year are modeled with maps and reports generated in March of the following year.
As practice reduction estimates are completed in the model by Division staff, the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment load reduction numbers are entered back into the Annual ICP Conservation Accomplishment datasheet.5 Once completed, the Accountability and Technology Program Manager lays over watershed or county layers in GIS with practice locations and their respective nutrient and sediment reductions. In this way, a cumulative picture of
1 All Division staff are trained to use the Region 5 Model with initial instruction of the Model as well as refresher training and Q&A. A training webinar has been completed for new and existing users of the model, which illustrates examples and explains the equations behind the model’s function(s). The Division of Soil Conservation Team Leaders also developed a guidance document for the Region 5 Model, which serves to maintain consistency in the Model’s use and to reduce and avoid human error where possible. The guidance document includes specific practice notes and comments, and includes a tab to assist with the “coverage factor” in the model.
2This data collection process is represented with the green boxes at the top of the ICP Workload Accountability Data flow chart.
3 Represented in the yellow rectangular boxes in the Workload Accountability flow chart. These are published on ISDA and ICP websites (small purple rectangle, lower left quadrant of the Workload Accountability flow chart).
4 Represented in the two small orange circles on the Workload Accountability flow chart.
5 Represented in the two small orange circles on the Workload Accountability flow chart.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 3
conservation impact is created at watershed scales.6 Value ranges are assigned for load reduction to illustrate the load reductions across the state by watershed at the HUC-8 level.
Conclusion:
The primary value in partnership adoption of the EPA Region 5 model lies in benchmarking conservation impact and management of conservation resources across the state. As an additional result, the Indiana State Department of Agriculture has tied Key Performance Indicators and conservation goals to the Indiana State Office of Management and Budget. Use of the model for tracking impacts and goals has also had an internal benefit for ISDA; an atmosphere of healthy competition has arisen amongst field staff, who are eager to show positive water quality and sedimentation impacts in their respective watersheds. On a larger scale, The Indiana Conservation Partnership utilizes this model to set program/project goals, quantify impacts and estimate load reductions before a project ever begins.
Future plans include placing a dollar value on the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus kept on the land based on values provided by ongoing Water Quality Trading Projects and fertilizer costs. In addition, USEPA (Region 5) is currently updating the model to include fifteen more Best Management Practices (BMPs) as well as a water quantity component. In the future, estimates of water volumes kept on the landscape from various practices would help to assess and manage water quantity conservation efforts at county and watershed scales, both in times of drought and flooding. As these components of the model become available, ISDA and its partners intend to utilize them to their fullest possible potential within the partnership.
Future improvements may also include working with EPA to relate Indiana load reduction data to the spatial extent of the Gulf of Mexico Dead zone (a Hypoxia Task Force goal), modeling carbon sequestration impact, overlaying farmer social survey indicator data, incorporating data from other Indiana projects like INField Advantage: http://infieldadvantage.org and the Tillage Transect Survey, in addition to highlighting specific load reductions for significant Indiana water bodies like drinking water reservoirs.
The Indiana Conservation Partnership plans to continue utilizing the Region 5 Model and methodology for future years to come. The partners encourage other organizations to share their data as well. With the goal to assemble similar reports in March of each year.
Acknowledgement:
The Indiana Conservation Partnership would like to thank the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), both in Region 5 and Washington DC for their continued support and validation of Indiana’s Conservation Accomplishments and Load Reduction Modeling Process. The Indiana Conservation Partnership hopes to continue to grow this collaboration with USEPA going forward to build further upon this process so the many benefits and trends of voluntary conservation projects can be shared in a timely and transparent manner.
Region 5 Model Training Webinar:
What Is the Region 5 Model and How Do You Use It? https://engineering.purdue.edu/watersheds/webinars/Region5/
6 Represented in the small blue rectangle in the lower right quadrant of the Workload Accountability flow chart.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 4
ISDA
/SW
CD
DATA
CREP
& C
WI
Indi
anap
olis
NRC
S DA
TAFA
RM B
ILL*
Was
hing
ton
D.C.
CHRI
SM
ORS
E
IDEM
DAT
AEP
A –
319
Indi
anap
olis
LOU
REN
SHAW
DNR
DATA
LARE
Indi
anap
olis
DOU
G
FSA
DATA
CRP
Kans
as C
itySU
SAN
Indi
ana
Cons
erva
tion
Part
ners
hip
Annu
al (C
Y) W
orkl
oad
Acco
unta
bilit
y Da
ta F
low
Orig
inal
Dat
a So
urce
Data
Ser
ver L
ocat
ion
Agen
cyPo
into
fCon
tact
Indi
anap
olis
DEB
FAIR
HURS
TCH
RIS
MO
RSE
LOU
REN
SHAW
DOU
G N
USB
AUM
SUSA
N
HOVE
RMAL
EAg
ency
Poi
nt o
f Con
tact
DATA
CO
NSO
LIDA
TIO
N&
QUA
LITY
SPRI
NG
/FAL
LTI
LLAG
E TR
ANSE
CTDA
TA**
*IC
P FI
NAN
CIAL
REP
ORT
SW
EB A
PPLI
CATI
ON
***
h//
i/i
d/i
/FS
A DA
TACR
PSU
SAN
HO
VERM
ALE
& Q
UALI
TY
CON
TRO
LDE
B FA
IRHU
RST
ISDA
http
://w
ww
.in.g
ov/i
sda
(Till
age
Tren
ds B
y Co
unty
)(S
epar
ate
Data
Flo
w P
roce
ss)
http
://w
ww
.in.g
ov/i
sda/
icpr
epor
ts/
(Tot
al F
undi
ng B
y Co
unty
)(S
epar
ate
Data
Flo
w P
roce
ss)
ANN
UAL
ICP
QU
ARTE
RLY
(CY)
EPA
AN
NU
AL R
EGIO
N
REGI
ON
5 M
ODE
L DA
TACO
NSE
RVAT
ION
W
ORK
LOAD
RE
PORT
***
(By
Coun
ty)
REGI
ON
5
LOAD
RE
DUCT
ION
M
ODE
LIN
G**
ISDA
STA
FF
5 M
ODE
L LO
AD
REDU
CTIO
N
MAP
S***
(B
y W
ater
shed
)
DATA
CON
SOLI
DATI
ON
&
QU
ALIT
Y CO
NTR
OL
DEB
FAIR
HURS
TIS
DA
PUBL
ISHE
D TO
ISDA
& IC
P W
EBSI
TES
http
://w
ww
.in.g
ov/i
sda
http
://i
asw
cd.o
rg/i
cp/
PUBL
ISHE
D TO
ISDA
& IC
P W
EBSI
TES
http
://w
ww
.in.g
ov/i
sda
http
://i
asw
cd.o
rg/i
cp/
*Dat
a Sh
arin
g Pr
ivac
y Ag
reem
ents
are
in p
lace
** h
ttp:
//it.
tetr
atec
h-ffx
.com
/ste
plw
eb/m
odel
s$do
cs.h
tm**
*Inc
orpo
rate
d in
to th
e In
dian
a Nu
trie
nt R
educ
tion
Stra
tegy
La
st u
pdat
ed 9
/25/
14
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 5
LAKE63
ALLEN263
JAY219
KNOX91
VIGO59
WHITE102
CASS169
JASPER148
RUSH177
CLAY121
PIKE1,176
LAPORTE75
GREENE114
PARKE105
GIBSON640
PORTER329
MIAMI319
RIPLEY118
OWEN64
POSEY553
NOBLE973
GRANT67
BOONE440
PUTNAM241
HENRY7 WAYNE
269
PERRY30
DUBOIS106
JACKSON73
CLARK47
WELLS137
SHELBY141
DAVIESS224
PULASKI178
MARION11
ELKHART456
MADISON65
BENTON154
WABASH100
KOSCIUSKO385
FULTON466
ORANGE655
SULLIVAN131
HARRISON78
CLINTON67
MONROE149
ADAMS140
NEWTON208
MORGAN74
DEKALB686
MARTIN21
ST JOSEPH440
WARREN118
WARRICK325
MARSHALL63
RANDOLPH189
BROWN608
LAWRENCE349
TIPPECANOE282
FOUNTAIN124 HAMILTON
432
DECATUR283
FRANKLIN51
CARROLL195
WASHINGTON256
STARKE232
WHITLEY371
JENNINGS92
DELAWARE160
TIPTON103
HENDRICKS45
LAGRANGE430
STEUBEN128
JOHNSON130
HOWARD330
JEFFERSON49
HANCOCK325
CRAWFORD163
UNION134
FAYETTE63
SPENCER89
MONTGOMERY552
HUNTINGTON65
SCOTT70
DEARBORN391
BARTHOLOMEW558
FLOYD196
VERMILLION380
OHIO116
SWITZERLAND149
VANDERBURGH134
BLACKFORD158
2014 Conservation AccomplishmentsTotal Practices
7 - 106114 - 232241 - 391430 - 686973 - 1,176
January 1 thru December 31, 2014Conservation Practices Completed - 21,012Conservation Practices Underway - 1,076
March 20, 2015Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager
Imple
mente
d by I
ndian
a Con
serv
ation
Partn
ership
2014
India
na C
onse
rvatio
n Acc
ompli
shme
nts
Data: Provided by Indiana State Department of Agriculture,Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indiana's Soil and Water Conservations Districts and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 6
2014 County Breakdown of Conservation Practices by Program
COUNTY AWEP CREP CRP CSP CWI EQIP EWP GRP IDEM LARE INFA OTHER WHIP WRP TOTALADAMS 0 0 25 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 6 140ALLEN 0 0 0 41 0 167 0 0 0 0 24 0 31 0 263BARTHOLOMEW 0 0 0 0 0 528 0 0 26 0 4 0 0 0 558BENTON 0 0 16 0 10 123 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 154BLACKFORD 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 158BOONE 0 0 21 0 0 388 0 0 0 0 23 0 8 0 440BROWN 0 0 0 0 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 608CARROLL 0 0 0 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 14 3 1 0 195CASS 0 0 3 6 0 149 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 169CLARK 0 0 0 0 6 19 0 0 15 0 0 0 7 0 47CLAY 0 0 51 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 9 0 28 0 121CLINTON 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 0 25 0 22 0 67CRAWFORD 0 0 0 0 11 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163DAVIESS 0 1 0 0 0 214 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 224DEARBORN 0 0 0 0 2 362 0 0 19 0 1 1 6 0 391DECATUR 0 0 24 20 0 226 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 283DEKALB 6 0 1 0 14 657 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 0 686DELAWARE 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 0 0 0 21 0 2 0 160DUBOIS 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 2 0 21 0 0 0 106ELKHART 230 0 16 42 0 166 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 456FAYETTE 0 0 4 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 63FLOYD 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196FOUNTAIN 0 0 74 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 14 0 5 0 124FRANKLIN 0 0 1 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 51FULTON 0 0 4 0 45 284 0 0 0 0 22 111 0 0 466GIBSON 0 0 0 0 112 505 0 0 2 0 16 0 5 0 640GRANT 0 0 2 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 67GREENE 0 0 2 0 0 93 0 0 1 0 4 0 14 0 114HAMILTON 0 0 0 0 0 381 0 0 22 0 21 7 1 0 432HANCOCK 0 0 0 18 0 304 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 325HARRISON 0 0 4 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78HENDRICKS 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 45HENRY 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7HOWARD 0 0 37 0 0 263 0 0 0 0 22 0 8 0 330HUNTINGTON 0 5 0 14 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65JACKSON 0 3 0 0 4 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 73JASPER 0 0 25 0 14 71 0 0 1 0 31 6 0 0 148JAY 0 0 12 0 0 206 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 219JEFFERSON 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 49JENNINGS 0 0 4 0 8 48 0 0 0 0 6 25 1 0 92JOHNSON 0 0 30 34 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130KNOX 0 0 14 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 10 0 33 0 91KOSCIUSKO 107 11 0 0 0 53 0 0 10 30 22 0 152 0 385LAGRANGE 366 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 13 0 0 0 10 0 430LAKE 0 0 3 0 3 47 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 63LAPORTE 12 0 11 0 0 40 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 6 75LAWRENCE 0 1 0 0 9 258 0 0 0 0 9 0 72 0 349MADISON 0 2 0 1 5 43 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 65MARION 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 11MARSHALL 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 2 0 37 0 0 63MARTIN 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 21MIAMI 0 0 56 0 20 224 0 0 4 0 1 3 11 0 319MONROE 0 0 0 1 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149MONTGOMERY 0 0 226 0 0 278 0 0 0 0 3 0 45 0 552MORGAN 0 2 24 0 6 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74NEWTON 0 0 0 0 20 186 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 208NOBLE 305 0 158 92 0 333 0 0 3 30 44 0 8 0 973OHIO 0 0 0 0 4 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116ORANGE 0 0 0 0 0 619 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 655OWEN 0 0 21 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 64PARKE 0 1 51 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 0 8 0 105PERRY 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 30
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 7
2014 County Breakdown of Conservation Practices by Program
COUNTY AWEP CREP CRP CSP CWI EQIP EWP GRP IDEM LARE INFA OTHER WHIP WRP TOTALPIKE 0 0 0 0 76 1060 0 0 0 0 5 0 35 0 1,176PORTER 0 0 8 0 1 290 0 0 0 0 22 0 8 0 329POSEY 0 0 5 0 0 483 0 0 0 0 17 0 48 0 553PULASKI 0 0 23 0 61 55 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 178PUTNAM 0 0 146 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 44 2 0 0 241RANDOLPH 0 0 90 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 189RIPLEY 0 0 2 0 0 107 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 0 118RUSH 0 0 0 164 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177SCOTT 0 0 0 0 5 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 70SHELBY 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 141SPENCER 0 0 10 0 1 46 0 0 0 0 2 0 30 0 89ST JOSEPH 3 0 14 6 0 402 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 8 440STARKE 0 2 0 0 0 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 232STEUBEN 95 0 0 0 4 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 128SULLIVAN 0 0 0 1 0 97 0 0 5 0 16 0 12 0 131SWITZERLAND 0 0 0 0 1 109 0 0 17 0 0 16 6 0 149TIPPECANOE 0 0 8 0 0 232 0 0 18 0 5 0 9 10 282TIPTON 0 0 14 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 103UNION 0 0 0 0 0 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134VANDERBURGH 0 0 0 0 22 103 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 134VERMILLION 0 0 4 0 0 359 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 380VIGO 0 6 3 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 10 59WABASH 0 3 1 0 28 56 0 0 6 0 1 0 5 0 100WARREN 0 0 16 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 7 118WARRICK 0 0 0 0 20 282 0 0 0 0 14 0 9 0 325WASHINGTON 0 2 76 0 22 122 1 0 25 0 0 0 8 0 256WAYNE 0 0 11 0 0 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 269WELLS 0 0 10 0 9 110 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 137WHITE 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 102WHITLEY 45 0 10 0 2 261 0 0 14 0 14 0 25 0 371TOTAL 1,169 40 1,371 440 547 15,352 1 4 272 65 721 222 753 55 21,012
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 8
Indiana Conservation Partnership Initiatives – Program Descriptions
ACEP - Agricultural Conservation Easement Program http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/acep/ The USDA Agriculture Conservation Program provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and wetlands and their related benefits. Under the Agricultural Land Easements component, NRCS helps Indian tribes, state and local governments and non-governmental organizations protect working agricultural lands and limit non-agricultural uses of the land. Under the Wetlands Reserve Easements component, NRCS helps to restore, protect and enhance enrolled wetlands.
AWEP – Agricultural Water Enhancement Program http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/awep/ The USDA Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) is a voluntary conservation initiative that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to implement agricultural water enhancement activities on agricultural land for the purposes of conserving surface and ground water and improving water quality.
CREP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program http://www.in.gov/isda/2377.htm The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a federal-state natural resources conservation program that addresses agricultural-related environmental concerns at the state and national level. CREP participants receive financial incentives to voluntarily enroll in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in contracts of 14 to 15 years. Participants remove cropland from agricultural production and convert the land to native grasses, trees and other vegetation.
CRP - Conservation Reserve Program http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index The USDA Conservation Reserve Program is a land conservation program administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat.
CSP - Conservation Stewardship Program http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/in/programs/financial/csp/ The USDA Conservation Stewardship Program is a voluntary program that encourages agricultural producers to improve conservation systems by improving, maintaining, and managing existing conservation activities and undertaking additional conservation activities. The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers this program and provides financial and technical assistance to eligible producers.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 9
CWI – Clean Water Indiana Program http://www.in.gov/isda/2379.htm The Clean Water Indiana Program was established to provide financial assistance to landowners and conservation groups. The financial assistance supports the implementation of conservation practices which will reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution through education, technical assistance, training, and cost sharing programs. The CWI fund is administered by the Division of Soil Conservation under the direction of the State Soil Conservation Board. EQIP - Environmental Quality Incentives Program http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/in/programs/?cid=nrcs144p2_031015 The USDA Environmental Quality Incentive Program is a voluntary conservation program that helps agricultural producers in a manner that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals. Through EQIP, farmers and ranchers receive financial and technical assistance to implement structural and management conservation practices that optimize environmental benefits on working agricultural land.
EWP – Emergency Watershed Protection http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/ewpp/ The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, which responds to emergencies created by natural disasters. It is not necessary for a national emergency to be declared for an area to be eligible for assistance.
GRP - Grasslands Reserve Program http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/grassland-reserve/index The goal of the Grasslands Reserve Program is to prevent grazing and pasture land from being converted into cropland, used for urban development, or developed for other non-grazing uses. Participants in the program voluntarily limit future development of their grazing and pasture land, while still being able to use the land for livestock grazing and activities related to forage and seed production. Participation in GRP may also entail restrictions on activities during the nesting season of certain bird species that are in decline or protected under Federal or state law.
IDEM Section 205j - Clean Water Act Section 205(j) http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/2525.htm The federal Clean Water Act Section 205(j) provides funding for water quality management planning. Funds are to be used to determine the nature, extent and sources of point and nonpoint source water pollution problems and to develop plans to resolve these problems.
IDEM Section 319 – Clean Water Act Section 319(h) http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/2524.htm The federal Clean Water Act Section 319(h) grant program provides funding for various types of projects that work to reduce nonpoint source water pollution identified in the Indiana State Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Funds may be used to conduct assessments, to develop and implement watershed management plans, to provide technical assistance, to demonstrate new technology and to provide education and outreach. Entities eligible for funding include nonprofit organizations, universities, and local, State or Federal government agencies. A forty (40) percent non-federal in-kind or cash match of the total project cost must be provided.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 10
INFA – INfield Advantage http://infieldadvantage.org/ The INfield Advantage is a group of crop producers interested in economics, stewardship, and reducing their environmental footprint. The goal of INfield Advantage is to advance two critical components to driving improved farm-level performance:
1) access to and education on the use of effective, affordable tools and strategies to assess and verify on-farm environmental and economic performance and
2) coordination of data collection, analysis, and feedback to farmers using these tools at the individual farm level and in aggregate across multiple farms in a geographic region.
LARE – Lake and River Enhancement Program http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2364.htm The goal of the Division of Fish and Wildlife's Lake and River Enhancement Section is to protect and enhance aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife, to insure the continued viability of Indiana's publicly accessible lakes and streams for multiple uses, including recreational opportunities. This is accomplished through measures that reduce non-point sediment and nutrient pollution of surface waters to a level that meets or surpasses state water quality standards.
WHIP – Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/in/programs/?cid=nrcs144p2_031021 The USDA Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program is a voluntary program for people who want to develop and improve wildlife habitat primarily on private land. Through WHIP USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service provides both technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. WHIP agreements between NRCS and the participant generally last from 5 to 10 years from the date the agreement is signed.
WRP – Wetlands Reserve Program http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/in/newsroom/releases/?cid=nrcs144p2_031028 The USDA Wetlands Reserve Program is the Nation’s premier wetlands restoration program. It is a voluntary program that offers landowners the means and the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) manages the program as well as provides technical and financial support to help landowners that participate in WRP.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 11
Indiana Conservation Partnership Websites:
Indiana Conservation Partnership (http://icp.iaswcd.org/)
The Partnership is comprised of eight Indiana agencies and organizations who share a common goal of promoting conservation. To that end, the mission of the Indiana Conservation Partnership is to provide technical, financial and educational assistance needed to implement economically and environmentally compatible land and water stewardship decisions, practices and technologies.
Indiana Conservation Partnership Reports (http://www.in.gov/isda/icpreports)
Here you can find statewide and county level information on conservation investments made with local, state and federal funding. You can view funding levels, funding specific programs and counties, and county level success stories for Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The statewide information page and each county page can be printed as a pdf document. Shown below is a screenshot of the 2014 Statewide Report.
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 12
Allen
Lake
Knox
Jay
White
Vigo
Jasper
Laporte
Cass
Parke
Rush
Clay
Greene
Pike
Grant
Ripley
Gibson
Noble
Perry
Clark
Porter
Elkhart
Posey
Wells
Boone
Henry
Owen
Jackson
Putnam
Dubois
Miami
Pulaski
Shelby
Harrison
Sullivan
Marion
Fulton
Wayne
Clinton
Benton
Kosciusko
Carroll
Daviess
Orange
Madison
Monroe
Morgan
Marshall
Martin
Newton
Wabash
Warrick
Warren
Franklin
DeKalb
Brown
Spencer
Randolph
Adams
Lawrence
Decatur
Starke
FountainHamilton
Washington
Whitley
Tippecanoe
St. Joseph
Jennings
Delaware
Montgomery
Hendricks
Lagrange
Tipton
Jefferson
Steuben
Johnson
Howard
Huntington
Hancock
Scott
Crawford
DearbornBartholomew
Fayette Union
Floyd
Switzerland
Vanderburgh
Blackford
Ohio
Vermillion
Upper White12,547
Kankakee33,074
Tippecanoe42,665
Lower White61,459
St Joseph (MI)77,687
Whitewater10,838
Sugar20,883
Driftwood5,867
Wildcat20,756
Eel (WFWR)31,425
Blue-Sinking61,349
Iroquois12,745
Muscatatuck22,972
Patoka59,313
Lower East Fork White95,789
Upper Wabash16,610
Eel (WR)77,657
Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion47,291
Mississinewa3,724
Salamonie4,299
Middle Wabash-Busseron26,108
Lower Wabash23,928
Flatrock-Haw4,027
St Marys4,759
Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon65,141
St Joseph (OH)27,120
Middle Ohio-Laughery30,559
Upper East Fork White40,105
Middle Wabash-Deer4,300
Silver-Little Kentucky18,639
Highland-Pigeon27,279
Little Calumet-Galien1,117
Maumee2,675
Chicago
Auglaize327
Vermilion943
Vermilion943
Lower Great Miami512
Upper Great Miami275
Lower Great Miami512
2014
Nutr
ient L
oad R
educ
tions
Based on Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 11,365 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2014thru December 2014. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP)and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model.April 7, 2015Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager
Sediment Reductions (tons/year)275 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000No Reported Reductions
Sedim
ent
A total reduction of 996,762tons of sediment statewide.
http://icp.iaswcd.org/
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 13
Allen
Lake
Knox
Jay
White
Vigo
Jasper
Laporte
Cass
Parke
Rush
Clay
Greene
Pike
Grant
Ripley
Gibson
Noble
Perry
Clark
Porter
Elkhart
Posey
Wells
Boone
Henry
Owen
Jackson
Putnam
Dubois
Miami
Pulaski
Shelby
Harrison
Sullivan
Marion
Fulton
Wayne
Clinton
Benton
Kosciusko
Carroll
Daviess
Orange
Madison
Monroe
Morgan
Marshall
Martin
Newton
Wabash
Warrick
Warren
Franklin
DeKalb
Brown
Spencer
Randolph
Adams
Lawrence
Decatur
Starke
FountainHamilton
Washington
Whitley
Tippecanoe
St. Joseph
Jennings
Delaware
Montgomery
Hendricks
Lagrange
Tipton
Jefferson
Steuben
Johnson
Howard
Huntington
Hancock
Scott
Crawford
DearbornBartholomew
Fayette Union
Floyd
Switzerland
Vanderburgh
Blackford
Ohio
Vermillion
Upper White30,787
Kankakee75,891
Tippecanoe99,037
Lower White109,585
St Joseph (MI)175,773
Sugar45,911
Whitewater22,784Driftwood
13,860
Wildcat52,820
Eel (WFWR)62,457
Blue-Sinking117,635
Iroquois33,853
Muscatatuck49,568
Patoka108,496
Lower East Fork White174,449
Upper Wabash43,516
Eel (WR)191,423
Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion105,297
Mississinewa10,062
Salamonie11,540
Middle Wabash-Busseron76,135
Lower Wabash45,323
Flatrock-Haw11,076
St Marys11,926
Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon115,655
St Joseph (OH)55,372
Middle Ohio-Laughery67,356
Upper East Fork White92,292
Middle Wabash-Deer11,185
Silver-Little Kentucky34,479
Highland-Pigeon50,456
Little Calumet-Galien3,013
Maumee6,053
Chicago
Auglaize899
Vermilion2,513
Vermilion2,513
Lower Great Miami1,226
Upper Great Miami852
Lower Great Miami1,226
2014
Nutr
ient L
oad R
educ
tions
Based on Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 11,365 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2014thru December 2014. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP)and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model.April 7, 2015Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager
Nitrogen Reduction (lbs./year)1 - 50,00050,001 - 200,000No Reported Reductions
Nitro
gen
A total reduction of 2,120,554pounds of nitrogen statewide.
http://icp.iaswcd.org/
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 14
Allen
Lake
Knox
Jay
White
Vigo
Jasper
Laporte
Cass
Parke
Rush
Clay
Greene
Pike
Grant
Ripley
Gibson
Noble
Perry
Clark
Porter
Elkhart
Posey
Wells
Boone
Henry
Owen
Jackson
Putnam
Dubois
Miami
Pulaski
Shelby
Harrison
Sullivan
Marion
Fulton
Wayne
Clinton
Benton
Kosciusko
Carroll
Daviess
Orange
Madison
Monroe
Morgan
Marshall
Martin
Newton
Wabash
Warrick
Warren
Franklin
DeKalb
Brown
Spencer
Randolph
Adams
Lawrence
Decatur
Starke
FountainHamilton
Washington
Whitley
Tippecanoe
St. Joseph
Jennings
Delaware
Montgomery
Hendricks
Lagrange
Tipton
Jefferson
Steuben
Johnson
Howard
Huntington
Hancock
Scott
Crawford
DearbornBartholomew
Fayette Union
Floyd
Switzerland
Vanderburgh
Blackford
Ohio
Vermillion
Upper White15,400
Kankakee38,053
Tippecanoe49,713
Lower White55,164
St Joseph (MI)88,233
Whitewater11,355
Sugar22,943
Driftwood6,932
Wildcat26,342
Eel (WFWR)30,978
Blue-Sinking58,856
Iroquois16,893
Muscatatuck24,896
Patoka53,645
Lower East Fork White87,440
Upper Wabash21,759
Eel (WR)95,100
Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion141,543
Mississinewa5,039
Salamonie5,779
Middle Wabash-Busseron27,422
Lower Wabash22,536
Flatrock-Haw5,542
St Marys5,919
Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon57,632
St Joseph (OH)27,686
Middle Ohio-Laughery32,954
Upper East Fork White46,576
Middle Wabash-Deer5,595
Silver-Little Kentucky17,339
Highland-Pigeon25,342
Little Calumet-Galien1,507
Maumee3,052
Chicago
Auglaize448
Vermilion1,258
Vermilion1,258
Lower Great Miami612
Upper Great Miami441
Lower Great Miami612
2014
Nutr
ient L
oad R
educ
tions
Based on Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 11,365 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2014thru December 2014. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP)and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model.April 7, 2015Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager
Phosphorus Reduction (lbs./year)441 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000No Reported Reductions
Phos
phor
us
A total reduction of 1,137,921pounds of phosphorus statewide.
http://icp.iaswcd.org/
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 15
Upper White15,875
Kankakee34,920
Tippecanoe45,909
Lower White74,955
St Joseph (MI)60,080
Whitewater15,462
Patoka69,168
Sugar23,796
Driftwood6,840
Wildcat26,961
Eel (WFWR)43,539
Blue-Sinking86,713
Iroquois14,212
Lower East Fork White147,585
Muscatatuck28,975
Upper Wabash20,376
Eel (WR)80,207
Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion59,952
Mississinewa4,541
Salamonie4,962
Middle Wabash-Busseron34,909
Lower Wabash35,602
Flatrock-Haw4,916
St Marys5,209
Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon82,355
St Joseph (OH)26,811
Middle Ohio-Laughery44,755
Upper East Fork White46,501
Middle Wabash-Deer6,804
Silver-Little Kentucky21,829
Highland-Pigeon28,463
Little Calumet-Galien1,275
Maumee2,807Auglaize
360
Vermilion1,027
Chicago0
Vermilion1,027
Lower Great Miami831
Upper Great Miami275
Lower Great Miami831
Allen
Lake
Knox
Jay
Wh ite
Vig o
Jasper
Laporte
Cass
P arke
Rush
Clay
Greene
P ike
Grant
Ripley
Gib son
Nob le
P erry
Clark
P orter
Elkh art
P osey
Wells
BooneHenry
Owen
Jackson
P utnam
Dubois
Miam i
P ulaski
Sh elb y
Harrison
Sulliv an
Marion
Fulton
Wayne
Clinton
Benton
Kosc iusko
Carroll
Dav iess
Orang e
Madison
Monroe
Morgan
Marsh all
Martin
Newton
Wabash
Warric k
Warren
Franklin
DeKalb
Brown
Spenc er
Randolph
Adam s
Lawrence
Decatur
Starke
Fountain
Ham ilton
Wash ing ton
Wh itley
Tippecanoe
St. Joseph
Jenning s
Delaware
Montg om ery
Hendric ks
Lag rang e
Tipton
Jefferson
Steuben
Joh nson
Howard
Hunting ton
Hancoc k
Scott
Crawford
Barth olom ew
Union
Floyd
Switzerland
Oh io
Dearborn
Fayette
Verm illion
Vanderburg h
Blackford
2013-14 Cumulative Nutrient Load Reductions: Sediment
Based on Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 15,042 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation PartnershipJanuary 2013 thru December 2014. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.
May 18, 2015Deb Fairh urst, ISDA P rog ram Manager
Sediment Reduction (tons)1 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000No Reported Reductions
A total reduction of 1,209,756tons of sediment statewide.
Reductions in dissolv ed nutrients, suc h as dissolved reac tiv e ph osph orus (DRP ) and nitrate (NO3), are not ac counted for by th e Reg ion 5 Model.
h ttp://ic p.iaswcd.org/
Since 2013, voluntary conservation efforts from priv ate landowners in Indiana with support from th e ICP h ave reduced nutrients and sedim ent from entering Indiana’s waterways.
A football field covered to a depth of 560 feet, wh ic h is taller th an th e Wash ing ton Monum ent.
Sediment Reductions
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 16
2013
and
201
4 Se
dim
ent L
oad
Red
uctio
ns b
y H
UC
8 W
ater
shed
s
HUC8
HUC8
NAM
E1Y
R201
35Y
R201
810
YR20
2315
YR20
2820
YR20
33TO
TAL
HUC8
HUC8
NAM
E1Y
R201
45Y
R201
910
YR20
2415
YR20
2920
YR20
34TO
TAL
0404
0001
Litt
le C
alum
et-G
alie
n34
713
124
210
505
0404
0001
Litt
le C
alum
et-G
alie
n1,
104
29
20
1,11
704
0500
01St
Jose
ph (M
I)73
,788
1,40
645
318
526
75,8
5804
0500
01St
Jose
ph (M
I)56
,189
1,11
264
208
438
58,0
1004
1000
03St
Jose
ph (O
H)47
,085
139
142
320
47,3
9804
1000
03St
Jose
ph (O
H)25
,763
299
4639
00
26,4
9804
1000
04St
Mar
ys4,
532
225
181
440
4,98
204
1000
04St
Mar
ys3,
305
661,
349
390
4,75
904
1000
05M
aum
ee3,
572
010
230
03,
704
0410
0005
Mau
mee
2,67
50
00
02,
675
0410
0007
Augl
aize
2128
50
054
0410
0007
Augl
aize
327
00
00
327
0508
0001
Upp
er G
reat
Mia
mi
00
00
00
0508
0001
Upp
er G
reat
Mia
mi
266
90
00
275
0508
0002
Low
er G
reat
Mia
mi
512
4118
2523
583
105
0800
02Lo
wer
Gre
at M
iam
i51
20
00
051
205
0800
03W
hite
wat
er17
,085
711
1,61
929
12,
004
21,7
1005
0800
03W
hite
wat
er8,
061
142
2,26
282
291
10,8
3805
0902
03M
iddl
e O
hio-
Laug
hery
21,7
501,
962
3,64
519
47,
056
34,6
0705
0902
03M
iddl
e O
hio-
Laug
hery
21,2
825,
232
4,96
76
411
31,8
9805
1201
01U
pper
Wab
ash
19,8
9340
22,
704
660
023
,659
0512
0101
Upp
er W
abas
h14
,859
931,
551
107
016
,610
0512
0102
Sala
mon
ie4,
795
2748
415
20
5,45
805
1201
02Sa
lam
onie
4,29
90
00
04,
299
0512
0103
Miss
issin
ewa
965
275
517
250
1,78
205
1201
03M
ississ
inew
a2,
843
5477
156
03,
724
0512
010 4
Eel (
WR)
72,6
4579
81,
309
607
075
,360
0512
0104
Eel (
WR)
76,5
0745
030
822
80
77,4
9305
1201
05M
iddl
e W
abas
h-De
er6,
109
699
1,77
927
08,
614
0512
0105
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Deer
3,96
725
359
210
4,30
005
1201
0 6Ti
ppec
anoe
33,1
271,
139
451
968
226
35,9
1205
1201
06Ti
ppec
anoe
40,4
1652
117
658
1,88
243
,125
0512
0107
Wild
cat
22,8
582,
272
3,70
336
60
29,2
0005
1201
07W
ildca
t19
,258
141
1,19
518
720
,619
0512
010 8
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Litt
le V
erm
illio
n43
,576
1,31
59,
857
1,49
00
56,2
3805
1201
08M
iddl
e W
abas
h-Li
ttle
Ver
mill
ion
31,7
6228
614
,230
839
174
47,2
9105
1201
09Ve
rmill
ion
2,25
30
786
02,
337
0512
0109
Verm
illio
n94
30
00
094
305
1201
1 0Su
gar
5,79
51,
358
1,52
431
08,
708
0512
0110
Suga
r7,
350
360
13,1
4825
020
,883
0512
0111
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Buss
eron
32,4
323,
014
4,12
21,
665
041
,233
0512
0111
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Buss
eron
24,1
3689
643
064
60
26,1
0805
1201
13Lo
wer
Wab
ash
15,5
774,
531
2,27
04,
214
026
,592
0512
0113
Low
er W
abas
h24
,110
6840
90
024
,587
0512
020 1
Upp
er W
hite
10,3
8230
71,
978
243
012
,910
0512
0201
Upp
er W
hite
9,88
61,
015
2,08
535
012
13,3
4805
1202
02Lo
wer
Whi
te71
,492
11,0
971,
209
1,16
129
84,9
8805
1202
02Lo
wer
Whi
te53
,339
6,64
81,
472
00
61,4
5905
1202
03Ee
l (W
FWR)
36,4
912,
714
8,61
978
10
48,6
0 405
1202
03Ee
l (W
FWR)
23,6
844,
132
3,39
921
00
31,4
2505
1202
04Dr
iftw
ood
7,60
922
733
325
615
78,
582
0512
0204
Drift
woo
d5,
703
012
638
05,
867
0512
0205
Flat
rock
-Haw
4,81
510
637
984
320
5,70
405
1202
05Fl
atro
ck-H
aw3,
944
426
053
4,02
705
1202
0 6U
pper
Eas
t For
k W
hite
32,9
7176
14,
870
765
039
,367
0512
0206
Upp
er E
ast F
ork
Whi
te36
,875
198
2,88
215
00
40,1
0505
1202
0 7M
usca
tatu
ck35
,112
2,31
42,
770
527
8040
,803
0512
0207
Mus
cata
tuck
21,1
981,
832
211
430
23,2
8405
1202
08Lo
wer
Eas
t For
k W
hite
190,
835
42,4
613,
757
4,56
357
241,
673
0512
0208
Low
er E
ast F
ork
Whi
te75
,392
18,7
401,
778
684
153
96,7
4705
1202
0 9Pa
toka
17,1
073,
940
2,92
12,
637
357
26,9
6205
1202
09Pa
toka
55,7
7225
32,
725
179
384
59,3
1305
1401
01Si
lver
-Litt
le K
entu
cky
20,7
724,
291
1,10
311
414
726
,426
0514
0101
Silv
er-L
ittle
Ken
tuck
y11
,968
155
3,25
556
740
16,1
7505
1401
0 4Bl
ue-S
inki
ng12
2,86
320
,478
1,92
62,
030
2714
7,32
405
1401
04Bl
ue-S
inki
ng56
,007
4,26
91,
847
104
2562
,252
0514
0201
Low
er O
hio-
Litt
le P
igeo
n97
,127
11,8
642,
755
8223
111
2,05
905
1402
01Lo
wer
Ohi
o-Li
ttle
Pig
eon
64,0
122,
287
944
180
067
,423
0514
0202
High
land
-Pig
eon
28,9
9959
838
320
30
30,1
8305
1402
02Hi
ghla
nd-P
igeo
n27
,060
201
126
027
,279
0712
000 1
Kank
akee
11,9
0468
969
650
70
13,7
9607
1200
01Ka
nkak
ee31
,997
213
651
167
033
,028
0712
0002
Iroqu
ois
2,23
48
01,
459
03,
701
0712
0002
Iroqu
ois
12,6
5131
261
012
,745
0712
0003
Chic
ago
199
00
00
199
0712
0003
Chic
ago
00
00
00
NO
TE: 2
013
1YR
LOAD
RED
UCT
ION
S AR
E N
OT
INCL
UDE
D IN
THE
201
3-14
CU
MU
LATI
VE N
UTR
IEN
T LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
N A
NAL
YSIS
2013
SED
MEN
T LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
NS
2014
SED
IMEN
T LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
NS
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 17
Upper White37,399
Kankakee80,019
Tippecanoe106,569
Lower White135,400
St Joseph (MI)151,113
Whitewater32,113
Sugar52,628
Driftwood15,787
Wildcat66,621
Eel (WFWR)87,497
Blue-Sinking159,829
Iroquois36,411
Lower East Fork White263,762
Muscatatuck64,089
Patoka126,113
Upper Wabash51,962
Eel (WR)197,097
Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion131,586
Mississinewa11,917
Salamonie12,972
Middle Wabash-Busseron72,942
Lower Wabash65,727
Flatrock-Haw12,855
St Marys15,617
Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon147,236
St Joseph (OH)54,659
Middle Ohio-Laughery90,899
Upper East Fork White105,090
Middle Wabash-Deer16,851
Silver-Little Kentucky42,133
Highland-Pigeon52,647
Little Calumet-Galien3,350
Maumee6,431Auglaize
992
Vermilion2,718
Chicago0
Vermilion2,718
Lower Great Miami1,810
Upper Great Miami852
Lower Great Miami1,810
Alle n
Lak e
Knox
Jay
Wh ite
Vigo
Jaspe r
Laporte
Cass
Park e
Rush
Clay
Gre e ne
Pik e
Grant
Riple y
Gibson
Noble
Pe rry
Clark
Porter
Elk h art
Pose y
We lls
BooneHe nry
Owe n
Jack son
Putnam
Dubois
Miam i
Pulask i
S h e lby
Harrison
S ullivan
Marion
Fulton
Wayne
Clinton
Be nton
Kosciusk o
Carroll
Davie ss
Orange
Mad ison
Monroe
Morgan
Marsh all
Martin
Newton
Wabash
Warrick
Warre n
Frank lin
DeKalb
Brown
S pe ncer
Rand olph
Ad am s
Lawre nce
Decatur
S tark e
Fountain
Ham ilton
Wash ington
Wh itle y
Tippe canoe
S t. Jose ph
Je nnings
De laware
Montgom e ry
He nd rick s
Lagrange
Tipton
Jefferson
S te ube n
Joh nson
Howard
Huntington
Hancock
S cott
Crawford
Barth olom e w
Union
Floyd
S witzerland
Oh io
Dearborn
Fayette
Verm illion
Vand e rburgh
Blackford
2013-14 Cumulative Nutrient Load Reductions: Nitrogen
Based on Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 15,042 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation PartnershipJanuary 2013 thru December 2014. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.
May 18, 2015Deb Fairh urst, IS DA Program Manager
Nitrogen Reduction (pounds)1 - 50,00050,001 - 200,000200,001 - 300,000No Re porte d Re d uction
A total reduction of 2,513,693pounds of nitrogen statewide.
Re ductions in d issolve d nutrie nts, such as d issolve d reactive ph osph orus (DRP) and nitrate (NO3), are not accounte d for by th e Re gion 5 Mod e l.
h ttp://icp.iaswcd.org/
S ince 2013, voluntary conse rvation efforts from private land owne rs in Ind iana with support from th e ICP h ave re d uce d nutrie nts and se d im e nt from e ntering Ind iana’s waterways.
12.5 Fre igh t CarsNitrogen Reductions
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 18
2013
and
201
4 N
itrog
en L
oad
Red
uctio
ns b
y H
UC
8 W
ater
shed
s
HUC8
HUC8
NAM
E1Y
R201
35Y
R201
810
YR20
2315
YR20
2820
YR20
33TO
TAL
HUC8
HUC8
NAM
E1Y
R201
45Y
R201
910
YR20
2415
YR20
2920
YR20
34TO
TAL
0404
0001
Litt
le C
alum
et-G
alie
n1,
021
3624
952
01,
358
0404
0001
Litt
le C
alum
et-G
alie
n2,
987
616
40
3,01
304
0500
01St
Jose
ph (M
I)16
8,76
03,
358
903
9,69
144
182,
757
0405
0001
St Jo
seph
(MI)
123,
812
2,38
97,
896
2,82
519
513
7,11
704
1000
03St
Jose
ph (O
H)10
2,87
933
625
065
010
3,53
004
1000
03St
Jose
ph (O
H)52
,289
722
8890
90
54,0
0804
1000
04St
Mar
ys13
,051
764
393
2,53
40
16,7
4204
1000
04St
Mar
ys8,
924
188
2,73
777
011
,926
0410
0005
Mau
mee
8,35
80
205
173
08,
736
0410
0005
Mau
mee
6,05
30
00
06,
053
0410
0007
Augl
aize
5385
80
014
604
1000
07Au
glai
ze89
90
00
089
905
0800
01U
pper
Gre
at M
iam
i0
00
00
005
0800
01U
pper
Gre
at M
iam
i83
517
00
085
205
0800
02Lo
wer
Gre
at M
iam
i1,
226
9535
4241
21,
810
0508
0002
Low
er G
reat
Mia
mi
1,22
60
00
01,
226
0508
0003
Whi
tew
ater
40,3
101,
738
3,29
857
23,
721
49,6
3905
0800
03W
hite
wat
er17
,431
312
4,11
734
358
122
,784
0509
0203
Mid
dle
Ohi
o-La
ughe
ry48
,360
3,96
06,
221
344
11,3
8470
,269
0509
0203
Mid
dle
Ohi
o-La
ughe
ry48
,753
8,15
710
,739
461
880
68,9
9005
1201
01U
pper
Wab
ash
55,1
931,
065
5,49
91,
882
063
,639
0512
0101
Upp
er W
abas
h40
,005
280
2,99
823
30
43,5
1605
1201
02Sa
lam
onie
14,2
4185
999
348
015
,673
0512
0102
Sala
mon
ie11
,540
00
00
11,5
4005
1201
03M
ississ
inew
a2,
651
741
1,06
450
04,
506
0512
0103
Miss
issin
ewa
8,09
016
01,
650
162
010
,062
0512
0104
Eel (
WR)
178,
379
2,06
62,
544
1,76
00
184,
749
0512
0104
Eel (
WR)
188,
558
1,08
559
449
00
190,
727
0512
0105
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Deer
16,0
721,
967
3,64
653
021
,738
0512
0105
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Deer
10,3
0670
912
842
011
,185
0512
0106
Tipp
ecan
oe76
,568
2,41
386
62,
594
417
82,8
5805
1201
06Ti
ppec
anoe
93,3
0015
41,
079
1,64
74,
099
100,
279
0512
0107
Wild
cat
61,2
536,
043
7,32
196
80
75,5
8505
1201
07W
ildca
t49
,425
375
2,38
591
1452
,290
0512
0108
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Litt
le V
erm
illio
n10
0,11
03,
347
18,8
524,
091
012
6,39
905
1201
08M
iddl
e W
abas
h-Li
ttle
Ver
mill
ion
72,4
9467
329
,084
2,69
335
310
5,29
705
1201
09Ve
rmill
ion
5,57
50
196
80
5,77
905
1201
09Ve
rmill
ion
2,51
30
00
02,
513
0512
0110
Suga
r14
,749
3,59
83,
048
700
21,4
6605
1201
10Su
gar
18,7
3287
826
,248
530
45,9
1105
1201
11M
iddl
e W
abas
h-Bu
sser
on87
,081
6,63
18,
132
3,34
80
105,
192
0512
0111
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Buss
eron
50,6
032,
005
784
1,44
00
54,8
3205
1201
13Lo
wer
Wab
ash
30,4
107,
469
3,98
47,
866
049
,729
0512
0113
Low
er W
abas
h45
,497
147
764
00
46,4
0805
1202
01U
pper
Whi
te26
,125
869
3,82
565
60
31,4
7405
1202
01U
pper
Whi
te25
,189
2,12
73,
967
736
3132
,050
0512
0202
Low
er W
hite
127,
828
21,7
871,
974
2,01
539
153,
643
0512
0202
Low
er W
hite
94,9
8412
,251
2,35
00
010
9,58
505
1202
03Ee
l (W
FWR)
74,8
695,
900
17,5
241,
616
099
,909
0512
0203
Eel (
WFW
R)46
,744
8,20
07,
058
456
062
,457
0512
0204
Drift
woo
d19
,252
439
665
510
313
21,1
7905
1202
04Dr
iftw
ood
13,5
240
258
780
13,8
6005
1202
05Fl
atro
ck-H
aw12
,255
257
672
210
640
14,0
3405
1202
05Fl
atro
ck-H
aw10
,928
933
010
611
,076
0512
0206
Upp
er E
ast F
ork
Whi
te76
,842
1,84
59,
365
1,58
80
89,6
4005
1202
06U
pper
Eas
t For
k W
hite
85,7
4846
25,
798
284
092
,292
0512
0207
Mus
cata
tuck
72,6
735,
571
6,91
21,
163
175
86,4
9405
1202
07M
usca
tatu
ck45
,989
3,71
847
685
050
,268
0512
0208
Low
er E
ast F
ork
Whi
te30
0,77
874
,230
7,15
46,
832
7638
9,07
005
1202
08Lo
wer
Eas
t For
k W
hite
135,
990
35,2
852,
710
1,22
226
217
5,46
905
1202
09Pa
toka
27,0
816,
577
4,95
25,
375
714
44,6
9805
1202
09Pa
toka
101,
570
444
5,37
533
976
810
8,49
605
1401
01Si
lver
-Litt
le K
entu
cky
41,4
769,
284
2,08
523
328
353
,362
0514
0101
Silv
er-L
ittle
Ken
tuck
y23
,372
351
4,93
111
21,
482
30,2
4805
1401
04Bl
ue-S
inki
ng19
0,45
834
,391
2,80
73,
069
4223
0,76
705
1401
04Bl
ue-S
inki
ng10
7,79
68,
919
2,58
418
239
119,
520
0514
0201
Low
er O
hio-
Litt
le P
igeo
n15
5,01
422
,589
4,73
121
646
318
3,01
305
1402
01Lo
wer
Ohi
o-Li
ttle
Pig
eon
112,
811
4,71
31,
400
313
011
9,23
705
1402
02Hi
ghla
nd-P
igeo
n47
,867
1,02
976
939
30
50,0
5705
1402
02Hi
ghla
nd-P
igeo
n50
,006
420
1812
050
,456
0712
0001
Kank
akee
27,7
211,
476
1,31
11,
445
031
,953
0712
0001
Kank
akee
73,7
2247
81,
264
323
075
,787
0712
0002
Iroqu
ois
7,34
726
02,
533
09,
906
0712
0002
Iroqu
ois
33,5
6210
565
121
033
,853
0712
0003
Chic
ago
288
00
00
288
0712
0003
Chic
ago
00
00
00
NO
TE: 2
013
1YR
LOAD
RED
UCT
ION
S AR
E N
OT
INCL
UDE
D IN
THE
201
3-14
CU
MU
LATI
VE N
UTR
IEN
T LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
N A
NAL
YSIS
2013
NIT
ROGE
N L
OAD
RED
UCT
ION
S20
14 N
ITRO
GEN
LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
NS
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 19
Upper White18,746
Kankakee40,119
Tippecanoe53,459
Lower White67,953
St Joseph (MI)72,428
Whitewater15,938
Patoka62,459
Sugar26,272
Driftwood7,863
Wildcat33,260
Eel (WFWR)43,220
Blue-Sinking80,262
Iroquois18,174
Lower East Fork White131,969
Muscatatuck31,858
Upper Wabash25,983
Eel (WR)97,986
Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion64,879
Mississinewa5,951
Salamonie6,499
Middle Wabash-Busseron36,543
Lower Wabash32,824
Flatrock-Haw6,437
St Marys6,841
Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon73,475
St Joseph (OH)27,335
Middle Ohio-Laughery44,797
Upper East Fork White52,973
Middle Wabash-Deer8,438
Silver-Little Kentucky21,162
Highland-Pigeon26,421
Little Calumet-Galien1,680
Maumee3,208Auglaize
495
Vermilion1,342
Chicago0
Vermilion1,342
Lower Great Miami904
Upper Great Miami441
Lower Great Miami904
Allen
Lake
Knox
Jay
Wh ite
Vig o
Jasper
Laporte
Cass
P arke
Rush
Clay
Greene
P ike
Grant
Ripley
Gib son
Nob le
P erry
Clark
P orter
Elkh art
P osey
Wells
BooneHenry
Owen
Jackson
P utnam
Dubois
Miam i
P ulaski
Sh elb y
Harrison
Sulliv an
Marion
Fulton
Wayne
Clinton
Benton
Kosc iusko
Carroll
Dav iess
Orang e
Madison
Monroe
Morgan
Marsh all
Martin
Newton
Wabash
Warric k
Warren
Franklin
DeKalb
Brown
Spenc er
Randolph
Adam s
Lawrence
Decatur
Starke
Fountain
Ham ilton
Wash ing ton
Wh itley
Tippecanoe
St. Joseph
Jenning s
Delaware
Montg om ery
Hendric ks
Lag rang e
Tipton
Jefferson
Steuben
Joh nson
Howard
Hunting ton
Hancoc k
Scott
Crawford
Barth olom ew
Union
Floyd
Switzerland
Oh io
Dearborn
Fayette
Verm illion
Vanderburg h
Blackford
2013-14 Cumulative Nutrient Load Reductions: Phosphorus
Based on Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 15,042 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation PartnershipJanuary 2013 thru December 2014. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.
May 18, 2015Deb Fairh urst, ISDA P rog ram Manag er
Phosphorus Reduction (pounds)1 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000No Reported Reductions
A total reduction of 1,250,592pounds of phosphorus statewide.
Reductions in dissolv ed nutrients, suc h as dissolv ed reac tiv e ph osph orus (DRP ) and nitrate (NO3), are not ac counted for b y th e Reg ion 5 Model.
h ttp://ic p.iaswcd.org/
Since 2013, voluntary conserv ation efforts from priv ate landowners in Indiana with support from th e ICP h av e reduced nutrients and sedim ent from entering Indiana’s waterways.
6.25 Freig h t CarsPhosphorus Reductions
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 20
2013
and
201
4 Ph
osph
orus
Loa
d R
educ
tions
by
HU
C8
Wat
ersh
eds
HUC8
HUC8
NAM
E1Y
R201
35Y
R201
810
YR20
2315
YR20
2820
YR20
33TO
TAL
HUC8
HUC8
NAM
E1Y
R201
45Y
R201
910
YR20
2415
YR20
2920
YR20
34TO
TAL
0404
0001
Litt
le C
alum
et-G
alie
n51
818
128
270
691
0404
0001
Litt
le C
alum
et-G
alie
n1,
494
38
20
1,50
704
0500
01St
Jose
ph (M
I)83
,460
1,67
845
21,
889
2287
,501
0405
0001
St Jo
seph
(MI)
61,8
371,
195
1,60
471
83,
033
68,3
8704
1000
03St
Jose
ph (O
H)51
,444
170
129
330
51,7
7604
1000
03St
Jose
ph (O
H)26
,142
362
4545
40
27,0
0304
1000
04St
Mar
ys6,
534
383
197
342
07,
456
0410
0004
St M
arys
4,41
895
1,36
739
05,
919
0410
0005
Mau
mee
4,18
20
102
540
4,33
804
1000
05M
aum
ee3,
052
00
00
3,05
204
1000
07Au
glai
ze27
434
00
7404
1000
07Au
glai
ze44
80
00
044
805
0800
01U
pper
Gre
at M
iam
i0
00
00
005
0800
01U
pper
Gre
at M
iam
i41
823
00
044
105
0800
02Lo
wer
Gre
at M
iam
i61
247
1721
207
904
0508
0002
Low
er G
reat
Mia
mi
612
00
00
612
0508
0003
Whi
tew
ater
20,2
2983
51,
607
284
1,85
824
,812
0508
0003
Whi
tew
ater
8,71
415
52,
061
134
291
11,3
5505
0902
03M
iddl
e O
hio-
Laug
hery
25,6
811,
978
3,10
717
25,
687
36,6
2505
0902
03M
iddl
e O
hio-
Laug
hery
24,3
234,
156
4,80
812
044
633
,853
0512
0101
Upp
er W
abas
h27
,768
530
2,74
894
70
31,9
9305
1201
01U
pper
Wab
ash
19,9
9814
01,
503
118
021
,759
0512
0102
Sala
mon
ie7,
192
4350
217
50
7,91
205
1201
02Sa
lam
onie
5,77
90
00
05,
779
0512
0103
Miss
issin
ewa
1,27
037
051
725
02,
182
0512
0103
Miss
issin
ewa
4,05
082
825
820
5,03
905
1201
04Ee
l (W
R)88
,462
1,03
61,
273
877
091
,648
0512
0104
Eel (
WR)
93,7
1554
329
624
60
94,8
0005
1201
05M
iddl
e W
abas
h-De
er8,
279
992
1,82
527
011
,123
0512
0105
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Deer
5,15
735
364
210
5,59
505
1201
06Ti
ppec
anoe
38,2
651,
212
433
1,31
520
941
,435
0512
0106
Tipp
ecan
oe46
,795
7455
082
22,
048
50,2
8905
1201
07W
ildca
t30
,574
3,05
73,
645
497
037
,773
0512
0107
Wild
cat
24,6
4518
71,
196
257
26,0
6005
1201
08M
iddl
e W
abas
h-Li
ttle
Ver
mill
ion
50,8
541,
650
9,14
22,
028
063
,674
0512
0108
Mid
dle
Wab
ash-
Litt
le V
erm
illio
n36
,260
325
14,3
7592
517
552
,059
0512
0109
Verm
illio
n2,
957
078
60
3,04
105
1201
09Ve
rmill
ion
1,25
80
00
01,
258
0512
0110
Suga
r7,
388
1,77
81,
520
310
10,7
1705
1201
10Su
gar
9,39
442
613
,096
270
22,9
4305
1201
11M
iddl
e W
abas
h-Bu
sser
on35
,078
3,31
54,
112
1,69
40
44,1
9905
1201
11M
iddl
e W
abas
h-Bu
sser
on25
,277
1,00
740
773
10
27,4
2205
1201
13Lo
wer
Wab
ash
14,8
903,
808
1,98
43,
954
024
,636
0512
0113
Low
er W
abas
h22
,624
7438
00
023
,078
0512
0201
Upp
er W
hite
13,0
8144
01,
920
320
015
,761
0512
0201
Upp
er W
hite
12,6
011,
070
2,01
037
313
16,0
6705
1202
02Lo
wer
Whi
te65
,145
10,7
7798
41,
009
1977
,933
0512
0202
Low
er W
hite
47,7
506,
258
1,15
60
055
,164
0512
0203
Eel (
WFW
R)37
,425
2,88
58,
541
817
049
,667
0512
0203
Eel (
WFW
R)23
,442
3,99
83,
332
205
030
,978
0512
0204
Drift
woo
d9,
643
189
329
256
157
10,5
7405
1202
04Dr
iftw
ood
6,76
40
129
390
6,93
205
1202
05Fl
atro
ck-H
aw5,
854
129
338
108
320
6,74
905
1202
05Fl
atro
ck-H
aw5,
468
516
053
5,54
205
1202
06U
pper
Eas
t For
k W
hite
38,4
6792
24,
680
795
044
,864
0512
0206
Upp
er E
ast F
ork
Whi
te43
,310
232
2,89
314
10
46,5
7605
1202
07M
usca
tatu
ck36
,817
2,79
03,
152
584
8743
,430
0512
0207
Mus
cata
tuck
23,0
071,
958
238
420
25,2
4505
1202
08Lo
wer
Eas
t For
k W
hite
149,
030
38,0
302,
489
3,41
738
193,
004
0512
0208
Low
er E
ast F
ork
Whi
te68
,281
17,6
121,
356
614
132
87,9
9505
1202
09Pa
toka
13,7
023,
296
2,47
42,
687
357
22,5
1705
1202
09Pa
toka
50,1
9922
12,
670
171
384
53,6
4505
1401
01Si
lver
-Litt
le K
entu
cky
20,8
434,
642
1,03
811
614
226
,780
0514
0101
Silv
er-L
ittle
Ken
tuck
y11
,789
176
2,46
256
741
15,2
2505
1401
04Bl
ue-S
inki
ng95
,470
17,4
811,
425
1,53
921
115,
936
0514
0104
Blue
-Sin
king
53,9
604,
452
1,27
590
1959
,796
0514
0201
Low
er O
hio-
Litt
le P
igeo
n76
,210
11,3
132,
378
6323
190
,195
0514
0201
Low
er O
hio-
Litt
le P
igeo
n56
,234
2,40
569
615
50
59,4
9005
1402
02Hi
ghla
nd-P
igeo
n23
,607
500
383
196
024
,687
0514
0202
High
land
-Pig
eon
25,1
1721
09
60
25,3
4207
1200
01Ka
nkak
ee13
,930
738
658
721
016
,047
0712
0001
Kank
akee
36,9
6524
063
516
20
38,0
0207
1200
02Iro
quoi
s3,
702
140
1,26
60
4,98
207
1200
02Iro
quoi
s16
,757
5124
610
16,8
9307
1200
03Ch
icag
o14
00
00
014
007
1200
03Ch
icag
o0
00
00
0
NO
TE: 2
013
1YR
LOAD
RED
UCT
ION
S AR
E N
OT
INCL
UDE
D IN
THE
201
3-14
CU
MU
LATI
VE N
UTR
IEN
T LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
N A
NAL
YSIS
2013
PHO
SPHO
RUS
LOAD
RED
UCT
ION
S20
14 P
HOSP
HORU
S LO
AD R
EDU
CTIO
NS
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 21
Indiana Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions
Voluntary conservation efforts from private landowners in Indiana with support from the Indiana Conservation Partnership have reduced nutrients and sediment from
entering Indiana’s waterways. The figures below represent these efforts since 2013.
SedimentA football field covered to a depth of 560 feet, which is taller than the
Washington Monument
Nitrogen12.5 freight cars
Phosphorus6.25 freight cars
Reduction:1,209,756 Tons
555 Feet
Reduction:2,513,693 Pounds
Reduction:1,250,592 Pounds
For more information about Indiana’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, please see isda.in.gov
With Support From:
icp.iaswcd.org/
Indiana Conservation Partnership (ICP)Data is collected by Indiana Conservation Partnership Agencies and aggregated using
the USEPA’s Region 5 Model to show total nutrient and sediment reductions.
Top Conservation Practices in Indiana
By quantity of practices installed and reduction per practice:
• No Till• Reduced Tillage• Cover Crops• Grassed Waterways• Wetland Enhancement• Filter Strips• Nutrient Management• Riparian Buffers
For more information about conservation practices visit:nrcs.usda.gov
2014 ICP Conservation Accomplishments and Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Report 22