INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT

2009 - 2012

The

“ I C W P ”

Indian Creek Watershed Project

• The ICWP grant is administered by Historic Hoosier Hills RC&D, one of the project’s 13 Partners and also our project’s SPONSOR.

HHH RC&D ICWP

ICWP

• Cary Louderback is the Coordinator.

• Bonnie Fancher is the primary volunteer monitor and President of the Steering Committee.

• Switzerland County High School students are the primary volunteer water samplers.

• “BMPs” are Best Management Practices (the conservation practices installed).

ICWP

VISION

A watershed with a healthy natural resource base that will improve the quality of life within our community

ICWP

MISSION

To lead efforts to better the natural resources of the Indian Creek Watershed for present and future generations

Watershed Description

A watershed is the area of land that catches rain and snow and drains into a marsh, stream, river, lake or groundwater. Homes, farms, forests, small towns and big cities can make up watersheds. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes.

Watershed Identification

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) are a way of identifying drainage basins or

a region of land that catches precipitation that falls within an area

and funnels to a particular creek, stream or river until the water drains

into the ocean.

ICWP HISTORY

The ICWP began in 2001……

ICWP HISTORY

• In 2001, Mrs. Bonnie Fancher and a group of her Switzerland County High School AP Environmental Science students sampled the water of Indian Creek. They found very high levels of E.coli bacteria. The group became very concerned and took their concerns to community officials. Long story short; a community task force, including the students and their teacher, discussed the problem and investigated potential ways to remedy.

ICWP HISTORY

• The group gained the help needed, applied and received grant funding, and in late 2004, began the work of developing a Watershed Management Plan (WMP) to document the causes of high levels of E.coli and also to document recommended actions necessary to improve water quality. The next step was to apply for grant funding to cost-share with local producers willing to implement those

ICWP HISTORY

• Conservation Best Management Practices, or BMPs, needed for water quality improvement. That funding was received, a Coordinator was hired in March, 2009, a Cost-Share Program and a Quality Assurance Project Plan were developed and approved, and implementation of BMPs began in 2010. Students and Mrs. Fancher continue to sample the waters of the Indian Creek Watershed and record the data.

ICWP VOLUNTEERS• There are specific requirements for water

sampling in the ICWP grant.• There was no funding requested (or needed).• 100% of the water sampling is done by volunteers

(largely students of SCHS) and Bonnie Fancher.• The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was

written by Bonnie Fancher and approved by IDEM, to fully ensure accuracy and reliability of the data.

ICWP LOCATION

• The Indian Creek Watershed is located on the western side of Switzerland County. The headwaters area begins near Avonburg. It flows approximately 15 miles before it reaches the Ohio River, just west of Vevay. The watershed covers approximately 43,840 acres.

ICWP LOCATION

ICWP POPULATION

• Human Population• The total population living within the Indian Creek

watershed area was estimated using the population statistics from the 2000 Census. The total population within the watershed is estimated at 2,520.

ICWP POPULATION

• Wildlife Population• The Indian Creek Watershed has a wide

variety of habitats. Steep wooded hillsides, upland agriculture, and Indian Creek and its tributaries provide diverse habitat and extensive edge habitat for wildlife. The agriculture of the area includes soybean, corn, and hay fields. This habitat provides excellent food, water and cover for wildlife.

ICWP POPULATION

• Switzerland County is recognized for its abundant wild turkey and Virginia Whitetail Deer harvests. The 2007 Spring Turkey Harvest was 467 turkeys for Switzerland County, the highest of any Indiana counties, according to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The total harvest for the State of Indiana for 2007 was 11,163. Many wild turkeys are observed in the Indian Creek Watershed.

ICWP POPULATION

• The deer population and harvest is also extensive in Switzerland County. In 2006, the county had the fourth largest deer harvest in Indiana with 2,821 deer taken. This included 929 antlered and 1892 anterless deer. In 2005, Switzerland County had the third largest deer harvest in Indiana with 3,135 deer taken. This included 1,038 anterled deer and 2,097 anterless deer. Information from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

• (1) Indian Creek Headwaters• (2) Northwest Tributary Indian Creek• (3) Tumblebug• (4) Upper Indian Creek• (5) Pendleton Branch• (6) Long Run• (7) Indian Creek•

Indian Creek’s Subwatersheds

ICWP LAND USE

Sedimentation source: Livestock

• The critical areas for sedimentation from livestock sources were determined using the windshield survey results. Subwatersheds with more than 50% occurrence of livestock with access to the creek received a high priority. Those that had between 10-50% occurrence received a medium priority, and those under 10% received a low priority.

Sedimentation source: Livestock

Sedimentation source: Tillage

• The critical areas for sedimentation from conventional tillage were determined using the total acreage of cultivated cropland in each subwatershed. Subwatersheds with more than 1,000 acres of cultivated cropland received a high priority. Those that had between 100 – 999 acres received a medium priority, and those under 100 acres received a low priority.

Sedimentation source: Tillage

Changes in farming

• An interesting note:• Switzerland County farmers have changed

“how” they grow crops over the past few years. Currently, most row crop farming is done using no-till methods versus earlier methods of tilling. These recent changes have a positive impact on water quality by reducing the sedimentation and chemical runoff !

Sedimentation source: Urban

• The critical areas for sedimentation from urban areas were determined using the total acreage of developed land in each subwatershed. Subwatersheds with more than 100 acres of developed land received high priority. Subwatersheds with 11-99 acres of developed land received medium priority. Subwatersheds with 10 acres or less of developed land received low priority.

Sedimentation source: Urban

Development of more urban areas is likely to continue which will require

implementation of urban erosion control methods to maintain or

improve water quality.

Sedimentation source: Urban

E.coli: From Livestock

• The critical areas for E.coli from livestock sources were determined using the windshield survey results. Subwatersheds with more than 50% occurrence of livestock with access to the creek received a high priority. Those that had between 10-50% occurrence received a medium priority, and those under 10% received a low priority.

E.coli: From Livestock

E.coli: Human Sources

• According to Joe Spiller, Switzerland County Health Department Inspector (circa 2001), the best soils for a leach field are those that are deep, well-drained, and strong to moderate structured soils such as silt loam or loam soil types. The Switzerland County Soil Survey indicates that each of the soil associations found in the Indian Creek watershed are not suitable for septic tank absorption fields.

E.coli: Human SourcesSeptic systems installed in soils unsuitable for leach fields have a high chance of malfunctioning, leading to the contamination of both land and water. In addition, the critical areas for E.coli from septic system sources were also determined by using the water testing results taken throughout the year.

E.coli: Human SourcesSubwatersheds that averaged more than the

state standard of 235 colonies per 100 mL received a high priority. Those that were below the state standard received a low

priority.

E.coli: Human Sources

Nutrients source: Agriculture• The critical areas for nutrients from

agricultural land were determined using the total acreage of cultivated cropland and pasture/hayland. Subwatersheds with more than 2,000 acres of combined pasture and hayland and cropland received a high priority. Those with between 1,000 – 2,000 acres of combined cropland and pasture/hayland received a medium priority, and those with less than 1,000 acres of combined cropland and pasture/hayland were given a low priority.

Nutrients source: Agriculture

Nutrients: From lack of riparian buffers

• The critical areas for nutrients from lack of riparian buffers were determined using windshield surveys and aerial photographs. Subwatersheds 010, 040, and 050 had moderately buffered streams and were given a medium priority. Subwatersheds 020, 030, 060, and 070 had sufficiently buffered streams and were given a low priority. Because the watershed is adequately buffered, no areas were given a high priority.

Nutrients: From lack of riparian buffers

Chemicals: From chemical applications

• The critical areas for chemicals from chemical application were determined using the total acreage of cultivated cropland in each subwatershed. Subwatersheds with more than 1,000 acres of cultivated cropland received a high priority. Those that had between 100 – 999 acres received a medium priority, and those under 100 acres received a low priority.

Chemicals: From chemical applications

Chemicals: From lack of riparian buffers

• The critical areas for chemicals from lack of riparian buffers were determined using windshield surveys and aerial photographs. Subwatersheds 010, 040, and 050 had moderately buffered streams and were given a medium priority. Subwatersheds 020, 030, 060, and 070 had sufficiently buffered streams and were given a low priority. Because the watershed is adequately buffered, no areas were given a high priority.

Chemicals: From lack of riparian buffers

Dumping

• The critical areas for dumping were determined using windshield surveys and field days. Subwatersheds where more than one illegal dump site was found or a clean-up field day was performed received high priority. Areas where only one illegal dump was found were given a medium priority, and the 050 subwatershed with no dump sites was given a low priority.

Dumping

ICWP 2010/2011 PROGRESS

• 11 producers are being assisted with the $143,000 in cost-share .

• 81 BMPs have been funded & installed.

• Over $75,000 worth of BMPs were completed in 2010 and the producers paid.

• Another $62,000 worth of BMPs were completed in 2011. All producers paid.

ICWP 2012 PROGRESS• The remaining $6,000 of the original $143,000

is in the process of being expended.• Thanks to funding for 6 months from the

Switzerland County Council, work continues.• ICWP recently received a grant extension of

one year and $50,000 in cost-share funds.• About 98% of that new funding, from IDEM,

has already been allocated. Expenditures will begin very soon- weather permitting.

ICWP PROGRESS• BMPs installed include:• Fencing• Pasture & hayland reseedings• Heavy Use Area Protection (HUAP)• Alternative Watering Systems, that include Watering Facilities Ponds, spring developments or wells Pipelines

ICWP PROGRESS

Progress toward LOAD REDUCTIONS, to date:

• Sedimentation reduction- 421%• Phosphorous reduction- 32%• Nitrogen reduction- 129%

(In terms of percentage of annual targets, as per the Watershed Management Plan goals, calculated by using NRCS-accepted methods).

ICWP PROGRESS

MATCH FUNDS:

• Original grant requirement: $188,141.00• Grant extension added: +66,667.00• Total required: $254,808.00• Reported to date (Feb. 2012): (204,931.00)• Still required: $49,877.00

From 2009 thru present, ICWP has been on or ahead of schedule regarding Match Funds.

ICWP FUTURE• More producers are awaiting funding, should

more funds become available.

• A grant application was submitted in August, 2010, requesting $202,000 in cost-share funding. It was not funded.

• Another grant application was submitted in August, 2011, again requesting $202,000 for cost-share. So far, the prospects of that grant being funded appear to be positive.

ICWP FUTURE

When additional cost-share funding comes - BMPs to install during 2013-2016 include:• Spring developments• Fencing• Pasture and hayland reseedings• Alternative watering systems• Heavy Use Area Protection (HUAPs)• And others

ICWP 2010 - 2012

• The following pictures were taken on farms within the Indian Creek Watershed where BMPs were installed in 2010-2012 by some of

the producers participating in the ICWP cost-share program. The ICWP paid 60% of the costs and the producers paid 40%.

Keeton FenceWoodlands exclusion & paddock

Birkemeier “Frogpond” (Before)

Birkemeier Pond

Birkemeier Water Intake Barrel

Birkemeier Livestock Water Fountain

Birkemeier Fence

Cord “Frogpond” (Before)

Cord Pond

Cord Livestock Water Tank on HUAP

Cord Pond Livestock Exclusion Fence

Roberts Fence

Roberts (more) Fence

Harmon Fence

ICWP PROGRESS

OUTREACH and EDUCATION:• There are 50 line items of Outreach &

Education requirements in the current grant.• All of those have been completed.• In total, 159 line items of Outreach &

Education have been accomplished. (That is 318% of the requirements)

Sponsor and Volunteer “Chiefs” at the ICWP Watershed Workshop at SCHS

ICWP Watershed Workshop at SCHS (quite a large turnout)

Other watersheds presented with ICWP

(Duane Drockelman with SLC)

Partners presented with ICWP (Aaron Bell with SISWD)

Other Project Committees presented at ICWP Workshop

(Larry Bailey from Denver Siekman)

ICWP Educational Displays

ICWP HONORED

• The Indian Creek Watershed Project received

The 2010 Indiana Governor’s Award for Excellence in Environmental Leadership in the

Outreach or Education Category.

The ICWP, our Partners and our sponsor may all share in the pride of winning this award !

Governor’s Award Ceremony at Indy

ICWP SUCCESS

In summary:

The ICWP has achieved multiple successes, reaching or exceeding all the project’s goals and winning recognition at the State level (for ICWP, our Partners and our Sponsor). Those dedicated to this project have maintained steadfast devotion and unwavering professionalism!

The ICWP can truly be viewed as a “model” project.

THANK YOU !

• Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation. I appreciate your time and attention.

• Thank you to everyone that contributed to the wonderful successes of this project.

• Cary Louderback,• ICWP Coordinator

ICWP GOVERNOR’S AWARD 2010 Award presentation at Indianapolis, left to right: IDEM Asst. Commissioner Rick Bossingham; IDEM Commissioner Thomas Easterly; 2009-

2010 Switzerland County High School (SCHS) AP Environmental Science student and current Franklin College student Leslie Johnson; HHH RC&D Projects Director Terry Stephenson; SCHS AP Environmental Science teacher, Indian Creek Watershed Project Steering Committee President, and Chief Volunteer Water Monitor Mrs. Bonnie Fancher; IDEM Environmental Manager: Watershed Assessment and Planning Branch Leanne Whitesell; Switzerland County Schools Corporation Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Tharp-Jones; IDEM Watershed Specialist Kathleen Hagan; ICWP Coordinator Cary Louderback; and HHH RC&D Programs Director and Central Muscatatuck Watershed Project Educator Casie Auxier.

Comment received after the Workshop at Hanover College:“Cary, thank you for the kind words to Marija. She has worked very hard to create 6 forums of this type across the state. Indian Creek’s presentation and the project’s partnership with the students is by far one of the most unique and profitable…from several points of view.”

ICWP

ICWP

• “I will use Indian Creek’s example to other watershed groups. It was very nice to meet all of you and I hope we will work together again in the future.”

• • Barb Simpson• Exc. Director, Indiana Wildlife Federation

“Cary - it is always a pleasure working with you and learning about all the watershed project is doing. The High School testing is really impressive. Bonnie and your presentation was very informative. I have called but you have been out or in meetings - tons of fun I'm sure. I can do a letter of support so if you can send me an example of the paragraph needed .” Susan Knowles, Private Lands BiologistMuscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge FWS

ICWP

ICWP“Good morning Cary and Bonnie. Hope you had a nice weekend! Attached is the flyer and sign-in sheet. I attempted to record everyone's name correctly, but for some it was difficult to decipher so if you see mistakes, please let me know.”

ICWP

• “It has been a pleasure working with both of you and I look forward to future collaboration. Thank you very much!!” MarijaMarija WatsonProject ManagerIndiana Wildlife Federation317.875.9453watson@indianawildlife.org