DOCSLIB.ORG

Wabash River Watershed Water Quality Trading Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wabash River Watershed Water Quality Trading Feasibility Study (This page left intentionally blank.) Wabash River Watershed Water Quality Trading Feasibility Study Final Report September 2011 Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Targeted Watershed Grant WS-00E71501-0 Prepared by Conservation Technology Information Center With support from Tetra Tech, Inc. Kieser & Associates, LLC CTIC would like to thank our project partners for their support: Agri Drain Corporation Duke Energy Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Indiana Farm Bureau Indiana Soybean Alliance Purdue University Extension Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 What is a WQT Market Feasibility Analysis? .................................................................................... 1 1.2 What is the Purpose of the Wabash River Watershed WQT Market Feasibility Analysis? ............. 2 1.3 What Does This Report Contain? ..................................................................................................... 3 2. Understanding the Wabash River Watershed ................................................................................. 3 2.1 Relationship of the Wabash River Watershed to the Gulf of Mexico .............................................. 3 2.2 Overview of Nutrient Sources and Loadings in the Wabash River Watershed ............................... 4 3. Feasibility Analysis Summary ......................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Drivers and Incentives for Trading ................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Suitable Pollutants for Trading ........................................................................................................ 8 3.3 Watershed Considerations ............................................................................................................ 10 3.4g Timin ............................................................................................................................................ 10 3.5 Geographic Scope for Trading Analysis .......................................................................................... 11 3.6 Potential Credit Buyers and Sellers ................................................................................................ 15 3.7 Potential Credit Demand ............................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Potential Credit Supply .................................................................................................................. 43 3.9 Potential stakeholder participation ............................................................................................... 58 4. Putting It All Together – Market Analysis and Trading Considerations .......................................... 60 4.1 Pollutant Loads .............................................................................................................................. 60 4.2 Regulatory Drivers ......................................................................................................................... 60 4.3 Trade Ratios ................................................................................................................................... 60 4.4 Baselines ........................................................................................................................................ 71 4.5 Supply Side Credit Generation ....................................................................................................... 73 4.6 Differences in Control Costs .......................................................................................................... 78 4.7 Other Trading Considerations ........................................................................................................ 85 5. Next Steps for Water Quality Trading in the Wabash River Watershed ........................................ 91 5.1 Outreach and Education ................................................................................................................ 91 5.2 Prioritized Subwatershed for Future Analysis ............................................................................... 92 5.3 Trading Program Frameworks ....................................................................................................... 93 5.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 94 Appendix A: Letter to Illinois EPA from USEPA ................................................................................... 95 Appendix B: Wabash River Watershed TMDL Reduction Summaries and Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) ......................................................................................................................................... Appendix C: Characterization of Wabash River Nutrient Loads ........................................................... Appendix D: Compilation of Nonpoint Source Analysis Technical Memos ........................................... Appendix E: Point Source Survey Results ............................................................................................ Cited References ................................................................................................................................ Final Report – September 2011 Page i Tables Table 1. Nutrient Breakpoints by Ecoregion Under Consideration by IDEM (from Selvaratnam, S. and J. Frey 2011) .............................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Summary of Nutrient Criteria Development Progress for U.S. EPA, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Eight‐digit HUCs in the Wabash River Watershed across Indiana and Illinois. ............................. 14 Table 4. Number of facilities with NPDES permits in each 8 digit HUC of the Wabash River watershed ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Tippecanoe County’s 2007 Conservation Tillage Data1................................................................. 19 Table 6. Estimated existing nutrient loads from permitted NPDES facilities in the Wabash River watershed. ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 7. Changes in pollutant loads and resulting credit demand under different TN permit effluent scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 8. Changes in pollutant loads and resulting credit demand under different TP permit effluent scenarios .......................................................................................................................... 26 Table 9. Summary of CWNS information for all facilities in the Wabash River watershed. ....................... 29 Table 10. Indicators associated with advanced treatment facilities in the Wabash River watershed. ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 11. Summary of treatment type by HUC. .......................................................................................... 30 Table 12. Summary of 2008 CWNS permit information for facilities in the Tippecanoe and Driftwood watersheds. .................................................................................................................. 31 Table 13. Permit limit summaries for facilities in the Driftwood and Tippecanoe watersheds. ................ 32 Table 14. Summary of facility type and flows for WWTPs included in Driftwood and Tippecanoe nutrient removal analysis .............................................................................................................. 33 Table 15. Summary of ENR treatment levels and assumptions for WWTP upgrade simulations .............. 34 Table 16. Color coding of ENR treatment levels for Tables 17‐23 .............................................................. 35 Table 17. 0.05 MGD activated sludge ENR upgrade options and costs ...................................................... 36 Table 18. 0.05 MGD lagoon ENR upgrade options and costs ..................................................................... 36 Table 19. 0.3 MGD activated sludge ENR upgrade options and costs ........................................................ 37 Table 20. 0.3 MGD lagoon ENR upgrade options and costs ....................................................................... 38 Table 21. 0.75 MGD activated sludge ENR upgrade options and costs ...................................................... 39 Table 22. 2.5 MGD trickling filter ENR upgrade options and costs ............................................................. 40 Table 23. 5 MGD activated sludge ENR upgrade options and costs ........................................................... 42 Table 24. Total Nitrogen Exported at the Mouth of 8‐Digit HUC Watersheds, Independent of Upstream Watershed Loading
Load more

Recommended publications
  • E.3-IDNR Roster of Navigable Waterways in Indiana
    APPENDIX E.3 IDNR Roster of Navigable Waterways in Indiana Nonrule Policy Documents NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Information Bulletin #3 July 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Roster of Indiana Waterways Declared Navigable I. NAVIGABILITY Property rights relative to Indiana waterways often are determined by whether the waterway is "navigable". Both common law and statutory law make distinctions founded upon whether a river, stream, embayment, or lake is navigable. A landmark decision in Indiana with respect to determining and applying navigability is State v. Kivett, 228 Ind. 629, 95 N.E.2d 148 (1950). The Indiana Supreme Court stated that the test for determining navigability is whether a waterway: was available and susceptible for navigation according to the general rules of river transportation at the time [1816] Indiana was admitted to the Union. It does not depend on whether it is now navigable. .The true test seems to be the capacity of the stream, rather than the manner or extent of use. And the mere fact that the presence of sandbars or driftwood or stone, or other objects, which at times render the stream unfit for transportation, does not destroy its actual capacity and susceptibility for that use. A modified standard for determining navigability applies to a body of water which is artificial. The test for a man-made reservoir, or a similar waterway which did not exist in 1816, is whether it is navigable in fact. Reed v. United States, 604 F. Supp. 1253 (1984). The court observed in Kivett that "whether the waters within the State under which the lands lie are navigable or non-navigable, is a federal" question and is "determined according to the law and usage recognized and applied in the federal courts, even though" the waterway may not be "capable of use for navigation in interstate or foreign commerce." Federal decisions applied to particular issues of navigability are useful precedents, regardless of whether the decisions originated in Indiana or another state.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Glaciers.PM6
    How the Ice Age Shaped Indiana Jerry Wilson Published by Wilstar Media, www.wilstar.com Indianapolis, Indiana 1 Previiously published as The Topography of Indiana: Ice Age Legacy, © 1988 by Jerry Wilson. Second Edition Copyright © 2008 by Jerry Wilson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 For Aaron and Shana and In Memory of Donna 3 Introduction During the time that I have been a science teacher I have tried to enlist in my students the desire to understand and the ability to reason. Logical reasoning is the surest way to overcome the unknown. The best aid to reasoning effectively is having the knowledge and an understanding of the things that have previ- ously been determined or discovered by others. Having an understanding of the reasons things are the way they are and how they got that way can help an individual to utilize his or her resources more effectively. I want my students to realize that changes that have taken place on the earth in the past have had an effect on them. Why are some towns in Indiana subject to flooding, whereas others are not? Why are cemeteries built on old beach fronts in Northwest Indiana? Why would it be easier to dig a basement in Valparaiso than in Bloomington? These things are a direct result of the glaciers that advanced southward over Indiana during the last Ice Age. The history of the land upon which we live is fascinating. Why are there large granite boulders nested in some of the fields of northern Indiana since Indiana has no granite bedrock? They are known as glacial erratics, or dropstones, and were formed in Canada or the upper Midwest hundreds of millions of years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 9-4H for the IDNR Navigable Waterways Roster
    IDNR Navigable Waterways Roster: Name of Waterway Portion Considered Navigable Anderson River Navigable in Spencer County from its junction with the Ohio (including Middle River for 28.4 river miles to the Perry-Spencer County Line. Fork) The Middle Fork is navigable from its junction with the Anderson River for 3.3 river miles. Armuth Ditch See Black Creek Arnold Creek Navigable in Ohio County from its junction with the Ohio River for 4.4 river miles. Baker Creek Navigable in Spencer County from its junction with Little Pigeon Creek 1.8 river miles. Bald Knob Creek Navigable in Perry County from its junction with Oil Creek for 0.5 river miles. Banbango Creek See Baugo Creek. Baugo Creek Navigable from its junction with the St. Joseph River in South Bend for 15.2 river miles to the main forks (near Wakarusa). Bayou Creek Navigable in Vanderburgh County from its junction with the Ohio River for 1.5 river miles. Beanblossom Creek Navigable in Monroe County from its junction with the West Fork of the White River for 17.7 river miles to Griffy Creek. Bear Creek Navigable in Perry County from its junction with the Ohio River for 1.6 river miles. Big Blue River Navigable from its junction with Sugar Creek (to form the Driftwood River) for 55.46 river miles to the Henry-Rush County Line. Big Blue River See, also, Blue River. Big Creek Navigable in Posey County from its junction with the Wabash River for 25.4 river miles (near Cynthiana). See, also, Little Fork of Big Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Tables Related to Indiana's 2020 303(D) List Review
    Enclosure 3 Tables Related to Indiana’s 2020 303(d) List Review Table 1 (1 of 249) Section 1: Waterbody AUs and Impairment Listings under Category 5 TABLE 1: IN's Waterbody AUs and Impairments Listed in Category 5 (303d list) of Partial Approval.A PRIORITY WATERBODY AU ID WATERBODY AU NAME AU SIZE UNITS CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT USE_NAME RANKING INA0341_01 FISH CREEK, WEST BRANCH 3.32 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0341_02 FISH CREEK, WEST BRANCH 2.36 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0344_01 HIRAM SWEET DITCH 1.32 Miles NUTRIENTS Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0345_T1001 FISH CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 3.09 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0346_02 FISH CREEK 7.3 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact INA0352_03 BIG RUN 10.33 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact INA0352_04 BIG RUN 2.46 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0352_05 BIG RUN 5.91 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0355_01 ST. JOSEPH RIVER 2.5 Miles PCBS IN FISH TISSUE Low Human Health and Wildlife INA0356_03 ST. JOSEPH RIVER 3.53 Miles PCBS IN FISH TISSUE Low Human Health and Wildlife INA0362_05 CEDAR CREEK 0.83 Miles BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Medium Warm Water Aquatic Life INA0363_T1001 MATSON DITCH - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 2.15 Miles ESCHERICHIA COLI (E. COLI) Medium Full Body Contact INA0364_01 CEDAR CREEK 4.24
    [Show full text]
  • Columbus, Indiana City Map Of
    I E F G H A B C D CITY MAP OF COLUMBUS, INDIANA Highfield West Spring Hill 11 11 Westgate Northgate Woodland Parks Flatrock River Flatrock Park North Columbus Municipal Airport Haw Creek N Flatrock Park Lowell 0 2000 4000 I.U.P.U.C. 10 IUPUC 3000 5000 Info-Tech 1000 Park Northbrook 10 Corn Brook Park Forest Estates North Ivy Tech Progress Park Autumnwood Sims Homestead Northbrook Addn. Park Carter Crossing Riverview Acres Taylor Sycamore Homestead Bend Mobile Home The Villas Carter of Stonecrest Cemetery Westenedge Park Pinebrooke Adams Park Pepper Tree Breakaway Trails Rocky Ford Village Princeton Parkside Crossing Park School Candlelight Jackson Park Park Forest Arrowood Indian Hills Woodfield Estates Village Chapel Place Pinebrooke Bluff South Canterbury Arbors At Apartments Rosevelt Park Waters Edge Deer- High Vista Washington field Place Parkside The Woods Willowwood 9 Apts. Tudor Rocky Ford Green View Park Forest Park North Par 3 Rost's 2nd Cedar Windsor Place Golf Course 9 Addition Heathfield Ridge Broadmoor North Eastridge Manor Greenbriar Commerce Park Broadmoor Richards Richards Rost's 3rd Addition 3rd Rost's North Meadow School Mead Village Questover Skyview Estates Washington Heather Heights Park Prairie Stream Estates Forest Park Sims West Mead Village Park Cornerstone's Northpark Hillcrest Jefferson Park Forest Park Rost's 3rd Addition 3rd Rost's Madison Park Northern Village Everroad Chapel Square Tipton Park North Shopping Center Park Columbus Village Apts. Grant Park Northside Carriage Middle Everroad Park West Estates B&K School Industrial Foxpointe Park Fairlawn Williamsburg Flintwood Everroad Apartments Schmidt Park Tipton Park School Foxpointe Apts.
    [Show full text]
  • Hancock County Part B Update 10 2010
    NPDES PHASE II MS4 GENERAL PERMIT STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PART B: BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT UPDATE HANCOCK COUNTY, INDIANA PERMIT #INR040128 OCTOBER 30, 2010 NPDES PHASE II STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) PART B: BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT UPDATE Prepared for: Hancock County, Indiana October 2010 Prepared by: Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. National City Center, Suite 1368-South 115 W. Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 CBBEL Project Number 03-463 DISCLAIMER: Exhibits and any GIS data used within this report are not intended to be used as legal documents or references. They are intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only. Information shown on exhibits is not warranted for accuracy or merchantability. Hancock County, Indiana NPDES Phase II SWQMP Part B: Baseline Characterization Report Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 LAND USE WITHIN MS4 AREA 2 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF MS4 AREA 2 2.2 POPULATION DATA 2 2.3 LAND USE DATA 3 2.4 WATERSHEDS WITHIN MS4 AREA 3 2.5 SUMMARY OF LAND USE EVALUATIONS 4 3.0 SENSITIVE AREA 5 3.1 ERODIBLE SOIL 5 3.2 SOIL SUITABLITY FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS 5 3.3 NATURAL HERITAGE DATA 6 3.4 WETLANDS 6 3.5 OUTSTANDING AND EXCEPTIONAL USE WATERS 7 3.6 ESTABLISHED TMDL WATERS 7 3.7 RECREATIONAL WATERS 7 3.8 PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SOURCES 7 3.9 SUMMARY OF SENSITIVE AREA CONCLUSIONS 8 4.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING MONITORING DATA 9 4.1 INDIANA INTEGRATED WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT 9 4.2 UNITED STATES GEOLOGIC SURVEY (USGS) STUDIES 9 4.3 STREAM REACH CHARACTERIZATION EVALUATION REPORT 10 4.4 CLEAN WATER ACT CHAPTER 319 GRANT STUDIES 11 4.5 HEALTH DEPARTMENT STUDIES 11 5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BMPs 12 i Christopher B.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River
    Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River By H. C. BEABER and J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1964 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract ------------------------------------------------------- Al Introduction.______-_-______--_____--__--_--___-_--__-_-__-__-____ 1 The storms.__---_------------__------------------------_----_--_- 6 The floods.___-__.______--____-._____.__ ._-__-.....__._____ 8 Pennsylvania.. _._-.------._-_-----___-__---_-___-_--_ ..___ 8 West Virginia.--.-._____--_--____--_-----_-----_---__--_-_-__- 11 Ohio.-.------.---_-_-_.__--_-._---__.____.-__._--..____ 11 Muskingum River basin._---___-__---___---________________ 11 Hocking River basin_______________________________________ 12 Scioto River basin______.__________________________________ 13 Little Miami River basin.__-____-_.___._-._____________.__. 13 Kentucky._.__.___.___---___----_------_--_-______-___-_-_-__
    [Show full text]
  • Flood-Inundation Maps for the Flatrock Rover at Columbus, Indiana, 2012
    Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation Flood-Inundation Maps for the Flatrock River at Columbus, Indiana, 2012 Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3241 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Illustration showing simulated floods corresponding to streamgage stages of 9, 13, and 20 feet for Flatrock River at Columbus, Indiana. Flood-Inundation Maps for the Flatrock River at Columbus, Indiana, 2012 By William F. Coon Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3241 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation:
    [Show full text]
  • Bartholomew County, Indiana R
    S" ¸ # ¸ ¸ ¸ # # # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ J # S o h h e n l s b ¸ ¸ # o # y ¸ # ¸ e n # lu B r ¸ # ¸ ig e Edinburgh # B iv Shelby R Shelby S" Decatur ¸ " # S Bartholomew Johnson Bartholomew Hope S" w e Taylorsville r m u t o l a o c D S" e h t D r r a i f B t w ¸ o# o d R i ve r ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ ¸ # w # e m n o w l o o r h t B r a Columbus B S" ¸ # ¸ ¸ # # 5 6 - I § ¨ ¦ ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ # # # # Elizabethtown S" Bartholomew ¸ # W Jennings h i t e E a s R v t i e F r o r w e s g k m n o i l n o n h t e r J a B ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ # ¸ Brown # Jackson s n g o n s i k n c Bartholomew n a e J Jackson J ¸ # ¸ # Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ¸ Withdrawal Location # ¸ River# Major Lakes ¸ # ¸ WELL INTAKE # 7Q2 Flow (MGD) Interstate ¸ Water Resources # Energy/Mining <10 MGD County ¸ # Industry ¸ Irrigation 10 - 50 MGD S" City # ¸ and Use in # 50 - 100 MGD ¸ # Misc. Miles 100 - 500 MGD ¸ Bartholomew County # Public Supply N 0 1 2 4 Data Sources: U.S. Geological Survey and Indiana Department of Natural Resources Rural Use > 500 MGD Joseph E. Kernan, Governor Department of Natural Resources Division of Water John Goss, Director Aquifer Systems Map 17-B BEDROCK AQUIFER SYSTEMS OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY, INDIANA R. 7 E. R. 8 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the White River Basin, Indiana
    FISHES OF THE WHITE RIVER BASIN, U INDIANA G U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Since 1875, researchers have reported 158 species of fish belonging to 25 families in the White River Basin. Of these species, 6 have not been reported since 1900 and 10 have not been reported since 1943. Since the 1820's, fish communities in the White River Basin have been affected by the alteration of stream habitat, overfishing, the introduction of non-native species, agriculture, and urbanization. Erosion resulting from conversion of forest land to cropland in the 1800's led to siltation of streambeds and resulted in the loss of some silt- sensitive species. In the early 1900's, the water quality of the White River was seriously degraded for 100 miles by untreated sewage from the City of Indianapolis. During the last 25 years, water quality in the basin has improved because of efforts to control water pollu­ tion. Fish communities in the basin have responded favorably to the improved water quality. INTRODUCTION In 1991, the U.S. Geological Survey began the National Water- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. The long-term goals of the NAWQA Program are to describe the status and trends in the quality of a large, representative part of the Nation's surface- and ground-water resources and to provide a sound, scientific understanding of the pri­ mary natural and human factors affecting the quality of these resources (Hirsch and others, 1988). The White River Basin in Indiana was among the first 20 river basins to be studied as part of this program.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of American Settlement at Camp Atterbury
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of 1-2010 A History of American Settlement at Camp Atterbury Steven D. Smith University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Chris J. Cochran Engineer Research and Development Center Champaign IL Construction Engineering Research Lab Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/anth_facpub Part of the Anthropology Commons Publication Info Published in 2010. © 2010, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. This Book is brought to you by the Anthropology, Department of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ERDC/CERL TR-10-3 ERDC/CERL TR-10-3 The History of American Settlement at Camp Atterbury Steven D. Smith and Chris J. Cochran January 2010 Construction Engineering Laboratory Research Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ERDC/CERL TR-10-3 January 2010 The History of American Settlement at Camp Atterbury Steven D. Smith South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 1321 Pendleton Street Columbia, SC 29208 Chris J. Cochran Construction Engineering Research Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 2902 Newmark Drive Champaign, IL 61822 Final Report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center Environmental Office PO Box 5000 Edinburgh, IN 46124 ERDC/CERL TR-10-3 ii Abstract: This report details the history of 19th and 20th century farm and community settlement within the Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, IN.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status and Distribution of Indiana's Seven Endangered Darter Species (Percidae)
    2008. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 117(2): 167-192 CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF INDIANA'S SEVEN ENDANGERED DARTER SPECIES (PERCIDAE) Brant E. Fisher: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Atterbury Fish & Wildlife Area, 7970 South Rowe Street, P.O. Box 3000, Edinburgh, Indiana 46124 USA ABSTRACT. At the beginning of this study seven darter species (Bluebreast, Harlequin, Spotted, Spottail, Tippecanoe, Variegate, and Gilt) were on Indiana's list of endangered fish species; and up-to-date, statewide distributional information was lacking. All known historical and recent records were compiled; and 350 original sites were sampled between 1996 and 2006 in an attempt to determine the accurate, current distribution of each species. Many were found to be more widely-distributed than expected; likely the result of very species-specific sampling techniques used during this study rather than actual range expansions. Harlequin Darter was collected from many previously unknown tributaries, as well as new locations on the mainstems, of the East Fork White River, West Fork White River, and lower Wabash River drainages. Spottail Darter is now known from more locations than it ever has been, although it is still restricted to small streams of the extreme southwestern portion oflndiana. Bluebreast Darter, although once known from many more locations, still maintains populations in several watersheds. Spotted Darter and Tippecanoe Darter were recorded for the first time from the East Fork White River and Wabash River, respectively. Of the species sampled, Gilt Darter and Variegate Darter maintain the most restricted ranges in the state. Gilt Darter, once found in several of the larger rivers of the Wabash River and Lake Erie drainages, is now only found in the upper Tippecanoe River.
    [Show full text]