^tDsrx
(^) NONPOINT SOIREE SIGCESS STORY
% PRO^	4§ 0
Inqt^n^
Implementing Agricultural Best Management Practices Revitalizes the
Fish Community in Boyles Ditch
... . . I,	i Boyles Ditch is a roughly 6-mile-long tributary of Kilmore Creek
Waterbody Improved	. , r '	%
within the larger South Fork Wildcat Creek (SFWC) watershed.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) listed Boyles Ditch on its 2006
Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters due to high levels of Escherichia
coli and impaired biotic communities (IBC). Agricultural activities related to crop cultivation and
livestock-rearing contributed nonpoint source pollution to a stream already lacking in quality aquatic
habitat. Over the years, project partners developed two watershed management plans (WMPs)
and implemented agricultural and conservation best management practices (BMPs) to improve the
water quality of the SFWC watershed. The Boyles Ditch tributary now supports its aquatic life use;
therefore, IDEM will propose to remove the IBC impairment from this segment in 2020.
Problem
Boyles Ditch is a small stream in the northern portion
of the Kilmore Creek subwatershed, which is in the
SFWC watershed in Clinton County (Figure 1). Boyles
Ditch is surrounded almost entirely by cultivated crops.
While the main stem of Kilmore Creek contains a sub-
stantial amount of forested stream buffer, the Boyles
Ditch segment remains largely unbuffered. According
to the 2012 SFWC WMP, roughly 14 of the 21.5 miles
of waterways in the Kilmore Creek subwatershed are
listed as impaired, including all of Boyles Ditch and
downstream portions of Kilmore Creek. A volunteer
windshield inventory conducted during WMP develop-
ment noted sites with active erosion, livestock with
access to waterways, and areas of trash dumping.
In 2004 IDEM conducted a biological study on the
SFWC watershed. The three sampling sites on Boyles
Ditch had failing index of biotic integrity (IBI) scores
(i.e., scores less than 36 in Indiana), which indicates
that the stream is not supporting a well-balanced
aquatic community. The fish community data collected
at these three sites showed IBI scores on Boyles Ditch
ranging from 12 to 34. This caused IDEM to list the
stream on its 2006 CWA section 303(d) list of impaired
waters for IBC. To address this and other existing
impairments, IDEM developed a total maximum daily
load (TMDL) for E. coli, total suspended solids, total
phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite in 2008 for the SFWC
watershed.
Figure 1. Boyles Ditch is in the Kilmore Creek subwatershed.
Story Highlights
For over two decades stakeholders have been work-
ing to improve the SFWC watershed. With funding
provided by the Indiana Association of Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (IASWCD), the Wildcat Creek
Watershed Network (now known as the Wildcat Creek
Watershed Alliance) hired an executive director to
develop a long-term strategic plan for the Wildcat
Creek watershed to serve as the foundation for future
planning and implementation efforts.
Legend
Boyles Ditch INB0736_T1005
Streams
Kilmore Creek 12-HUC Subwatershed
of the South Fork Wildcat Creek Watershed
INDIANA^^^^X.South Fork Wildcat /'

-------
In 2005 the Clinton County Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) received a CWA section
319 grant to create the SFWC-Blinn Ditch and Kilmore
Creek-Boyles Ditch WMP, which was approved in
2008. In 2005-2012 watershed partners conducted
education and outreach through stakeholder meet-
ings, public workshops, field days, newsletters, and
community cleanups. Workshop topics included the
use of cover crops, proper septic system management,
and soil health maintenance.
Table 1. BMPs implemented in the SFWC watershed.
In 2009 the SWCD received a CWA section 205(j)
grant to prepare a new nine-element watershed plan
for SFWC, with implementation starting in 2012.
Landowners added roof/covers (2), installed heavy use
area protection (0.5 acres [ac]), and constructed facili-
ties for animal mortality (3) compositing (1), watering
(8), and waste storage (1). They added a pumping
plant, pipeline (3,560 feet [ft]), access roads (1,710 ft)
and fencing (6,500 ft). They also applied a range of
other BMPs (Table 1).
Results
IDEM conducted follow-up monitoring on Boyles
Ditch in 2017, which showed that the fish IBI score
improved to 54, a significant increase from the score
of 34 seen in 2004 and well above the minimum IBI
score of 36 needed to indicate support. Additionally,
the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) score
was 69 in 2017, up from 47 in 2004 (QHEI scores below
51 indicates poor habitat). On the basis of these data,
IDEM is proposing to remove the IBC impairment from
this segment on its impaired waters list in 2020.
Partners and Funding
Various partners implemented projects in the SFWC
watershed. In the late 1990s, IASWCD undertook
efforts to provide strategic planning and technical
assistance to the larger Wildcat Creek watershed using
$189,500 in CWA section 319 funding. In 2005, the
SWCD received $96,100 in CWA section 319 funds to
write the SFWC-Blinn Ditch and Kilmore Creek-Boyles
Ditch WMP; in 2006, the Wildcat Creek Watershed
Alliance assumed implementation of the Wildcat Creek
WMP using $150,000 in CWA section 319 funding.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Natural
Resources Conservation Service provided additional
funding and technical assistance through programs
in the Kilmore Creek subwatershed in 2004-2017,
totaling $7,017,438. The USDA Farm Services Agency's
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provided $6,185
in funding for various conservation practices and
floodplain restoration. Between 2001 and 2017, the
SWCD used funding sources ($754,628 from private
funds and CWA section 205(j) and 319 funds) to write a
nine-element plan specific to the SFWC watershed and
to provide cost share for BMPs. Lastly, the SWCD used
$337 in local funds to decommission a well.
Practice type
Amount Implemented
USDA
NRCS
CWA 319/
Clinton
Co. SWCD
CRP
Total
Cover/green
manure crop
10 ac


10 ac
Critical area
planting
1 ac


1 ac
Grass filter strip


4.4 ac
4.4 ac
Grass waterway


5.2 ac
5.2 ac
Manure transfer
1 ac
800 ac

801 ac
Nutrient
management
1,101.7
ac
2,594 ac

3,695.7
ac
Pasture and hay
planting
34 ac


34 ac
Pest management
1,331.7
ac
2,970 ac

4,301.7
ac
Prescribed grazing
52 ac


52 ac
Residue and till-
age management
1,280
ac
3,244 ac

4,524 ac
Riparian buffers
5 ac

5.2 ac
10.2 ac
Soil management
51.7 ac


51.7 ac
Tree and shrub
establishment
12 ac


12 ac
Two-stage ditch

2,253 ft

2,253 ft
Underground
outlet
651ft


651ft
Use exclusion
9 ac


9 ac
Waste utilization
1,746
ac
145.4 ac

1,891.4
ac
Water well/well
decommissioning
1
1

2
Wetland
restoration


5 ac
5 ac
Notes: ft = feet; ac = acres
T>
z
^£Dsrx
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA 841-F-19-001CC
October 2019
For additional information contact:
Angie Brown, IDEM
317-308-3194 • abrown@idem.in.gov
Lindsay Hylton, IDEM
317-308-3378 • lhylton@idem.in.gov

-------