Watershed Specific Recommendations

Headwaters Mud Creek Watershed

	The following discussion is based on drainage problems or complaints that were identified in the Headwaters Mud Creek 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.

The following discussion is based on drainage problems or complaints that were identified in the Headwaters Mud Creek 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.

Street Flooding (5)

Schematic illustrating regrading to address street flooding.
Solution A - Site A36

MC1

Issue

There is ponding along the edge of N. Brooks School Road south of 126th Street (A36).

Recommended Improvement

Several options were investigated to solve street flooding issues including:

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,
Construction of hybrid ditches (or infiltration trenches) in lieu of swales to permit recharging of groundwater or filtration and collection by an underdrain system,
Installation of bioretention areas (rain gardens) to collect and treat runoff from roads, paths, and rear yards,
Installation of curb and gutter with turnouts to direct runoff to a roadside swale or bioretention area instead of keeping water on the street,
Installation of culverts and/or inlets to collect and convey runoff safely to a discharge point,
Establishment of 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,
Location of the source of the flooding and construct bioretention areas or diversions that keep water off the street,
Installation of permeable pavement in areas where other methods of eliminating the flow will not work,
Requirement of 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
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 regrade the edge of the road to allow water to flow off the road into the existing roadside ditch (Solution A). The estimated cost of this work is estimated at $2,500. (Site A36)

Water ponding along 106th Street

MC2

Issue

Water ponds on the street along the south side of 106th Street just west of N. Tremont Drive (A32).

Recommended Improvement

The same solutions listed for MC1 were considered for this site. 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 road to allow road drainage to reach a roadside swale to be constructed in the right of way and extended to the culvert under Tremont Drive. This roadside swale could be constructed as a bioretention area that would filter the runoff from the road, thus adding water quality benefits and reducing the input of runoff to the storm sewer system. The estimated cost of this improvement is $15,500. (Site A32)

	MC3 Issue Three roads are overtopped by the 1% annual chance flood on Mud Creek: 136th Street (AR25), N. Brooks School Road (AR24), and Hoosier Road (AR22). 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.

MC3

Issue

Three roads are overtopped by the 1% annual chance flood on Mud Creek: 136th Street (AR25), N. Brooks School Road (AR24), and Hoosier Road (AR22).

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.

Building Flooding (3)

	MC4 Issue According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, three residences are correctly noted to be in the floodplain of Mud Creek: near SR 238 (BR12) and near 116th Street west of Hoosier Road (BR8, BR9). 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 encourage the homeowners to purchase flood insurance so they can recover losses after a flood and to investigate appropriate floodproofing options to reduce actual flood damages. These structures are currently not in the Town of Fishers corporate boundaries so working with the homeowners would be a joint effort between the Town and County. Additional actions described under MC10, MC11, and MC12 may also help reduce the damages to these structures.

MC4

Issue

According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, three residences are correctly noted to be in the floodplain of Mud Creek: near SR 238 (BR12) and near 116th Street west of Hoosier Road (BR8, BR9).

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 encourage the homeowners to purchase flood insurance so they can recover losses after a flood and to investigate appropriate floodproofing options to reduce actual flood damages. These structures are currently not in the Town of Fishers corporate boundaries so working with the homeowners would be a joint effort between the Town and County. Additional actions described under MC10, MC11, and MC12 may also help reduce the damages to these structures.

	MC5 Issue According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, several residences are erroneously indicated to be in the floodplain of Mud Creek. Recommended Improvement Because there are known errors in the hydraulic modeling that is the basis of the BFEs along Mud Creek, it is recommended that those homeowners that presently carry flood insurance continue to do so until a revised study is completed and revised BFEs are calculated. This will prevent homeowners from canceling their flood insurance just to find out in the future that they are indeed at risk of flooding.

MC5

Issue

According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, several residences are erroneously indicated to be in the floodplain of Mud Creek.

Recommended Improvement

Because there are known errors in the hydraulic modeling that is the basis of the BFEs along Mud Creek, it is recommended that those homeowners that presently carry flood insurance continue to do so until a revised study is completed and revised BFEs are calculated. This will prevent homeowners from canceling their flood insurance just to find out in the future that they are indeed at risk of flooding.

Pond Flooding and Maintenance (5)

MC6

Issue

According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, ponds flood at Duval Drive west of Gray Eagle Drive in Bluffs at Gray Eagle neighborhood (DR2), at Duval Drive east of Brooks School Road in Cottonwood Creek at Gray Eagle neighborhood (DR3), at Edgefield Dr and Arbor Glen Boulevard in Arbor Glen neighborhood (DR4), at Sanderling Trace and Merlin Court in Audubon Trace neighborhood (DR5), and Hawthorn Rd and Great Blue Trace in The Horizon neighborhood (DR6).

Recommended Improvement

To address this issue several potential solutions were explored. These include leaving the pond as is, install flap gates to prevent tailwater from Mud Creek, and completing studies to understand the flooding issue, benefit of LID in the drainage area, and sediment loading in the pond. The following is a discussion of the each promising solution investigated:

Do nothing. The pond is acting as a dual purpose (floodplain storage and on-site detention) and is a non-conforming use in the floodplain.
Complete detailed analysis of these ponds and their relationship to Mud Creek. This solution was concluded from the 2002 Mud Creek Study. According to this report, these detention ponds were built within the floodplain and top of bank elevation of the pond is lower than the BFE meaning the pond would be inundated by stream flows during the 1% annual chance of flooding (100-year) and no local development flood storage would be available. The estimated cost is $25,000 per pond for an engineering firm to complete this study.
Install a flap gate type or check valve type device in the pond outlet pipe to control the flow of water from the pond only and prevent floodwater from Mud Creek from backing up into the pond. Installation of the flap gate or check valve ranges from $10,000 to $24,200 per unit depending on the size and type of pipe. This does not include the construction of a headwall if needed. Clean out accumulated sediment that may be reducing storage of pond. It is not known if or how well these ponds are being maintained. These ponds were designed and constructed prior to the Town’s requirements for forebays which are intended to trap sediment and debris and prevent it filling the detention pond. The estimated cost is $10,000 per pond to conduct a sediment depth survey and determine implications for storage.
Temporarily store or slow stormwater in the watershed. LID infiltration practices in right-of-ways or easements may be used to temporarily store and slow stormwater intended for the detention basin. The effectiveness of LID techniques would need to be evaluated and the actual benefit, if any, to the storage potential of the pond. The estimated cost is $15,000 per pond for an engineering firm to study and model the utilization of LID practices. This does not include the cost to design, construct, or maintain the LID practices.
Enlarge the size of the ponds. In some cases (DR3, DR5, and DR6) there may be room to increase the size of the pond and integrate it into the neighboring golf course. However since these ponds are in the floodplain, compensatory storage requirements this particularly challenging. The estimated cost is $20,000 per pond for an engineering firm to determine if this is a feasible option and if possible, the additional storage that could be provided.

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4), the recommended solution is to do nothing (#1 above) since the pond is currently functioning as floodplain storage and on-site detention, and the cost to isolate each of these functions could be high and may result in a worse situation for one or the other function. (Site DR2) (Site DR3) (Site DR4) (Site DR5) (Site DR6)

Localized Flooding (4)

MC7

Issue

There is poor drainage from the back yard (Tremont Drive south of 106th Street in the Tremont neighborhood) (F3).

Recommended Improvement

Should be addressed by solution described in MC2.

	MC8 Issue In this watershed there are several examples of recurring issues the Town has addressed. These examples are: area floods due to clogged culvert, basement floods, storm drain sits high causing flooding in yard, standing water, and tree branches in creek obstructing flow. (F1) (F2) Recommended Improvement In order to address these issues on a regular basis, it is recommended that the Town continue to: Provide adequate staffing to respond to requests to investigate the problem cause. Estimated cost is $250 per call. Have a system in place to educate property owners in how to determine and contact the appropriate party to address the issue. (partially addressed by TW1) Provide adequate staff and funding to repair the system as appropriate (debris removal, retrofit stormwater structure). (partially addressed by TW5)

MC8

Issue

In this watershed there are several examples of recurring issues the Town has addressed. These examples are: area floods due to clogged culvert, basement floods, storm drain sits high causing flooding in yard, standing water, and tree branches in creek obstructing flow. (F1) (F2)

Recommended Improvement

In order to address these issues on a regular basis, it is recommended that the Town continue to:

Provide adequate staffing to respond to requests to investigate the problem cause. Estimated cost is $250 per call.
Have a system in place to educate property owners in how to determine and contact the appropriate party to address the issue. (partially addressed by TW1)
Provide adequate staff and funding to repair the system as appropriate (debris removal, retrofit stormwater structure). (partially addressed by TW5)

MC9

Issue

There is flooding on the sidewalk on the west side of Mollenkopf Road north of the entrance to Hillsborough (F8). It appears that drainage is coming from under the fence at the north edge of Hillsborough, flowing southeast through the grass, then onto the path, picking up debris from a tree along the way.

Recommended Improvement

The same solutions listed for MC1 were considered for this site. Solutions that were chosen as potential solutions for the site included the following:

Creating a swale along the path to convey water to the outlet point without using the path,
Investigating the source of the flow from under the fence,
Constructing a new, deep swale to convey water from under the fence directly to the end of the path, thereby reducing the length of the path required to convey the water to the outlet point, and
Regrading and replacing a small portion of the path to eliminate the hump that causes water to pond on the path.

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 first investigate the drainage pattern around the north east most residence to see if landscaping, a sump pump, or some other activity has diverted flow. Based on topographic mapping, it appears that drainage from the corner residence should go to a swale along the north edge of the property and then flow east instead of flowing out onto the path. If this drainage path has been blocked or altered to divert flow into the back yard and out under the fence, the landowner should correct the grading to divert drainage back to the swale. This should eliminate a majority of the flooding on the path. The estimated cost of staff time to investigate this area is $500.

The upper portion of the path that ponds water should also be regraded to eliminate the hump that causes the water to pond. There is sufficient grade to accomplish this. The estimated cost of this alternative is $4,000. (Site F8)

Other Issues (4)

	MC10 Issue From 1958 to 1976 there was a USGS stream gauge monitoring flow and stage levels on Mud Creek downstream of Fishers. Much development has occurred in the stream corridor since the gage was in operation. Without the gage, there are currently no measurements of the impact of the development or a way to accurately calibrate hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the existing conditions in the Mud Creek watershed. Recommended Improvement Along with the recommendation under SC10, it is recommended that the Town coordinate efforts with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s office to establish a new gauge on Mud Creek between 116th Street and 126th Street. Measurements from these gages will provide useful data for understanding flow quantities and accurately identifying flood risks in the watershed. If the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office agrees to fund these gages, there is no cost to the Town of Fishers except an estimated $500 for coordination efforts.

MC10

Issue

From 1958 to 1976 there was a USGS stream gauge monitoring flow and stage levels on Mud Creek downstream of Fishers. Much development has occurred in the stream corridor since the gage was in operation. Without the gage, there are currently no measurements of the impact of the development or a way to accurately calibrate hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the existing conditions in the Mud Creek watershed.

Recommended Improvement

Along with the recommendation under SC10, it is recommended that the Town coordinate efforts with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s office to establish a new gauge on Mud Creek between 116th Street and 126th Street. Measurements from these gages will provide useful data for understanding flow quantities and accurately identifying flood risks in the watershed. If the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office agrees to fund these gages, there is no cost to the Town of Fishers except an estimated $500 for coordination efforts.

Recommend detailed restudy of this stretch of Mud Creek.
FIS Delineation Issues

MC11

Issue

The current Flood Insurance Study model of Mud Creek appears to have used outdated or less detailed data and methodologies than are currently available. The result is BFEs, floodplain delineations, and floodway determinations that inaccurately portray the real flood risks along this stream.

Recommended Improvement

The Town should coordinate with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office to have a restudy performed of Mud Creek using current methodologies and data to be submitted to FEMA to revise the current mapping along this stream. If the Town and the County equally shared the cost, it is estimated that the restudy would cost $50,000 for each entity for the restudy of the entire reach of Sand and Mud Creeks in the current Fishers planning jurisdiction. This includes Sand Creek and the part of Mud Creek discussed in the Sand Creek Watershed portion of this Master Plan. (FIS Delineation Issues)

	MC12 Issue Based on the Mud Creek Watershed Plan, existing condition flow rates in portions of the watershed are lower than the default Town or County release rates for new development. It appears that these restrictive release rates have not been made a part of the Town or County ordinances. Proposed development is, as a result, allowed to increase the runoff from any given site in the affected subwatersheds. Recommended Improvement Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4), it is recommended that the Town coordinate with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office to add the Mud Creek Watershed Plan’s calculated existing condition flow rates to the County Surveyor’s list of restrictive release rate watersheds. An estimated $1,000 of staff time is estimated to be required for this coordination effort.

MC12

Issue

Based on the Mud Creek Watershed Plan, existing condition flow rates in portions of the watershed are lower than the default Town or County release rates for new development. It appears that these restrictive release rates have not been made a part of the Town or County ordinances. Proposed development is, as a result, allowed to increase the runoff from any given site in the affected subwatersheds.

Recommended Improvement

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4), it is recommended that the Town coordinate with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office to add the Mud Creek Watershed Plan’s calculated existing condition flow rates to the County Surveyor’s list of restrictive release rate watersheds. An estimated $1,000 of staff time is estimated to be required for this coordination effort.

	MC13 Issue Water quality samples collected on Mud Creek at SR 238 (Site 7) indicated the 2nd poorest overall water quality of the 10 sites studied as part of this Master Plan. Appendix 3 contains a summary of the water quality data collected. Recommended Improvement To address this issue, constructing a wetland to improve water quality should be explored. The upper portion of this watershed is relatively undeveloped and a large 250 acre parcel of agricultural land with Brookston (Br) and Crosby (CrA) soils may be ideal for a constructed wetland. Based on the water quality data collected and the need to purchase the land, it is a medium priority recommendation for implementation. Back to Watershed List

MC13

Issue

Water quality samples collected on Mud Creek at SR 238 (Site 7) indicated the 2nd poorest overall water quality of the 10 sites studied as part of this Master Plan. Appendix 3 contains a summary of the water quality data collected.

Recommended Improvement

To address this issue, constructing a wetland to improve water quality should be explored. The upper portion of this watershed is relatively undeveloped and a large 250 acre parcel of agricultural land with Brookston (Br) and Crosby (CrA) soils may be ideal for a constructed wetland. Based on the water quality data collected and the need to purchase the land, it is a medium priority recommendation for implementation.

Back to Watershed List