The following discussion is based on drainage problems or complaints that were identified in the Carmel Creek - White River Watershed for existing and future concerns noted in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this Master Plan.

Each issue, concern, or opportunity is restated in simple terms, and then followed by an evaluation of the promising alternative solutions (if applicable), a discussion of the recommended improvements, and an estimate of the associated costs. The cost estimates are provided for budgeting purposes only. A copy of these cost calculations is included in Appendix 4. They are based on field observations and limited data. Actual cost of construction and design may be more or less depending on additional information that would be gathered during the design phase. For the issues that had several promising solutions, CBBEL explored the solutions and narrowed them down to the best solution with input from the Town of Fishers staff. Table 5-2 at the end of this Chapter provides a summary of the recommended improvements. Chapter 6 of this Master Plan will focus on implementation of the recommendations identified.

CC1

Issue

Drainage flows along 106th Street (A48).

Recommended Improvement

Several options were investigated to solve street flooding issues including:

1. Creation of roadside swales to direct runoff to outlet points. These swales could use vegetation and be constructed at shallow slopes such that water quality benefits could also be obtained by the removal of sediment and other pollutants,
2. Construction of hybrid ditches (or infiltration trenches) in lieu of swales to permit recharging of groundwater or filtration and collection by an underdrain system,
3. Installation of bioretention areas (rain gardens) to collect and treat runoff from roads, paths, and rear yards,
4. Install curb and gutter with turnouts to direct runoff to a roadside swale or bioretention area instead of keeping water on the street,
5. Install culverts and/or inlets to collect and convey runoff safely to a discharge point,
6. Establish a plan for routine inspections and maintenance of the storm sewer infrastructure so that trash, debris, sediment accumulation, or system component damage does not prevent the system from working at full capacity,
7. Locate the source of the flooding and construct bioretention areas or diversions that keep water off the street,
8. Install permeable pavement in areas where other methods of eliminating the flow will not work,
9. Require as-built data to be submitted for all new development in order to ensure compliance with approved plans and to provide data for troubleshooting a system in the future, and
10. Construction of asphalt shoulders to prevent vehicles from creating dirt mounds along the road that hold water on the road.

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to 1) Clear the right of way along the north side of the street and create a swale for water to flow in. Additional measures not included in the cost estimate may be necessary to prevent erosion in the steeper sections. Additional measures for dealing with steep side slopes may be required where the ground is steep on the north edge of the right of way. 2) There appears to be a swale in the middle of the reach that conveys runoff from about half of the contributing area to the road. This may be an appropriate place to construct an inlet and culvert under the road to reduce the amount of water flowing on the north edge of the road. This may reduce the need for a swale in the right of way for the entire reach shown. The estimated cost of this alternative is $33,000.  (Site A48)

Water floods the entrance to Berkley Ridge Subdivision

Recommended improvements to address flooding at Berkley Ridge Subdivision.
Site A46

CC2

Issue

Water floods the entrance to Berkley Ridge subdivision as well as part of 106th Street (A46).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed under CC1 were originally considered for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternatives for this site are

1. Survey the relative elevations of the street inlet inverts and the remaining pipe system inverts to the outlet on the south side of 106th Street to determine if backwater from the receiving stream is preventing the system from flowing during floods.
2. Add an inlet at the south edge of the boulevard to pick up the drainage that accumulates in this low spot.

The estimated cost of this alternative is $17,200.  (Site A46)

Water pools on 106th Street.

Schematic to illustrate regrading solution.
Solution A - Site A45

Recommend regrading edge of 106th Street.
Site A45

CC3

Issue

Water pools on 106th Street and the street is failing (A45).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed under CC1 were originally considered for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to grade the edge of the road to allow drainage off of the road (Solution A) and grade a roadside swale from west of the problem area to the subdivision drainage structure. There is sufficient width that the swale could be constructed to function as a bioretention area to filter and slow/reduce the road runoff before it enters the subdivision system. The estimated cost of this alternative is $19,000. (Site A45)

Water ponding along Lantern Road

Recommended improvement to street flooding along Lantern Road.
Sites A41 & A42

CC4

Issue

Water ponds on either side of Lantern Road north of 106th Street near the church entrance (A41 & A42).

Recommended Improvement

Based on Town comments, this ponding does not yet affect the road. It also appears that some design has been done for storm drains in the area in conjunction with future development as well as regulated drain construction. Because the flooding does not affect the road, no action is recommended at this time. If this area becomes a bigger issue for the Town, then additional study is required to understand the parts of the system that are presently in place and whether or not proposed construction will solve drainage problems or create additional problems. Readily available data is not sufficient to make this determination.  (Sites A41 and A42)

CC5

Issue

Water from southwest quadrant of intersection drains onto 106th Street (A28).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed for CC1 were initially investigated for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to regrade a roadside swale on the south side of 106th Street and remove the small high spot in the existing swale that causes some of the flow along the road to divert onto the road instead of reaching the storm inlet. The swale should be regraded to direct all of the roadside drainage to the inlet. The area in the right of way around the storm inlet could also be reconstructed as a bioretention area to provide filtration of the road runoff and reduce the total inflow to the storm system. The estimated cost of this option is $12,000.  (Site A28)

Water ponding along 106th Street

Schematic to illustrate regrading solution along Lantern Road.
Solution A - Site A16

Carmel Creek
Site A16

CC6

Issue

Water ponds on the west side of Lantern Road south of 106th Street (A16).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed for CC1 were initially investigated for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to grade the edge of the road to allow drainage from the road to flow to the swale along the road. (Solution A) and then to create a more defined swale in right of way to contain runoff off of the road. Survey data will be needed as care will need to be taken to not remove the lip of higher ground that prevents more flow from the field to the west from draining into this swale as well. Because the slope is so small, a rain garden/ bioretention area could be created as well for added benefits. However, the amount of water that would be improved does not warrant the cost of adding the bioretention features to the swale. The estimated cost of regrading the berm at the edge of the road and creating the roadside ditch is $28,000.  (Site A16)

Recommend constructing a breakout from curb to swale to address street flooding at Oak Drive and 116th Street.
Site A15

CC7

Issue

Ponding occurs on Oak Drive at its intersection with 116th Street (A15).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed for CC1 were initially investigated for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to regrade the shallow grass swale along the east edge of Oak Drive to allow drainage from the road breakout into the existing roadside swale and to construct a new breakout structure at a lower elevation in the curb at the southeast corner of the intersection so the water does not need to pond before flowing out into the swale. The estimated cost of this option is $9,000.  (Site A15)

Schematic of a hybrid ditch to address street flooding on Hague Road.
Solution B - Site A11

Recommend hybrid ditch between road and sidewalk to allow water to infiltrate rather than pond on Hague Road.
Site A11

CC8

Issue

Water drains onto Hague Road from Berkley Grove causing icy conditions (A1 & A11).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed for CC1 were initially investigated for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is in the narrow strip of grass between the path and the road, construct a hybrid ditch to provide a gathering/infiltration place for water before it reaches the road. The outlet for the hybrid ditch would be the pond to the south (Solution B). The estimated cost of this solution is $19,000. (Site A11)

Water flowing on 106th Street

Schematic illustrating regrading berm to address street flooding.
Solution A - Site A10

Recommend regrading berm to address street flooding on 106th Street.
Site A10

CC9

Issue

There is no roadside ditch for drainage so water flows down 106th Street (A10).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed for CC1 were initially investigated for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to regrade the edge of the pavement at the eastern edge of the reach where the ground north of the road drops off to allow water to leave the road (Solution A). To reduce the extent of the road flow even more, an inlet basin should be constructed to collect flow from the natural draw approximately 650 feet west of the entrance to Northfield Estates and pipe it under 106th Street. The estimated cost of this alternative is $20,000.  (Site A10)

CC10

Issue

There would be road overtopping during the 1% annual chance flood on Cheeney Creek at Hague Road (AR2) and 106th Street west of Hague Road and west of Allisonville Road (AR1 & AR3).

Recommended Improvement

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the sites, the recommended alternative is to replace bridges and/or raise road approaches to elevations above the 1% annual chance flood as these structures are replaced in the normal course of bridge/road improvements. Replacement of these structures was assumed to cost $500,000 each on the average for a total estimated cost of $1,500,000 for these three sites.

Detention pond may not be functioning as intended.
Site D1

Detention pond may not be functioning as intended.
Site D3

CC11

Issue

Detention ponds surrounded by mixed use development may not be functioning as effectively as it was originally intended (D1 & D3).

Recommended Improvement

To address this issue, the extent and reason for the problem will need to be understood first.  Therefore, it is recommended that the Town study these detention ponds to better understand their function for water quality and quantity for the surrounding land use, opportunities to retrofit the ponds themselves or integrate LID practices into the drainage area.  The estimated cost is $10,000 per pond for an engineering firm to complete the study. Due to the uncertainty of the effectiveness of this pond for water quality and flood control, it is a high priority recommendation for implementation.  (Site D1)  (Site D3)

Streambank erosion along Cheeney Creek

Streambank erosion along Cheeney Creek

Recommend landowner hire a professional engineer to study erosion problem and identify a solution.
Site E3

CC12

Issue

There is severe streambank erosion along Cheeney Creek (Eller Road north of 106th Street in unincorporated Fishers) (E3).

Recommended Improvement

Several options were explored to address this issue including watershed studies, stabilization techniques, and educating landowners about stream form and function. The following is a discussion of the each promising solution investigated:

1. Complete a Streambank Erosion study on Cheeney Creek that investigates the erodibility potential of the streambank and the hydraulic gravitational forces causing the erosion. Cheeney Creek is a not managed as a regulated drain. Field visits to this site during the development of this Master Plan noted recent slumps in the bank. Instabilities of the streambank typically result in higher sediment yields which can degrade the physical and biological function of the stream. The water quality data collected as part of this Master Plan indicated this site to have good chemical and the highest biological and third highest physical (habitat) scores. This is most likely attributable to the dense healthy riparian corridor upstream and on the opposite streambank. The estimated cost is $100,000 for an engineering firm to complete this study.
2. Stabilize the eroded streambank using innovative green wall technology. Since a residential structure sits at the top of the eroded bank as well as 106th Street, it is unclear if there is enough lateral space to install the wall and the reinforcements that sit deep into the hill without damaging the structure or the street. The manufacturer of the green wall technology would need to be contracted to make that determination. The estimated cost is $80,000 for the installation of a green wall at a site with limited constraints. It is expected the cost at this site would be significantly higher. The success of this project may require the purchase of the house that sits on top of the bank. According to the Assessor’s database, the estimated value of the home and land is $134,700.
3. Distribute educational materials from the Hamilton County SWCD to landowners along Cheeney Creek about how to be a good neighbor to waterways. The estimated cost is minimal for Town staff to contact the SWCD and request they mail the literature to this resident.

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4), the streambank erosion study (#1 above) is recommended. The priority for this study is low because it is a private landowner issue on an unregulated waterway.   (Site E3)

CC13

Issue

Water pools in the ditch behind residential homes at Eller Road and 106th Street (Eller Run neighborhood) (F14).

Recommended Improvement

The same 10 options listed for CC1 were initially investigated for addressing this issue. Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) as well as limitations at the site, the recommended alternative for this site is to create a swale along the south edge of 106th Street to drain to the culvert at the southeast corner of the intersection of 106th Street and Eller Road. The estimated cost of this alternative is $4,000.  (Site F14)

CC14

Issue

The ditch along Lantern Road north of Fishers Pointe Boulevard (Fishersdale neighborhood) drains poorly (F9).

Recommended Improvement

This area was included in a Community Development Block Grant project that was constructed in 2009. No additional action is required to address this issue at this time.

CC15

Issue

Low lying area in residential yard at Lantern Road and Birch Street does not have a suitable outlet (R.E. Harold neighborhood) (F13).

Recommended Improvement

This area is included in a Community Development Block Grant project that is expected to be constructed by the Fall of 2010. Staff time to coordinate this project is estimated at $1,000. No additional action is required to address this issue at this time.

CC16

Issue

There are approximately 4 structures in the floodplain of Cheeney Creek, 6 in the floodplain of an unnamed tributary of White River, approximately 6 multi-family units in the floodplain of Cheeney Creek and 2 commercial structures in the unnamed tributary of White River floodplain. It appears that some of these structures are erroneously located in the floodplain. The remaining structures are at risk of flooding during at least the 1% annual chance flood.

Recommended Improvement

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4) the approximate Zone A on the unnamed tributaries to White River should be restudied using updated topographic information to confirm or revise the flood risk determinations for the structures along the stream. The approximate cost of such a restudy is $15,000 for the three stream reaches.   (FIS Delineation Issues)

Owners of the structures along Cheeney Creek and those which remain in the restudied delineation along the White River unnamed tributaries should be encouraged to purchase flood insurance and investigate appropriate floodproofing options. The insurance will provide a means of recovering some of the losses when flooded. Floodproofing will reduce the frequency of flooding by providing additional protection against flood waters. For budget purposes, estimated staff time for assisting owners is $500.

Back to Watershed List