The following discussion is based on drainage problems or complaints that were identified in the Vestal Ditch - 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.

VD1

Issue

Overflow from storm pipe results in flooding across the west side of the property and is washing out the driveway behind the building (south of Allisonville Road and Wigeon Drive) (B1).

Recommended Improvement

This issue has been addressed by the Town’s Engineering Department by the blockage of the drainage outlet to the north of the building and the redirecting of that flow to an outlet to the south. The estimated cost of materials and staff time is $2,000.

VD2

Issue

There is alleged flooding of a building at 111th Street and Allisonville Road (B2).

Recommended Improvement

The Town Engineering Department has investigated this site under multiple storm frequencies and has yet to observe any evidence of right-of-way water entering into the building structure. If additional data is observed or provided, this issue can be further assessed at that time. No further action can be taken at this time. The estimated cost of future staff time that will be required to investigate the problem is $250.

VD3

Issue

There are approximately 35 structures located in the floodway of White River (BR51-BR84). These structures are located in areas with approximately 4 feet deep water flowing at higher velocities due to their proximity to the channel. Some of these structures are on record as having repetitive losses due to flooding. This is not a safe area in which to live during a flood. (This area is currently not in the Town corporate limits.)

Recommended Improvement

Due to the size of the watershed, flood control projects are not feasible methods of providing protection to these residences. The Town and County (since the area is not currently annexed but in Town’s zoning and planning district) should work with FEMA and willing homeowners to explore opportunities for houses to be retrofitted or be relocated out of harm’s way utilizing funding available from various FEMA programs. (Sites BR51-BR84)

Storm Inlet System to collect trash.

Water quality concerns in the River Glen neighborhood

Recommended improvements to address water quality concerns in the River Glen neighborhood.
Site C3

VD4

Issue

There is concern about water quality in the River Glen neighborhood pond from upstream commercial development and surrounding residential use (unnamed tributary to White River and River Glen Drive) (C3).

Recommended Improvement

Several options were explored to address this issue including installing screens to capture trash and plant native grasses along the waterways. The following is a discussion of the each promising solution investigated:

1. Install screens on stormwater inlets to capture trash that accumulates in commercial parking lot. Ensure trash containers for commercial use are covered or keep lids closed. Trash in the waterways can harm wildlife, impact water quality, and is unsightly. The estimated cost is $4,350 to purchase and maintain screens for 6 inlets in the Kroger parking lot.
2. Establish native grasses and woody vegetation along the edge of the River Glen neighborhood pond and the unnamed waterway between the commercial area and pond to trap and filter pollutants carried by stormwater runoff.   Water quality data collected at this site as part of this Master Plan effort (Chapter 2 and Appendix 3) indicated the lowest biological and one of the lowest physical (habitat) scores. Diversifying the plants adjacent to the waterway and pond would significantly improve these scores and water quality. The estimated cost is $1600 for the pond and $700 for the ditch. This cost could be subsidized through the Indiana Wildlife Federation (IWL) and Hamilton County Soil & Water Conservation (SWCD) programs.

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4), both solutions are recommended. The priority for both recommendations is medium since it requires the cooperation of the landowners and implementation on private property.  (Site C3)

Recommended gathering water quality data to better understand water quality concerns.
Site C14

VD5

Issue

Septic system failure is suspected via unnamed ditches (Charleston Pkwy and Johnston South Drive in the Charleston Crossing neighborhood) (C14).

Recommended Improvement

To address this issue several potential solutions were explored. These include extending sanitary sewer service, operation and maintenance of septic systems, installation of water treatment filters in septic tanks, and water quality sampling. The following is a discussion of the each promising solution investigated:

1. Connect these homes to the sanitary sewer. These homes are not within the Town’s corporate limits and therefore not required to connect to the sanitary sewers system. A sanitary sewer line would have to be extended along 116th Street into the Charleston Crossing neighborhood before lateral lines to each home could be connected. The estimated cost is $60,000 to extend the sewer line. The estimated cost is roughly $10,000 per household to disconnect and cap the septic system and connect to the sewer line via a lateral line.
2. Install effluent filters in septic tanks. Effluent Filters are designed to extend the life and proper function of the septic drain field by preventing solids from leaving the septic tank. The estimated cost is $200-$450 (depending on the age of the septic system) for each filter installed by a septic system professional. Septic systems need to be cleaned prior to installation which would cost an additional $250 per unit.
3. Distribute educational materials from Hamilton County Health Department on septic system operation and maintenance. The estimated cost is minimal for Town staff to contact the Health Department and request they mail the literature to these residents.
4. Inspect existing septic systems to ensure each unit is properly functioning. The estimated cost is $450 per household for a septic system professional to inspect and certify that the septic system is functioning properly.
5. Establish baseline water quality data by evaluating the water quality (chemical, physical, and biological properties) at ditches behind homes. The estimated cost is $2,000 for Town staff time to gather 6 water quality samples from 1 location during 3 dry and 3 wet weather events and have them analyzed by a laboratory as well as document physical characteristics and gather biological samples once at both locations.

Based on the goals and performance criteria established for this Master Plan (Chapter 4), establishing baseline water quality data by evaluating the water quality is recommended (#5 above) recommended for implementation at this time. The priority to implement a water quality program is high since it will help determine the appropriate solution to the issue.  (Site C14)

Recommend studying ponds to determine if they are functioning as intended.
Site D2

Recommend studying ponds to determine if they are functioning as intended.
Site D6

VD6

Issue

Detention ponds surrounded by mixed use development may not be functioning as effectively as it was originally intended (D2 & D6).

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 these ponds for water quality and flood control, it is a high priority recommendation for implementation.  (Site D2)  (Site D6)

VD7

Issue

There is streambank erosion along Light Branch (Sun River Drive and River Ridge Drive in River Ridge neighborhood) (E4).

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. Stabilize the streambank. Light Branch is not managed as a regulated drain. The change in topography and generous rear yards make it possible to consider a technique that combines laying back the slope (re-grading) and hard armoring the toe of the streambank where it has begun to show signs of undercutting. Regrettably this method would most likely result in the loss of some of the larger mature trees along the streambank. The estimated cost is $5,000 to stabilize the bank using this technique.
2. Distribute educational materials from the Hamilton County SWCD to landowners along Light Branch 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), both solutions are recommended. The priority to stabilize the streambank is low (#1 above) because it is a private landowner issue on an unregulated waterway. Distributing brochures to landowners (#2 above) is a high priority and should be of minimal cost to the Town. (Site E4)

VD8

Issue

There are approximately 22 structures shown to be in the floodplain associated with Delight Creek. Several of these structures appear to be on high ground that was erroneously included in the floodplain.

Recommended Improvement

The likely inaccurate Zone A designation along this creek could be corrected by completing a revision to the approximate Zone A delineation and submitting the data to FEMA for revision of the map. The cost of this study would be approximately $5,000. (FIS Delineation Issues)

Any structures that would remain in the revised floodplain should be encouraged to purchase flood insurance to provide a source of replacing losses after a flood and investigate floodproofing options to reduce the real risk of flooding. An estimated amount of $500 is included for staff time to do this.

VD9

Issue

Water quality samples collected at the mouth to the River Glen neighborhood pond (Site 2) during the development of this Master Plan indicated the third 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