the partnership is comprised of eight indiana …...indiana conservation partnership 2015...

Indiana Conservation Partnership

2015 Conservation Accomplishments

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.

This report serves as a compliment to Indiana's Nutrient Reduction Strategy, both publications can be found online at http://www.in.gov/isda/.

For more information, contact the Indiana State Department of Agriculture.

[email protected] 317.232.8770

Published: April 4, 2016

http://icp.iaswcd.org/

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

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents

Indiana Conservation Partnership ........................................................................................................ 1

Sharing Conservation Data, Targeting Resources, and Striving for Water Quality Outcomes .............. 2-5

Annual Workload Accountability Data Flow ......................................................................................... 6

2015 ICP Conservation Accomplishments Map ..................................................................................... 7

2013-15 Conservation Acreage by County Maps .............................................................................. 8-10

2015 Sediment and Nutrient Load Reduction Maps ....................................................................... 11-13

2013-15 Cumulative Sediment and Nutrient Load Reduction Maps ................................................... 14-16

Nutrient and Sediment Load Reductions Infographic .......................................................................... 17

Supporting Tabular Data: View tabular data for all maps included in this report, as well as program funding descriptions. Methodology - USEPA Region 5 Load Reduction Modeling of Completed Conservation Practices in Indiana: View methodology used to compile this report.

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/files/Supporting_Tabular_Data_for_2015_ICP_Conservation_Accomplishments.pdf

http://www.in.gov/isda/files/Methodology_-_USEPA_Region_5_Load_Reduction_Modeling_of_Completed_Conservation_Practices_in_Indiana.pdf

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/

2015 ICP Conservation Accomplishments 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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/in/home/

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

Sharing Conservation Data, Targeting Resources, and Striving for Water Quality Outcomes The practices highlighted in this report were completed via voluntary conservation efforts from private landowners in Indiana with support from the Indiana Conservation Partnership. 2015 Key Highlights:

• Indiana landowners supported by the ICP installed nearly 21,000 new conservation practices in 2015. 12,221 of these practices had associated sediment and nutrient load reductions to Indiana waterways reducing:

o 1,093,763 tons of sediment, enough to fill 10,937 fifty-foot freight cars stretching end to end from Indianapolis to Fort Wayne

o 2,284,033 lbs of Nitrogen, enough to fill 11 fifty-foot freight cars o 1,144,892 lbs of Phosphorus, enough to fill 5.5 fifty-foot freight cars

• Indiana landowners increased no-till acres on corn and soybean fields by 466% since 19901 • Indiana landowners increased conservation tillage acres on corn and soybean fields by 311%

since 19901 • Indiana landowners increased cover crop acres on corn and soybean fields by 413% since 20111 • Indiana leads the nation in acres planted to cover crops, second only to Texas2

2013-15 ICP Conservation Accomplishments Comparison

Total

Practices Installed

Total Practices

with Sediment

and Nutrient

Load Reductions

Sediment (tons/year)

Phosphorus (lbs./year)

Nitrogen (lbs./year)

Public Conservation Investment

Private Landowner

Conservation Investment

Total Investment

CY2013 30,502 15,332 1,661,636 1,469,926 2,780,790 $42,825,181* $16,003,304** $58,828,485

CY2014 21,012 11,365 996,762 1,137,921 2,120,554 $18,564,015* $9,570,813** $28,134,828

CY2015 20,898 12,221 1,093,763 1,144,892 2,284,033 $27,362,612 $10,857,905 $38,220,517

Total practices installed – Includes all calendar year installed/completed conservation practices. Public Conservation Investment– Value reflects total cost of practices with sediment and nutrient load reductions. Investment only includes incentive payments and actual practice construction/implementation costs (earth moving, rock, erosion control blanket, grade stabilization structures, cover crop seed and planting costs, grass seed, tree seedlings, exclusion fencing, planter equipment modification costs, private construction contractor costs including fuel and labor, etc). Costs do not include administration and public labor (NRCS, FSA, ISDA, IDEM, SWCD, DNR employee salaries, survey/planning/design costs, etc). Private Landowner Conservation Investment – Value reflects total cost of practices with sediment and nutrient load reductions. Investment only includes actual practice construction/implementation costs. *Amount does not include DNR Lake and River Enhancement (LARE) practice costs. **Amount does not include Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and LARE landowner match.

1 Indiana Tillage and Cover Crop Transect 1990-2015: http://www.in.gov/isda/2383.htm

2 2012 USDA NASS Census of Agriculture: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Conservation/Highlights_Conservation.pdf



http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Conservation/Highlights_Conservation.pdf

Reporting Completed Conservation Projects

ICP entities that work with private landowners to provide direct technical and/or financial assistance for conservation projects share data (page 6) with necessary formal agreements in place (1619 compliance, MOU’s, etc.) to exchange information while always protecting personally identifiable information. The map on page 7 highlights calendar year 2015 completed conservation projects by county. Note: this report highlights only completed practices, while noting some practices underway near completion. It does not show the many new contracts initiated or practices approved to begin construction. Reporting Financial Inputs The ICP shares financial data for all conservation practices at the county level, on an annual basis, per conservation program published on a mobile friendly website. Find out how much local, state, and federal conservation dollars came to your county on the ICP Accomplishments Report web application. Reporting Water Quality Benefits 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 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. This process is outlined on page 6. View the flow chart and further methodology.

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). These cumulative reductions for calendar year ‘13-‘15 are highlighted by watershed on pages 14-16. Some ICP practices were not modeled because they were not associated with sediment loss, or were not covered by the EPA Region 5 Model. The calendar year 2015 load reductions are highlighted by watershed on pages 11-13. 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. Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model. 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 Indiana3.

3 Refer to online posted methodology for further clarification


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

http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/default.htm




Reporting Positive Impacts to Drinking Water Sources and Targeting Conservation Efforts The ICP focuses on specifically reporting the positive impacts of conservation practices to key drinking water sources throughout the state that have significant percentages of agricultural land use within their watershed. To view these reports and find out the positive impacts farmers are having on water sources, as well as learn about the most popular conservation practices visit Indiana’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy website. The ICP will continue to focus on these significant watersheds and water bodies to further target technical and financial conservation assistance to grow conservation practice adoption. Identifying Trends to Customize Conservation Delivery The ICP utilizes multiple trend analysis techniques to identify rates of conservation practice implementation on the watershed, county, and state levels to identify adoption rates, most popular practices, newly emerging practices, practices dwindling in use, policy, weather, and economic effects on practice adoption, conservation culture, etc. These trends will allow the ICP to target resources and adapt conservation delivery geographically based on landowner needs and attitudes while preparing for spikes or dips in conservation demand due to weather and economic drivers. Visit the Cover Crop and Conservation and Tillage Transect Data web page to view trends in the use of No-till, Conservation Tillage and Cover Crops in your county. Incorporating in Other Data Sources (tillage and cover crop transects, social indicators, water quality monitoring, 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, privately funded and installed conservation practices, LIDAR, etc.) The ICP leads many other efforts that measure practice adoption, social trends, edge of field and in stream water quality in addition to working with partners in the private agricultural industry on various projects. These data sources are being evaluated for integration into this report to further demonstrate and visualize the cause and effect relationship of conservation practices (or lack thereof) and in-stream water quality improvements; in addition to societal attitudes towards conservation and in-stream water quality. Collaboration with Other States As a member of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force and participant in Great Lakes conservation (Tri-State Watershed Alliance) Indiana is proud to collaboratively work with other states in the Midwest and across the country to improve water quality and grow adoption of science based, nutrient runoff reducing, Best Management Practices which build soil health. The ICP is hungry to learn what is working in other states and willing to share their own experiences. Conclusion The primary value in ICP 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 Performance Measures to the Indiana State Office of Management and Budget. On a larger scale, The ICP 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







https://www.epa.gov/ms-htf

http://www.omirivers.org/portal/

http://www.in.gov/itp/2334.htm

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, and overlaying farmer social survey indicator data.

The ICP plans to continue utilizing the Region 5 Model and methodology for future years to come with the goal to assemble similar reports in March of each year. The partners encourage other organizations to share their data as well.

Acknowledgement

The ICP 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 ICP 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/


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

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

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


LAKE17

ALLEN788

JAY166

KNOX370

VIGO102

WHITE186

CASS104

JASPER114

RUSH108

PIKE242

CLAY315

LAPORTE78

GREENE702

PARKE145

GIBSON205

PORTER165

MIAMI466

RIPLEY377

OWEN236

POSEY431

NOBLE812

GRANT41

BOONE66

PUTNAM235

HENRY75 WAYNE

121

PERRY90

DUBOIS493

JACKSON205

CLARK202

WELLS416

SHELBY17

DAVIESS301

PULASKI169

MARION76

ELKHART196

MADISON73

BENTON288

WABASH922

KOSCIUSKO817

FULTON296

ORANGE117

SULLIVAN312

HARRISON538

CLINTON172

MONROE194

ADAMS329

NEWTON113

MORGAN192

DEKALB492

MARTIN99

ST JOSEPH106

WARREN128

WARRICK413

MARSHALL159

RANDOLPH56

BROWN56

LAWRENCE298

TIPPECANOE138

FOUNTAIN249 HAMILTON

104

DECATUR365

FRANKLIN99

CARROLL359

WASHINGTON764

STARKE68

WHITLEY412

JENNINGS295

DELAWARE50

TIPTON34

HENDRICKS314

LAGRANGE103

STEUBEN52

JOHNSON199

HOWARD79

JEFFERSON80

HANCOCK10

CRAWFORD150

UNION30

FAYETTE57

SPENCER293

MONTGOMERY411

HUNTINGTON337

SCOTT59

DEARBORN87

BARTHOLOMEW176

FLOYD38

VERMILLION97

OHIO65

SWITZERLAND107

VANDERBURGH158

BLACKFORD57

2015 Conservation AccomplishmentsTotal Practices

10 - 8081 - 150151 - 249250 - 538539 - 922

January 1 thru December 31, 2015Conservation Practices Completed - 20,898Conservation Practices Underway - 2,280

February 11, 2016Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager

Imple

mente

d by I

ndian

a Con

serva

tion P

artne

rship

2015

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.

See breakdown of practice by county based on program funding along with program descriptions in Supporting Tabular Data for 2015 ICP Accomplishments at http://www.in.gov/isda/2991.htm.


Allen8.54%

White3.59%

Jasper6.68%

Laporte3.11%

Greene17.52%

Lake11.27%

Ripley7.39%

Gibson17.75%

Grant2.33%

Cass5.55%

Vigo5.17%

Rush8.63%

Posey9.27%

Elkhart14.47%

Boone1.92%

Jay3.21%

Parke12.28% Putnam

9.1%

Clark5.17%

Jackson14.81%

Dubois32.96%

Shelby1.94%

Pulaski4.68%

Porter14.24% Noble

67.85%

Fulton5.26%

Harrison23.09%

Sullivan9.13%

Wayne12.45%Marion

53.07%

Henry11.14%

Benton16.67%

Clinton7.18%

Orange23.29%

Daviess16.82%

Monroe40.89%

Owen13.52%

Morgan19.51%

Kosciusko25.98%

Marshall6.18%

Wabash25.18%

Carroll12.57%

Wells17.44%

Warrick47.78%

Warren4.46%

DeKalb28.21%

Adams31.8%

Franklin32.43%

Starke1.5%

Brown9.43%

Decatur17.8%

Randolph18.6%

Lawrence28.83%

Fountain10.3% Hamilton

3.55%

Whitley13.04%

Washington16.98%

Delaware1.76%

Jennings4.31%

Lagrange12.09%

Hendricks11.43%

Tipton3.72%

Steuben10.42%

Jefferson11.77%

Howard11.07%

Hancock2.76%

Fayette7.64%

Union0.77%

Knox17.06%

Perry39.16%

Madison9.24%

Newton4.84%

Miami10.41%

Clay15.04%

Spencer52.35%

Pike24.69%

Martin45.65%

Tippecanoe2.37%

Montgomery13.98%

Johnson17.62%

Saint Joseph14.83%

Huntington17.93%

Crawford48.95%

Dearborn9.64%

Scott45.7%

Bartholomew3.69%

Vermillion2.79%

Floyd1.78%

Switzerland28.13%

Vanderburgh19.52%

Blackford2.52%

Ohio4.01%

Percentage of Ag Acresin Conservation

0.77% - 5.00%5.01% - 10.00%10.01% - 25.00%25.01% - 50.00%50.01% - 67.85%

April 1, 2016Trevor Laureys, ISDA Resource Specialist

2013 Conservation Acreage by County

Data provided by: Indiana State Department of Agriculture,Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service.

*Agriculture land use is calculatedfrom 2013 NASS cropland data layer. 2013 Indiana data is 95.6% accurateaccording to NASS metadata. *Practices measured in linear feetand DNR LARE practices are not included in 2013 acreage.

Statewide Percentage: 13.71%

**Practices do not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.

Percentage of Ag acres with newly completed and applied conservation practices in 2013**


Allen3.53%

White0.86%

Lake3.75%

Jasper3.74%

Laporte2.95%

Greene12.37%

Grant3.5%

Ripley4.3%

Noble18.6%

Gibson5.93%

Cass1.58%

Vigo0.55%

Rush2.92%

Porter8.1%

Posey4.14%

Elkhart5.71%

Henry2.19%

Boone3.67%

Owen2.42%

Jay2.08%

Parke14.18% Putnam

13.23%

Clark3.13%

Jackson2.93%

Wells9.83%

Dubois20.86%

Wayne6.03%

Shelby1.5%

Pulaski1.43%

Marion0.77%

Fulton4.11%

Harrison7.28%

Sullivan6.07%

Pike8.34%

Benton12.14%

Clinton3.9%

Orange9.27%

Daviess3.53%

Monroe49.8%

Morgan4.84%

Martin16.4%

Kosciusko11.23%

Marshall2.87%

Wabash18.58%

Carroll38.34%

Warrick34.54%

Warren8.74%

DeKalb5.47%

Adams8.44%

Franklin3.98%

Starke1.39%

Brown4.3%

Decatur12.21%

Randolph5.64%

Lawrence29.29%


3.4%

Whitley15.65%

Washington19.56%

Delaware2.67%

Jennings5.09%

Lagrange8.38%

Hendricks4.27%

Tipton3.25%

Steuben1.84%

Jefferson6.16%

Howard2.25%

Hancock1.25%

Fayette6.42%

Union1%

Knox18.89%

Perry24.48%

Miami11.85%

Madison1.04%

Newton7.05%

Clay13.58%

Spencer15.81%

Tippecanoe3.45%

Montgomery7.77%

Johnson18.22%

Saint Joseph8.22%

Huntington11.88%

Crawford17.33%

Dearborn4.31%

Scott2.83%

Bartholomew8.93%

Vermillion0.05%

Floyd8.94%

Switzerland6.61%

Vanderburgh14.11%

Blackford0.7%

Ohio11.86%


0.05% - 5.00%5.00% - 10.00%10.00% - 25.00%25.00% - 49.80%


*Agriculture land use is calculatedfrom 2014 NASS cropland data layer. 2014 Indiana data is 94.4% accurateaccording NASS metadata.


*Certain IDEM 319 and DNR LARE practices have been omitted from2014 acreage due to insufficient data.

Data provided by: Indiana State Department of Agriculture,Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service.


2014 Conservation Acreage by CountyPercentage of Ag acres with newly completed and applied conservation practices in 2014**


Allen10.76%

Knox8.67%

White1.98%

Lake0.59%

Jasper2.21%

Laporte3.8%

Rush2%

Greene26.47%

Parke7.36%

Ripley6.61%

Gibson3.56%

Grant4.28%

Cass3.01%

Vigo5.85%

Porter5.11%

Elkhart5.82%

Henry3.55%

Boone0.88%

Perry9.26%

Jay4.93%

Putnam6.38%

Clark7.24%

Jackson10.29%

Wells7.99%

Dubois26.85%

Shelby0.29%Clay

8.32%

Pulaski1.61%

Posey20.31%

Noble21.52%

Marion0.7%

Wayne11.92%

Fulton7.63%

Harrison21.74%

Sullivan11.25%

Benton11.41%

Clinton13.15%

Orange31.02%

Daviess5.8%

Owen11.39%

Carroll9.73%

Monroe27.86%

Morgan12.29%

Martin9.01%

Kosciusko11.69%

Marshall3.51%

Wabash20.18%

Warrick28.2%

Warren2.78%

DeKalb12.03%

Adams8.75%

Franklin6.77%

Starke1.49%

Decatur7.39%

Randolph1.95%

Lawrence28.58%


5.65%

Whitley6.26%

Washington19.4%

Brown13.09%

Delaware2.71%

Jennings28.68%

Lagrange6.88%

Hendricks8.98%

Tipton0.42%

Steuben3.57%

Jefferson19.35%

Howard2.27%

Hancock0.23%

Fayette5.04%

Union8.52%

Madison1.96%

Newton2.05%

Miami10.27%

Spencer4.7%

Pike20.83%

Tippecanoe7.09%

Montgomery9.79%

Johnson16.04%

Saint Joseph27.19%

Huntington11.93%

Crawford43.66%

Dearborn20.25%

Scott9.38%

Bartholomew3.1%

Vermillion6.07%

Floyd3.05%

Switzerland75.7%

Vanderburgh27.41%

Blackford1.14%

Ohio31.84%


0.23% - 5.00%5.01% - 10.00%10.01% - 25.00%25.01% - 50.00%50.01% - 75.70%


Data provided by: Indiana State Department of Agriculture,Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indiana Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service.

*Agriculture land use is calculatedfrom 2015 NASS cropland data layer. 2015 Indiana data is 93.9% accurateaccording NASS metadata.



2015 Conservation Acreage by CountyPercentage of Ag acres with newly completed and applied conservation practices in 2015**


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 White13,808

Kankakee18,384

Tippecanoe31,220

Lower White91,103

St Joseph (MI)60,193

Whitewater20,518

Sugar12,506

Driftwood5,926

Eel (WFWR)50,604

Iroquois4,560

Muscatatuck26,765

Patoka64,767

Wildcat17,721

Blue-Sinking90,393

Lower East Fork White113,521

Upper Wabash17,017

Eel (WR)56,134

Middle Wabash-Little Vermillion48,481

Mississinewa4,167

Salamonie10,777

Middle Wabash-Busseron33,436

Lower Wabash39,613

Flatrock-Haw4,535

St Marys5,281

Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon42,160

St Joseph (OH)86,778

Middle Ohio-Laughery39,882

Upper East Fork White22,922

Middle Wabash-Deer8,276

Silver-Little Kentucky13,428

Highland-Pigeon19,797

Little Calumet-Galien1,884

Maumee10,870

Auglaize1,396

Chicago0

Vermillion4,304

Vermillion4,304

Lower Great Miami370

Upper Great Miami266

2015 Sediment Load Reductions

Based on EPA Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 12,221 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2015thru December 2015. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance.

March 2, 2016Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program ManagerTo learn more about Indiana's Nutrient Reduction Strategy visit: http://www.in.gov/isda/2991.htm. For questions and comments email [email protected]

Sediment Reduction (tons/year)No Reported Reductions1 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000

1,093,763 Tons

A total reduction of 1,093,763tons of sediment statewide.

In 2015, voluntary conservation efforts from private landowners in Indiana with support from the ICP have reduced sediment and nutrients from entering Indiana's waterways.



Allen

Lake

Knox

Jay

Wh ite

Vig o

Jasper

Laporte

Cass

Park e

R ush

Clay

Greene

Pik e

Grant

R ipley

Gib son

Nob le

Perry

Clark

Porter

Elk h art

Posey

Wells

Boone

Henry

Owen

Jack son

Putnam

Dub ois

Miam i

Pulask i

Sh elb y

Harrison

Sulliv an

Marion

Fulton

Wayne

Clinton

Benton

Kosciusk o

Carroll

Dav iess

Orang e

Madison

Monroe

Morg an

Marshall

Martin

Newton

Wab ash

Warrick

Warren

Frank lin

DeKalb

Brown

Spencer

R andolph

Adam s

Lawrence

Decatur

Starke

FountainHam ilton

Wash ing ton

Wh itley

Tippecanoe

St. Joseph

Jenning s

Delaware

Montg om ery

Hendricks

Lag rang e

Tipton

Jefferson

Steub en

Joh nson

Howard

Hunting ton

Hancock

Scott

Crawford

Dearb ornBarth olom ew

Fayette Union

Floyd

Switzerland

Vanderb urg h

Blackford

Oh io

Verm illion

Upper White34,312

Kankakee39,609

Tippecanoe77,135

Lower White174,651


Whitewater42,769

Sugar30,907

Driftwood14,251

Eel (WFWR)108,245

Iroquois13,935

Muscatatuck59,997

Patoka116,036

Wildcat39,095

Blue-Sinking179,737


Upper Wabash46,687

Eel (WR)138,609


Mississinewa11,887

Salamonie30,324


Lower Wabash76,648

Flatrock-Haw11,368

St Marys15,720









Maumee26,500

Auglaize4,394

Chicago0

Vermillion10,465

Vermillion10,465



2015 Nitrogen Load Reductions

March 2, 2016Deb Fairh urst, ISDA Prog ram Manag erTo learn m ore ab out Indiana's Nutrient R eduction Strateg y v isit: http://www.in.g ov /isda/2991.htm . For questions and com m ents em ail ISDANutrientR [email protected] ov

Nitrogen Reduction (lbs./year)No R eported R eductions1 - 50,00050,001 - 200,000200,001 - 300,000

2,284,033 Pounds

A total reduction of 2,284,033pounds of nitrogen statewide.

Based on EPA Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 12,221 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2015thru December 2015. 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.

h ttp://icp.iaswcd.org /

In 2015, v oluntary conserv ation efforts from priv ate landowners in Indiana with support from th e ICP hav e reduced sedim ent and nutrients from entering Indiana's waterways.

2,284,033 pounds of Nitrog en. That’s enoug h to fill 11.25 50’ freig h t cars.


Allen

Lake

Knox

Jay

Wh ite

Vig o

Jasper

Laporte

Cass

Park e

R ush

Clay

Greene

Pik e

Grant

R ipley

Gib son

Nob le

Perry

Clark

Porter

Elk h art

Posey

Wells

Boone

Henry

Owen

Jack son

Putnam

Dub ois

Miam i

Pulask i

Sh elb y

Harrison

Sulliv an

Marion

Fulton

Wayne

Clinton

Benton

Kosciusk o

Carroll

Dav iess

Orang e

Madison

Monroe

Morg an

Marsh all

Martin

Newton

Wab ash

Warrick

Warren

Frank lin

DeKalb

Brown

Spencer

R andolph

Adam s

Lawrence

Decatur

Starke

FountainHam ilton

Wash ing ton

Wh itley

Tippecanoe

St. Joseph

Jenning s

Delaware

Montg om ery

Hendrick s

Lag rang e

Tipton

Jefferson

Steub en

Joh nson

Howard

Hunting ton

Hancock

Scott

Crawford

Dearb ornBartholom ew

Fayette Union

Floyd

Switzerland

Vanderb urg h

Blackford

Oh io

Verm illion

Upper White16,730

Kankakee19,826

Tippecanoe38,226

Lower White87,972


Whitewater21,403

Sugar15,299

Driftwood7,021

Eel (WFWR)54,251

Iroquois6,970

Muscatatuck29,907

Patoka58,014

Wildcat19,422

Blue-Sinking89,073


Upper Wabash24,131

Eel (WR)69,557


Mississinewa5,830

Salamonie15,211


Lower Wabash38,444

Flatrock-Haw5,684

St Marys7,869









Maumee13,265

Auglaize2,203

Chicago0

Vermillion5,414

Vermillion5,414



2015 Phosphorus Load Reductions

March 2, 2016Deb Fairh urst, ISDA Prog ram Manag erTo learn m ore ab out Indiana's Nutrient R eduction Strateg y v isit: http://www.in.g ov /isda/2991.htm . For questions and com m ents em ail ISDANutrientR [email protected] ov

Phosphorus Reduction (lbs./year)No R eported R eductions1 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000

1,144,892 Pounds

A total reduction of 1,144,892pounds of phosphorus statewide.

Based on EPA Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 12,221 conservationpractices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2015thru December 2015. 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.

h ttp://icp.iaswcd.org /

In 2015, voluntary conserv ation efforts from priv ate landowners in Indiana with support from th e ICP hav e reduced sedim ent and nutrients from entering Indiana's waterways.

1,144,892 pounds of Phosphorus. That’s enoug h to fill 5.75 50’ freig h t cars.


Upper White19,798

Kankakee21,307

Tippecanoe36,712

Lower White112,719


Whitewater27,920

Sugar28,952

Driftwood7,062

Wildcat25,424

Eel (WFWR)70,459

Blue-Sinking121,098

Iroquois6,120


Muscatatuck34,542

Patoka78,163

Upper Wabash22,534

Eel (WR)59,835

Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion76,671

Mississinewa5,865

Salamonie11,440


Lower Wabash51,105

Flatrock-Haw5,507

St Marys7,185









Maumee11,002Auglaize

1,429

Vermilion4,388

Chicago0

Vermilion4,388




Allen

Lake

Knox

Jay

White

Vigo

Jasper

Laporte

Cass

Parke

Rush

Clay

Greene

Pik e

Grant

Ripley

Gibson

Noble

Perry

Clark

Porter

Elk hart

Wells

BooneHenry

Owen

Jackson

Putnam

Dubois

Miam i

Pulask i

Shelby

Harrison

Sullivan

Marion

Fulton

Way ne

Clinton

Benton

Kosciusko

Carroll

Daviess

Orange

Madison

Monroe

Morgan

Marshall

Martin

Newton

Wabash

Warrick

Warren

Frank lin

DeKalb

Brown

Spencer

Randolph

Adam s

Lawrence

Decatur

Starke

Fountain

Ham ilton

Washington

Whitley

T ippecanoe

St. Joseph

Jennings

Delaware

Montgom ery

Hendricks

Lagrange

T ipton

Jefferson

Steuben

Johnson

Howard

Huntington

Hancock

Scott

Crawford

Bartholom ew

Floy d

Switzerland

Ohio

Posey

Dearborn

Fayette

Verm illion

Union

Vanderburgh

Blackford

2013-15 Cumulative Sediment Load Reductions

Based on EPA Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 19,136 conservation practices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2013 thru December 2015. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance. The cumulative analysis encompassed a breakdown of 2013 thru 2015 conservation practices by lifespan including 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 40 years. The map reflects all of the practices minus the 2013 and 2014 practices with a lifespan of one year. To learn more about Indiana's Nutrient Reduction Strategy visit http://www.in.gov /isda/2991.htmFor questions and comments email [email protected] March 3, 2016

Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager

Sediment Reductions (tons)No Reported Reductions1 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000175,001 - 250,000


1,444,098 tons

Since 2013, voluntary conservation efforts from private landowners in Indiana with support from the ICP have reduced nutrients and sedim ent from entering Indiana’s waterways.


Upper White46,522

Kankakee45,906

Tippecanoe90,404

Lower White215,066


Whitewater57,451

Sugar64,803

Driftwood16,514

Wildcat56,291

Eel (WFWR)148,999

Blue-Sinking231,770

Iroquois16,784


Muscatatuck78,097

Patoka140,580

Upper Wabash58,644

Eel (WR)147,149


Mississinewa15,714

Salamonie31,757


Lower Wabash96,878

Flatrock-Haw13,295

St Marys22,413










4,487

Vermilion10,670

Chicago0

Vermilion10,670

Lower Great Miami1,412


Lower Great Miami1,412

Allen

Lake

Knox

Jay

White

Vigo

Jasper

Laporte

Cass

Parke

Rush

Clay

Greene

Pik e

Grant

Ripley

Gibson

Noble

Perry

Clark

Porter

Elk hart

Wells

BooneHenry

Owen

Jack son

Putnam

Dubois

Miam i

Pulask i

Shelby

Harrison

Sullivan

Marion

Fulton

Way ne

Clinton

Benton

Kosciusk o

Carroll

Daviess

Orange

Madison

Monroe

Morgan

Marshall

Martin

Newton

Wabash

Warrick

Warren

Frank lin

DeKalb

Brown

Spencer

Randolph

Adam s

Lawrence

Decatur

Starke

Fountain

Ham ilton

Washington

Whitley

T ippecanoe

St. Joseph

Jennings

Delaware

Montgom ery

Hendrick s

Lagrange

T ipton

Jefferson

Steuben

Johnson

Howard

Huntington

Hancock

Scott

Crawford

Bartholom ew

Floy d

Switzerland

Ohio

Posey

Dearborn

Fayette

Verm illion

Union

Vanderburgh

Blackford

2013-15 Cumulative Nitrogen Load Reductions

March 3, 2016Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager

Nitrogen Reduction (pounds)No Reductions Reported1 - 50,00050,001 - 200,000200,001 - 300,000300,001 - 400,000


2,984,179 pounds

2,984,179 pounds of Nitrogen. T hat’s enough to fill 14.75 50’ freight cars.

Since 2013, voluntary conservation efforts from private landowners in Indiana with support from the ICP have reduced nutrients and sedim ent from entering Indiana’s waterway s.

Based on EPA Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 19,136 conservation practices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2013 thru December 2015. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance. The cumulative analysis encompassed a breakdown of 2013 thru 2015 conservation practices by lifespan including 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 40 years. The map reflects all of the practices minus the 2013 and 2014 practices with a lifespan of one year.Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model. To learn more about Indiana's Nutrient Reduction Strategy visit:http://www.in.gov /isda/2991.htm .For questions and comments email [email protected]


Upper White22,876

Kankakee22,980

Tippecanoe44,889

Lower White108,174


Whitewater28,627

Sugar32,177

Driftwood8,119

Wildcat28,037

Eel (WFWR)74,029

Blue-Sinking115,375

Iroquois8,386


Muscatatuck38,758

Patoka70,275

Upper Wabash30,116

Eel (WR)73,828


Mississinewa7,731

Salamonie15,931


Lower Wabash48,644

Flatrock-Haw6,653

St Marys10,292










2,250

Vermilion5,498

Chicago0

Vermilion5,498




Allen

Lake

Knox

Jay

White

Vigo

Jasper

Laporte

Cass

Parke

Rush

Clay

Greene

Pik e

Grant

Ripley

Gibson

Noble

Perry

Clark

Porter

Elk hart

Wells

BooneHenry

Owen

Jackson

Putnam

Dubois

Miam i

Pulask i

Shelby

Harrison

Sullivan

Marion

Fulton

Way ne

Clinton

Benton

Kosciusko

Carroll

Daviess

Orange

Madison

Monroe

Morgan

Marshall

Martin

Newton

Wabash

Warrick

Warren

Frank lin

DeKalb

Brown

Spencer

Randolph

Adam s

Lawrence

Decatur

Starke

Fountain

Ham ilton

Washington

Whitley

T ippecanoe

St. Joseph

Jennings

Delaware

Montgom ery

Hendricks

Lagrange

T ipton

Jefferson

Steuben

Johnson

Howard

Huntington

Hancock

Scott

Crawford

Bartholom ew

Floy d

Switzerland

Ohio

Posey

Dearborn

Fayette

Verm illion

Union

Vanderburgh

Blackford

2013-15 Cumulative Phosphorus Load Reductions

March 3, 2016Deb Fairhurst, ISDA Program Manager

Phosphorus Reduction (pounds)No Reported Reductions1 - 25,00025,001 - 100,000100,001 - 175,000


1,487,431 pounds

1,487,431 pounds of Phosphorus. T hat’s enough to fill 7.25 50’ freight cars.

Since 2013, voluntary conservation efforts from private landowners in Indiana with support from the ICP have reduced nutrients and sedim ent from entering Indiana’s waterways.

Based on EPA Region 5 Model analyses conducted on 19,136 conservation practices installed by the Indiana Conservation Partnership January 2013 thru December 2015. This effort does not include the many unassisted practices designed and installed solely by a private landowner without ICP assistance. The cumulative analysis encompassed a breakdown of 2013 thru 2015 conservation practices by lifespan including 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 40 years. The map reflects all of the practices minus the 2013 and 2014 practices with a lifespan of one year.Reductions in dissolved nutrients, such as dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) and nitrate (NO3), are not accounted for by the Region 5 Model. To learn more about Indiana's Nutrient Reduction Strategy visit:http://www.in.gov /isda/2991.htm .For questions and comments email [email protected]


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 in 2015 from conservation practices installed since 2013.

Sediment14,400 50’ freight cars

If placed end to end, that would stretch from Gary to Indianapolis.

Nitrogen14.75 freight cars

Phosphorus7.25 freight cars

Reduction:1,444,098

Reduction:2,984,179 Pounds

Reduction:1,487,431 Pounds

For more information about Indiana’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, please see isda.in.govUpdated: March 17, 2016

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


the partnership is comprised of eight indiana …...indiana conservation partnership 2015...

Documents