indiana conservation partnership 2014 conservation ... · indiana conservation partnership . 2014...

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

http://icp.iaswcd.org/

mailto:[email protected]

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.

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

http://iaswcd.org/icp/


http://iaswcd.org/

http://iaswcd.org/

http://www.in.gov/idem/

http://www.in.gov/idem/

http://www.in.gov/dnr/

http://www.in.gov/dnr/



https://www.extension.purdue.edu/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/



http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/stateoffapp?mystate=in&area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/stateoffapp?mystate=in&area=home&subject=landing&topic=landing

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/in/home/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/in/home/

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.


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.



https://engineering.purdue.edu/watersheds/webinars/Region5/


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.


http://infieldadvantage.org/



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


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 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 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


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.


http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/acep/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/acep/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/awep/?cid=nrcs143_008334

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/awep/



http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/in/programs/financial/csp/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/in/programs/financial/csp/

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.




http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/in/programs/?cid=nrcs144p2_031015


http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/ewpp/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/ewpp/

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/grassland-reserve/index

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/grassland-reserve/index

http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/2525.htm






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.




http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2364.htm

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2364.htm



http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/in/newsroom/releases/?cid=nrcs144p2_031028

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/in/newsroom/releases/?cid=nrcs144p2_031028

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.




http://icp.iaswcd.org/?page_id=271

http://www.in.gov/isda/icpreports/

http://www.in.gov/isda/icpreports

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


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.



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


Sugar45,911

Whitewater22,784Driftwood

13,860

Wildcat52,820

Eel (WFWR)62,457

Blue-Sinking117,635

Iroquois33,853

Muscatatuck49,568

Patoka108,496


Upper Wabash43,516

Eel (WR)191,423


Mississinewa10,062

Salamonie11,540


Lower Wabash45,323

Flatrock-Haw11,076

St Marys11,926









Maumee6,053

Chicago

Auglaize899

Vermilion2,513

Vermilion2,513

Lower Great Miami1,226



2014

Nutr

ient L

oad R

educ

tions


Nitrogen Reduction (lbs./year)1 - 50,00050,001 - 200,000No Reported Reductions

Nitro

gen

A total reduction of 2,120,554pounds of nitrogen statewide.



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


Whitewater11,355

Sugar22,943

Driftwood6,932

Wildcat26,342

Eel (WFWR)30,978

Blue-Sinking58,856

Iroquois16,893

Muscatatuck24,896

Patoka53,645


Upper Wabash21,759

Eel (WR)95,100


Mississinewa5,039

Salamonie5,779


Lower Wabash22,536

Flatrock-Haw5,542

St Marys5,919









Maumee3,052

Chicago

Auglaize448

Vermilion1,258

Vermilion1,258




2014

Nutr

ient L

oad R

educ

tions


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.



Upper White15,875

Kankakee34,920

Tippecanoe45,909

Lower White74,955


Whitewater15,462

Patoka69,168

Sugar23,796

Driftwood6,840

Wildcat26,961

Eel (WFWR)43,539

Blue-Sinking86,713

Iroquois14,212


Muscatatuck28,975

Upper Wabash20,376

Eel (WR)80,207


Mississinewa4,541

Salamonie4,962


Lower Wabash35,602

Flatrock-Haw4,916

St Marys5,209









Maumee2,807Auglaize

360

Vermilion1,027

Chicago0

Vermilion1,027




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


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


Upper White37,399

Kankakee80,019

Tippecanoe106,569

Lower White135,400


Whitewater32,113

Sugar52,628

Driftwood15,787

Wildcat66,621

Eel (WFWR)87,497

Blue-Sinking159,829

Iroquois36,411


Muscatatuck64,089

Patoka126,113

Upper Wabash51,962

Eel (WR)197,097


Mississinewa11,917

Salamonie12,972


Lower Wabash65,727

Flatrock-Haw12,855

St Marys15,617









Maumee6,431Auglaize

992

Vermilion2,718

Chicago0

Vermilion2,718




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


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


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


Upper White18,746

Kankakee40,119

Tippecanoe53,459

Lower White67,953


Whitewater15,938

Patoka62,459

Sugar26,272

Driftwood7,863

Wildcat33,260

Eel (WFWR)43,220

Blue-Sinking80,262

Iroquois18,174


Muscatatuck31,858

Upper Wabash25,983

Eel (WR)97,986


Mississinewa5,951

Salamonie6,499


Lower Wabash32,824

Flatrock-Haw6,437

St Marys6,841









Maumee3,208Auglaize

495

Vermilion1,342

Chicago0

Vermilion1,342




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


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


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


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


indiana conservation partnership 2014 conservation ... · indiana conservation partnership . 2014...

Documents