Watershed Specific Recommendations

Sand Creek - Mud Creek Watershed

	The following discussion is based on drainage problems or complaints that were identified in the Sand Creek - 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 Sand Creek - 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 (10)

Flooding near N. Cumberland Road

Schematic illustrating use of regrading to address street flooding issue.
Solution A - Site A30

Recommend regrading edge of N. Cumberland Road.
Site A30

SC1

Issue

There is flooding of the street turn lane and path near N. Cumberland Road and Highpoint Ridge Drive (A30).

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,
Install 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 west edge of the road to allow drainage off of the road and onto the path then regrade the west edge of the path to allow drainage off to the grass to the west (Solution A). The estimated cost of this improvement is $4,000. The situation would be further improved by the completion of improvements to the Highpoint Ridge Drive road surface. Due to bankruptcy of the developer, it is uncertain when these improvements will be able to be completed. (Site A30)

Ponding along path at Cumberland Rd.

SC2

Issue

There is ponding on the path near Cumberland Road and Valley Springs Boulevard (A44).

Recommended Improvement

The same possible solutions listed for SC1 were considered for 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 ground around the path to create an inlet basin at the low point in the path then construct a pipe under Cumberland Road to connect the basin to the storm drainage structure on the east side of Cumberland Road. The estimated cost of this improvement is $19,000. (Site A44)

Recommend construction of small, shallow-grade swale to keep water off Cumberland Road.
Site A6

SC3

Issue

Water flows out of the steep bank onto Cumberland Road north of 106th Street (A6).

Recommended Improvement

The same possible solutions listed for SC1 were considered for 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 small shallow grade swale on the west side of the road to prevent drainage from the hill from getting onto Cumberland Road. Some survey would be needed to determine the length of swale needed along with more exact information about where water comes on to the road. The estimated cost of this alternative is $8,000. (Site A6)

Recommend improvements to address street flooding along 136th Street,
Site A13

SC4

Issue

East of 136th and Promise Road, the regulated drain beehive inlet structure is overwhelmed and flow in the ditch from the west may be directed onto the road (A13).

Recommended Improvement

The same possible solutions listed for SC1 were considered for 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 establish a method of regularly removing debris from the drainage path so that the beehive does not become clogged and to regrade the ditch to the west around the road sign to allow water to drain to the beehives in the swales instead of on the road. The estimated cost of this improvement is $3,000. (Site A13)

	SC5 Issue There is road overtopping during the 1% annual chance flood at Sand Creek and 131st Street (AR23), N. Cumberland Road (AR21), Valley Springs Boulevard (AR20), Cumberland Road and Valley Farm Court (AR19), and Mud Creek at 106th Street east of Cumberland Road (AR17), and Cumberland Road south of 106th Street (AR18). 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 $3,000,000 for these six sites.

SC5

Issue

There is road overtopping during the 1% annual chance flood at Sand Creek and 131st Street (AR23), N. Cumberland Road (AR21), Valley Springs Boulevard (AR20), Cumberland Road and Valley Farm Court (AR19), and Mud Creek at 106th Street east of Cumberland Road (AR17), and Cumberland Road south of 106th Street (AR18).

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 $3,000,000 for these six sites.

Building Flooding (1)

	SC6 Issue According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, several residences are erroneously indicated to be in the floodplain. Recommended Improvement Because there are known errors in the hydraulic modeling that is the basis of the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) along Sand and 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.

SC6

Issue

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

Recommended Improvement

Because there are known errors in the hydraulic modeling that is the basis of the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) along Sand and 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.

Pond Flooding and Maintenance (3)

SC7

Issue

Detention ponds surrounded by mixed use development may not be functioning as effectively as it was originally intended (D5a and D5b)).

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 this detention pond to better understand its function for water quality and quantity for the surrounding land use, opportunities to retrofit the pond itself or integrate LID practices into the drainage area. The estimated cost is $10,000 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 medium priority recommendation for implementation. (Sites D5a and D5b)

Recommend do nothing since pond is providing floodplain storage and on-site detention.
Site DR1

SC8

Issue

According to the Mud Creek Watershed Study, a pond is inundated (Mud Creek and Cumberland Road in Bradford Knoll neighborhood) (DR1).

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 the pond and its relationship to Mud Creek. This solution was concluded from the 2002 Mud Creek Study. According to this report, this detention pond was 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 for an engineer firm to complete this study.
Install a flap gate or check valve type devices 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. The cost of a flap gate or check valve ranges from $3,300 to $8,500 per unit depending on the size and type of pipe. This cost does not take into account the installation or 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 this pond is being maintained. This pond was 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 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 would need to be evaluated and the actual benefit, if any, to the storage potential of the pond. The estimated cost is $15,000 for an engineering firm to study and model the utilization of LID practices. This does not include the cost to design, construct, and maintain the LID practices.

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 DR1)

Localized Flooding (4)

	SC9 Issue In this watershed there are several examples of recurring issues the Town has addressed. These examples are: Area floods due to clogged culvert (126th Street and N. Promise Road) (F7), Storm drain is set high causing flooding in yard (Crossing Drive and Claymount Lane in Delaware Crossing neighborhood) (F4), Water ponds (Spring Ridge Court and Bradford Knoll in Bradford Knoll neighborhood) (F10), and Tree branches in creek obstruct flow (F6). 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)

SC9

Issue

In this watershed there are several examples of recurring issues the Town has addressed. These examples are:

Area floods due to clogged culvert (126th Street and N. Promise Road) (F7),
Storm drain is set high causing flooding in yard (Crossing Drive and Claymount Lane in Delaware Crossing neighborhood) (F4),
Water ponds (Spring Ridge Court and Bradford Knoll in Bradford Knoll neighborhood) (F10), and
Tree branches in creek obstruct flow (F6).

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)

Other Issues (4)

	SC10 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 In order to establish a record of the stream discharge and associated flood heights, it is recommended that the Town contact Marion County and the USGS about reestablishing the former gage near 79th Street in Indianapolis. In addition, the Town should coordinate with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office and USGS to establish another gage on Sand Creek between 116th Street and I-69. Measurements from these gages will provide useful data for understanding flow quantities and accurately identifying flood risks in the watershed. If Marion County and the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office agree to fund these gages, there is no cost to the Town of Fishers except an estimated $1,000 for coordination efforts.

SC10

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

In order to establish a record of the stream discharge and associated flood heights, it is recommended that the Town contact Marion County and the USGS about reestablishing the former gage near 79th Street in Indianapolis. In addition, the Town should coordinate with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office and USGS to establish another gage on Sand Creek between 116th Street and I-69. Measurements from these gages will provide useful data for understanding flow quantities and accurately identifying flood risks in the watershed. If Marion County and the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office agree to fund these gages, there is no cost to the Town of Fishers except an estimated $1,000 for coordination efforts.

Recommend detailed study of this portion of Sand Creek.
FIS Delineation Issues

SC11

Issue

The current Flood Insurance Study models of Mud and Sand Creeks appear 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 these streams.

Recommended Improvement

The Town should coordinate with the Hamilton County Surveyor’s Office to have a restudy performed of Sand and Mud Creeks using current methodologies and data to be submitted to FEMA to revise the current mapping along these streams. 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 the part of Mud Creek discussed in the Headwaters of Mud Creek Watershed portion of this Master Plan. (FIS Delineation Issues)

SC12

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. The estimated cost of staff time for this coordination is $1,000.

Recommend utilization of EPA's SUSTAIN model to identify BMPs.

SC13

Issue

Water quality samples collected on Sand Creek near Verizon (Site 4) and on Mud Creek at Cumberland Park (Site 6) during the development of this Master Plan indicated the 1st and 4th 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 the watershed should be studied to identify retrofit and new design opportunities for green infrastructure to improve water quality. Potential BMPs, project sites, pollutant loads, and volume reductions could be modeled using EPA’s recently released SUSTAIN (System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration Model) or similar tool. Based on the water quality data collected, it is a high priority recommendation for implementation.

Back to Watershed List