Monroe County, Indiana Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan
February 11, 2016
Prepared By: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure 201 S. Capitol Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana
A Acknowledgements Monroe County would like to thank all the people who participated in the Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan process. The Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan was created from a collaborative effort and could not have been completed without the following contributors:
The Monroe County residents who participated in the public meetings and completed the surveys.
Monroe County Board of Commissioners
Monroe County Council
Monroe County Stormwater Management Board Patrick Stoffers Julie Thomas Iris F. Kiesling Kevin Enright
Monroe County Public Works Department Lisa Ridge, Director Todd Stevenson, Drainage Engineer/MS4 Operator Dana Wilkinson, Stormwater Inspector Jason Moore, Stormwater Equipment Operator John VanDeventer, Stormwater Equipment Operator
Monroe County Highway Maintenance Department John Chambers, Superintendent Matt Grubb, Assistant Superintendent Gary Hawkins, Assistant Superintendent
Monroe County Drainage Board
Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Monroe County Parks and Recreation Department
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
Executive Summary Monroe County, the gateway to Southern Indiana, is a vibrant region with a unique blend of urban, agricultural, forested, campus, and residential land uses and abundant natural beauty. Through its history, the County has experienced stormwater issues related to the natural features of the region, as well as those due to increasing development and ever expanding maintenance requirements. Monroe County Government recognized the need to develop a county-wide comprehensive stormwater improvement plan to provide an accounting of known stormwater drainage issues, along with a plan for identifying, prioritizing and implementing sustainable solutions and providing a guideline for future improvements. The Stormwater Management Board has expressed the desire for a County wide strategy that allows for budgeting and implementation of prioritized projects over a 20 year period with flexibility to adjust solutions based on continual, ongoing and iterative feedback and input from residents.
The Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan: Identifies and analyzes the existing drainage deficiencies throughout the County Provides a range of drainage concepts for the repair, retrofit, and enhancement of existing facilities and construction of future facilities Establishes criteria for selecting and prioritizing drainage projects Combines the demands of flood risk reduction with ecosystem enhancements and considers development and rural land uses in providing an effective plan Included active participation and involvement of a diverse set of key stakeholders; including the public, County staff, community organizations, and County Commissioners Outlines potential funding sources for stormwater projects
This Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan is integral to: The improvement of the quality of life of Monroe County residents The protection of unique natural resources The Health and Safety of residents and visitors The support of recreation and tourism Responsible fiscal planning for County stormwater improvement and maintenance activities as part of overall capital improvements Meeting Federal USEPA regulations to improve the quality of stormwater runoff reaching our lakes and streams
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | i February 2016
The process for development of the Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan included: Data collection Field Reconnaissance Analysis and categorization of all watersheds within the County Identification of typical stormwater conditions, problems, and reoccurring issues Completion of an Existing Conditions Report outlining the data compilation, inventory, and field reconnaissance process followed in support of the overall Plan Preparation of standardized maintenance and retrofit solution concepts Evaluation and prioritization of identified stormwater management solutions Public input and outreach including informational meetings and questionnaires Staff/Board of Commissioners/surveyor interviews Development of Conclusions, Recommendations, and Next Steps for Stormwater Management in Monroe County. This plan can be used as a strategic document for the application and implementation of projects for the purpose of reducing flooding, maintaining existing natural and man-made stormwater conveyances, and improving stormwater runoff conditions while improving water quality and meeting Clean Water Act regulatory requirements.
Results Show:
Implementation of the projects outlined in this plan will contribute to management of over 260,000 acres across 23 watersheds and will have a significant positive impact on flooding, public safety, ongoing maintenance and water quality.
The estimated total of all currently identified projects is approximately $12 Million including design services, land acquisition, and permitting. A 20% contingency has been applied due to the preliminary nature of the information used for the pricing analysis.
Sixteen (16) projects totaling just over $3.0 Million are identified for completion by 2021 (Year 5 of the document). All of these projects are primarily related to the alleviation of roadway flooding, creating a significant improvement to public health and safety for the citizens of Monroe County.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | ii February 2016
The Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Recommends the following initial action items:
Refine proposed stormwater project costs and ranking to determine final number of projects for construction for years 1 through 5 based on available staff and budget resources. Develop a database entry form and accompanying Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to populate future projects within the project ranking system and track project completion, implementation, and ongoing maintenance. Implement project SW 48a – Phase 1 of the Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway Flooding. Complete topographic survey and preliminary design documents and make recommendation for the implementation of the SW 01 N. Mt. Tabor Road drainage project. Develop a Commercial and Industrial Park stormwater basin retrofit program. Develop Guidelines of future Commercial and Industrial Development. Perform an Ordinance / Policy / Incentive review relevant to Stormwater Management with recommendations and guidance for future development standards for stormwater management. Develop and issue a Request for Qualifications for annual on-call contracting services for storm infrastructure general contractor and stream stabilization specialty contractor for maintenance & improvement projects $50,000 or less. Develop and implement an internal project tracking and review process to ensure compliance with MS4 regulatory requirements and stormwater management on County Capital Improvement Projects. Establish a budget line item for maintenance of stormwater infrastructure specific to multi-use trails. Establish a budget line item for ongoing maintenance and funding of improvements outlined in this plan. Engage consultant to capitalize on the multiple grants identified in this report and assist with strategic grant writing, administration and targeting opportune public, private, and nonprofit partnerships. Develop a public outreach strategy to promote and consistently brand the Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan and the implemented projects.
Recommended 5 year, 10 year and 20 year goals are outlined in detail in the results portion of this document.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | iii February 2016
Table of Contents
Section Page No. Executive Summary ...... i 1.0 Introduction and Background ...... 1 2.0 Data Compilation and Inventory Analysis ...... 4 3.0 Analysis and Visioning ...... 40 4.0 Results ...... 64 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 69 APPENDIX A – TYPICAL DETAILS ...... 71 APPENDIX B –PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AND SURVEYS ...... 77 APPENDIX C – PROJECT CONCEPT PLANS ...... 82 APPENDIX D – AUTOMATED MONITORING MEMO ...... 138 APPENDIX E – STORMWATER REVIEW PROCESS FOR CIPs . 141
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | iv February 2016
Figures
Section Page No. Figure 1: Monroe County ...... 3 Figure 2: Monroe County Watersheds ...... 5 Figure 3: Monroe County Land Cover ...... 7 Figure 4: Monroe County Karst Features ...... 8 Figure 5: Monroe County Soils ...... 9 Figure 6: Monroe County Wetlands ...... 10 Figure 7: Monroe County Steep Slopes ...... 11 Figure 8: Monroe County Stream Network ...... 12 Figure 9: IDNR Best Available Flood Hazard Area ...... 13 Figure 10: Bean Blossom Approximate Study ...... 15 Figure 11: Stream & Roadway Intersections by Watershed ...... 17 Figure 12: Bridge Structures by Watershed ...... 18 Figure 13: Culvert Structures by Watershed ...... 19 Figure 14: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part A ...... 20 Figure 15: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part B ...... 21 Figure 16: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part C ...... 22 Figure 17: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part D ...... 23 Figure 18: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part E ...... 24 Figure 19: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part F ...... 25 Figure 20: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part G ...... 26 Figure 21: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part H ...... 27 Figure 22: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part I ...... 28 Figure 23: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part J ...... 29 Figure 24: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part K ...... 30 Figure 25: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part L ...... 31 Figure 26: Interstate 69 Route ...... 34 Figure 27: Documented Stormwater Complaints by Type and Location ...... 36 Figure 28: Priority Rating of Watersheds within Monroe County ...... 41 Figure 29: Stormwater Management Governance Structure...... 53 Figure 30: Existing Condition Site Visit Locations ...... 57 Figure 31: Identified Project Locations by Type ...... 51 Figure 32: Eight Stormwater treatment options available for retrofitting ...... 57 Figure 33: Number of Projects by Type ...... 65 Figure 34: Cost of Projects by Type ...... 65
Tables
Section Page No. Table 1: Outfall Locations ...... 16 Table 2: Monroe County Flood Prone Roads ...... 38 Table 3: Monroe County Watershed Characterization Data ...... 41 Table 4: Municipal Stormwater Practices Summary ...... 56 Table 5: Project Site Data ...... 52 Table 6: Weighted Attribute Multiplier ...... 59 Table 7: Project Scoring ...... 60 Table 8: Project Prioritization ...... 62 Table 9: Identified Grant Programs ...... 67
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | v February 2016
1 Introduction and Background Purpose and Need Problem Definition Goals and Objectives Study Area Limits
1.0 Introduction and Background We all live in a watershed and have a role to play in the health of our local waterways. In Monroe County, water from rainfall and snow melt flows into surrounding creeks (including Clear Creek, Jacks Defeat Creek, and Bean Blossom Creek), eventually going to the White River and making its way all the way South to the Gulf of Mexico. One way to contribute to a healthy watershed is for individuals, businesses, and public agencies to understand stormwater Lake Monroe is a valuable asset to Monroe County drainage issues and to take positive steps toward improving the water flowing over their property. As Monroe County residents it is up to us to make sure we live in a healthy environment with clean water. Everyone from individual homeowners to the County Highway Department can have an impact. Monroe County government, through its Stormwater Management Board and infrastructure departments, can contribute to protecting and improving the waterways and the natural resources of Monroe County utilizing Planning and education, followed by strategic, thoughtful action.
1.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan is to provide a comprehensive stormwater management strategy addressing storm drainage and flood control in a sustainable manner that protects the safety of the public and enhances the quality of County’s waterways and natural resources. The Stormwater Management Board has expressed the desire for a County Wide Cherry Lane surface drainage strategy that allows for budgeting and implementation of prioritized projects over a 20 year period with flexibility to adjust solutions based on continual, ongoing and iterative feedback and input from residents.
1.1.1 Problem Definition Like many communities, Monroe County experiences flash flooding and, in the vicinity of Monroe Reservoir, extended duration flooding. Much of the flooding occurs within County controlled Right of Way (ROW) and can be attributed to low lying roadways adjacent to creeks and Stonechase subdivision detention pond streams. These roadways are impacted by flash flooding that results from significant topography and geologic karst features in the region.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 1 February 2016
Uncontrolled stormwater can threaten public health and aquatic life, negatively affect recreational activities, reduce the service life of existing roadway infrastructure, increase water treatment demands, contribute to flooding events, and cause erosion of valuable land. This costs the County money in the form of property damage, increased road and bridge maintenance demands, lost crops, erosion, and water quality treatment expenses.
1.1.2 Goals and Objectives Develop master plan vision opportunities on a large regional scale as well as public/private partnership and individual property projects. Combine the need for flood risk reduction with ecosystem enhancements while supporting urban development and rural residential land uses to provide an effective plan that meets both the County’s and the community’s vision. Identify opportunities to reduce the impact of storm runoff on localized flooding using targeted system improvements to control runoff issues in prioritized watersheds. Provide a framework for assessing and implementing projects within the County.
1.2 Study Area Limits Monroe County is located in south central Indiana and has a land mass of 394 square miles. The county contains thirty watersheds and an estimated 1,243 miles of streams and rivers. The three main water bodies within the county encompassing 21 square miles of area; Monroe Reservoir, Griffy Lake, and Lake Lemon. Approximately half of the Monroe Reservoir watershed and most of the Lake Lemon watershed are located in Brown County. See Figure 1 for reference. This report and the study excludes the three incorporated areas of Stinesville, Ellettsville and Bloomington. The study also excludes the Morgan Monroe State Forest and the Hoosier National Forest located in the north and southeast portions of the county respectively. These areas were excluded from the study as they are outside the jurisdiction of the Monroe County Government. Monroe County is largely dominated by deciduous forest, which makes up approximately 64% of the land mass. Only approximately 8% of the unincorporated county’s land is considered developed. The county is experiencing a major infrastructure project; the routing of the Interstate 69 corridor from Indianapolis, IN to Evansville, IN. The Monroe County portion of the corridor will extend just over 10 miles and impact three watersheds and approximately ten stream reaches. These watersheds are likely to experience significant impacts that will include changing the flow path, direction of flow, and quantity and quality of flow of their streams.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 2 February 2016
Figure 1: Monroe County
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 3 February 2016
2 Data Compilation and Inventory Analysis Supporting Documents Natural Systems Built Systems Drainage Assets/Infrastructure Outfalls Current Capital Improvement Projects 1-69 Routing Documented Complaints and Field Reconnaissance Watershed Data and Characterization Local Policy, Regulations and Ordinances Monroe County Stormwater Management Governance Current Reporting and Response Process Field Reconnaissance Typical Conditions
2.0 Data Compilation and Inventory Analysis
A comprehensive understanding of the existing conditions across the study area is integral to all aspects of developing and implementing a Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan. This section describes the natural and built systems for each watershed and their relationship within the overall Plan.
2.1 Supporting Documents An Existing Conditions Report was prepared to document the data compilation, inventory, and field reconnaissance process completed in support of the overall plan. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopted in February 2012 provides an in depth record of the natural systems of the region including climate, geology, watersheds, floodplains, soils, slopes, wetlands, endangered species, agriculture and forestry. This document provides a brief summary of the natural system elements, and references the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. Monroe County contains 36 prominent watersheds (Figure 2). Utilizing compiled GIS data, natural systems information was tabulated and evaluated on a watershed level basis.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 4 February 2016
Figure 2: Monroe County Watersheds
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 5 February 2016
2.2 Natural Systems Monroe County contains natural features that are impacted by existing residential, commercial, and industrial development. The impact of existing development on the environment was recognized by County leaders and, as a result, several Zoning Ordinance chapters were created to protect these unique environmental features which contribute to the character and economy of Monroe County. Examples include protection of limestone deposits, floodplains, karst features, steep slopes, and water quality, especially in the Monroe Reservoir and Griffy Lake watersheds. Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 show pertinent features along with brief descriptions of the following: Land Cover, Karst Features, Soils, Wetlands, Steep Slopes, and Stream Network.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 6 February 2016
Figure 3: Monroe County Land Cover
Land Cover Land in unincorporated Monroe County is predominately covered by Deciduous Forest and steep slopes, making up approximately 64% of the County. 13% of the County’s land cover is composed of hay and pasture with only 8% of the land considered developed. The remaining land is primarily composed of cultivated crops, open water, and herbaceous land cover. (GIS data). Agricultural land is devoted to enterprises such as the production of row crops, pasture, and livestock. Acreage devoted to farming has steadily declined over the years. Several factors account for the changing nature of the number of farms, including the number of agriculture census survey respondents, indebtedness, the impacts of fluctuating land values, state and federal agricultural policies, market supply and demand, and finally, federal subsidies. Much of the traditional farmland has been converted to other uses, such as public and semi- public lands (Sycamore Land Trust, parks, schools and commercial). Some has been zoned as Rural Residential. While livestock may be raised on property that is zoned as Rural Residential, the property may not meet the qualifications to be classified as farmland.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 7 February 2016
Figure 4: Monroe County Karst Features
Karst Features Karst landscapes usually occur where carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) underlie the surface. Limestone and dolomite in particular are soluble in water. Freely circulating slightly acidic rainwater and the water in the soil slowly dissolve the factures in the limestone and create sinkholes, caves, underground streams, and other features that characterize karst landscapes. Sinkholes are a common karst-related feature and are defined as closed depressions in the lands surface formed by dissolution of near-surface rocks or by the collapse of the roofs of underground channels and caverns in the limestone or dolostone located below. The major karst areas in Indiana are estimated to contain 300,000 sinkholes.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 8 February 2016
Figure 5: Monroe County Soils
Soils The soils of Monroe County are classified by the United States Department of Agriculture and can be accessed via the Web Soil Survey. Soils range from deep and well drained soils to shallow and poorly drained soils. Approximately 80% of Monroe County soils are prone to erosion for most uses (crops, woodlands, urban areas and recreation areas) when located on slopes and in areas of minimal soil depth to bedrock. When planning for development, soil suitability and limitations play a significant role in determining the layout for streets, suitable septic and building sites, recreation areas, and stormwater management facilities. It is appropriate to leave highly erodible soils undisturbed to prevent sedimentation or degradation of water-quality. Hydric soils are also common throughout Monroe County. These soils, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the US Department of Agriculture, are “soils formed under the conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 9 February 2016
Figure 6: Monroe County Wetlands
Wetlands According to a 2000 IDEM National Wetland Inventory, there is also an estimated span of 633 to 5,105 acres of Wetland. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources indicates that there may be upwards of 11,000-19,999 acres of wetland in Monroe County.20 This is a sharp difference from that indicated by the 2000 IDEM study. This variance in statistical data indicates a need to accurately inventory the wetlands features found in Monroe County to ensure effective analysis and decision-making.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 10 February 2016
Figure 7: Monroe County Steep Slopes
Steep Slopes An area of land designated as having a “steep slope” is one where the change in elevation over a particular distance, or slope is classified as “steep”. Since there is no universal definition of “steep”, government units may set their own values. In 2007, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources published a Storm Water Quality Manual defining steep slopes as 15% or greater. The manual recommended development of slopes with a grade of 15% or greater be avoided whenever feasible in order to minimize erosion, soil loss, degradation of surface water, and excessive stormwater runoff. An analysis of vacant lands in Monroe County revealed the majority of undeveloped land in the County Contained slopes of 15% or greater.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 11 February 2016
Figure 8: Monroe County Stream Network
Stream Network Monroe County, IN covers 394 square miles in southern Indiana and is made up of 30 HUC14 watersheds the largest being the Clear Creek-May Creek Watershed which encompasses approximately 19,182 acres. There are an estimated 1,243 miles of streams in Monroe County, many of which flow into one of the three major water bodies in the County; Monroe Reservoir, Griffy Lake, and Lake Lemon. Of these, the Monroe Reservoir is the largest by far, approximately 16.58 square miles in size, and provides the majority of the drinkable/usable water for the County.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 12 February 2016
Floodplain Mapping and Community Rating System (CRS) The below figure represents the IDNR’s data layer "Best Available Flood Hazard Area" ("Best Available"). While this data has not yet been submitted to FEMA for inclusion in the FIRMs or NFHL (DFIRMs), this data can be used for general planning, construction, and development purposes. However, Best Available cannot be used for flood insurance determinations. The majority of local jurisdictions have options for using best available data; however typically only the FEMA floodplain limits have been adopted into the local floodplain ordinance. Figure 9: IDNR Best Available Flood Hazard Area
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 13 February 2016
The floodplain data shown in the Best Available layer is generally more recent than the official FEMA NHFL data in the Effective layer. However, while the Best Available layer has been approved by the Division of Water, this data has not gone through the due process standards FEMA requires for publication in the NFHL. Where a floodway analysis has been completed, an "Approximate Floodway" is included in the Best Available layer. These floodways are based on non-detailed floodplain modeling (i.e. no bridges), but otherwise meet the guidelines for development of floodways in Indiana. These floodways are acceptable for general use in determining jurisdiction for the Indiana Flood Control Act, but should be used with caution. These floodways may not meet the requirements for publication in the FIRMs or NFHL. Waterways with approximate studies completed by Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) include the following: • Beanblossom Creek • Brummetts Creek • Indian Creek (both the north Indian Creek and the South Indian Creek) • Stephens Creek • Bryant Creek • Little Indian Creek (the north Little Indian Creek) • Monroe Lake • Lake Lemon *High water information for some of these waterways is not yet present in the Indiana floodplain portal. As part of the Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan a demonstration reach was completed on Beanblossom Creek. This is a 5 mile reach that an approximate study was completed using the updated countywide digital elevation model (DEM). The Zone A reach upstream of the existing Zone AE reach ending at the Old Hwy 37 bridge crossing, and the WSEL at that crossing as the downstream boundary condition was selected for the demonstration model. A floodway based on the 0.14 ft. rise criteria to demonstrate what a calculated floodway would look like on Beanblossom Creek, since the Zone AE reach downstream maps the whole floodplain as floodway. Figure 10 compares the effective Zone A delineation the demonstration model completed, with one overview map and a sample area at the FIRM scale. This model could possibly be reviewed and potentially expanded to become the IDNR best available layer. It was submitted to IDNR on January 27, 2016.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 14 February 2016
Figure 10: Bean Blossom Approximate Study
Residential Flood Loss and Community Rating System (CRS) The Community Rating System (CRS) recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards. Depending upon the level of participation, flood insurance premium rates for policyholders can be reduced up to 45%. Besides the benefit of reduced insurance rates, CRS floodplain management activities enhance public safety, reduce damages to property and public infrastructure, avoid economic disruption and losses, reduce human suffering, and protect the environment. Technical assistance on designing and implementing some activities is available at no charge. Participating in the CRS provides an incentive to maintaining and improving a community's floodplain management program over the years. Implementing some CRS activities can help projects qualify for certain other Federal assistance programs. To be eligible for a CRS discount, Monroe County would have to complete FEMA Activity 310, Elevation Certificates and FEMA Activity 510 Floodplain Management Planning. Stinesville began participating in the NFIP following the 2008 flood.
Prior to the December 2013 flooding there was only one repetitive loss structure in unincorporated Monroe County (6677 N. Shuffle Creek Road – 3 claims, about $52,000 total). Since 1988, there have been 12 claims totaling $160,000. There are 145 flood insurance policies in the unincorporated county.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 15 February 2016
2.3 Built Systems Monroe County is responsible for over 700 miles of roads, 137 bridges, over 2,800 pipes, and over 7,000 traffic signs and signals. The Monroe County Highway Road Maintenance Department is responsible for maintenance of all roads and drainage systems.
2.3.1 Drainage Assets/Infrastructure Drainage assets and infrastructure include culverts, bridges, stormwater collection systems, outfall locations, and detention and retention facilities including ponds, dams, and subsurface storage chambers. The following figures compare the drainage infrastructure in each watershed, indicating the number of stream and road intersections (Figure 11), the number of bridges (Figure 12) and number of culverts (Figure 13) per 1,000 acres of watershed. This information provides an understanding of which watersheds are burdened with the most infrastructure to be maintained on a comparative basis and where drainage improvements may have the most impact. Figure 14 through Figure 25 provide the locations of culverts, bridges, outfalls and detention pond structures for each watershed.
2.3.2 Outfalls Throughout Monroe County, a system of pipes transport water from rain events away from streets, parking lots, rooftops and parking garages and channels that water into neighborhood streams, creeks, or other water bodies. The site where the water flows from the pipe and into the water body is called the outfall. An outfall is technically defined as any point where a separate storm sewer system discharges to either Water of the United States or to another MS4. Outfalls include discharges from pipes, ditches, swales, and other points of concentrated flow. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Rule 13 requires all Phase 2 MS4s to map all known storm water outfall systems (within 5 years of their first permit term), with pipe diameters 12 inches or greater or open ditches with 2 feet or larger bottom width. Monroe County has a total of 70 mapped outfalls in 9 of the watersheds. The number of outfalls varies from 22 in the Jack’s Defeat Creek watershed to 2 in the Lake Monroe Ramp Creek watershed. Table 1: Outfall Locations
Long Range Stormwater Page 16 Improvement Plan – February 2016
Low Crossing Density Medium Crossing Density High Crossing Density
6
5
4
3
2
1 Stream/Road Crossings Acres Per 1,000
0 Bean Blossom Creek - Buck Creek/ Muddy Fork Muddy Creek/ Buck - Creek Blossom Bean Creek Honey - Creek Blossom Bean Bean Blossom Creek - Indian Creek Bean Blossom Creek - Jack's Defeat Bean Blossom Creek - Lake Lemon Creek Stout's - Creek Blossom Bean Creek Brummett Creek Bryant Creek Cave Creek Jackson - Creek Clear Creek Clear Little - Creek Clear Creek Creek-May Clear Reservoir Griffy - Creek Griffy Creek Indian Little - Creek Indian Creek Robertson - Creek Indian Indian Creek Headwaters Lake Monroe - Jacob's Creek Creek Moore - Monroe Lake Creek Ramp - Monroe Lake Creek Saddle - Monroe Lake Creek Siscoe/Allen/Sugar - Monroe Lake Creek Jordan - Creek Indian Little Creek Hunter - Salt Creek Little Creek Knob - Salt Creek Little Creek Schooner Creek Little - Salt Fork North Creek Popcorn Creek Racoon Little - Creek Racoon Creek Richland Creek-Little Richland Creek Sinking Creek Stephen's Creek Limestone / Creek Big - River White Creek / Creek McCormick's Fall - River White Gosport - River White Hollow Pocket - River White
Figure 11: Stream & Roadway Intersections by Watershed
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 17 February 2016
Low Bridge Density Medium Bridge Density High Bridge Density
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Structures1,000 Acres Per 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 Bean Blossom Creek - Buck Creek/ Muddy Fork Muddy Creek/ Buck - Creek Blossom Bean Creek Honey - Creek Blossom Bean Bean Blossom Creek - Indian Creek Bean Blossom Creek - Jack's Defeat Bean Blossom Creek - Lake Lemon Creek Stout's - Creek Blossom Bean Creek Brummett Creek Bryant Creek Cave Creek Jackson - Creek Clear Creek Clear Little - Creek Clear Creek Creek-May Clear Reservoir Griffy - Creek Griffy Creek Indian Little - Creek Indian Creek Robertson - Creek Indian Indian Creek Headwaters Lake Monroe - Jacob's Creek Creek Moore - Monroe Lake Creek Ramp - Monroe Lake Creek Saddle - Monroe Lake Creek Siscoe/Allen/Sugar - Monroe Lake Creek Jordan - Creek Indian Little Creek Hunter - Salt Creek Little Creek Knob - Salt Creek Little Creek Schooner Creek Little - Salt Fork North Creek Popcorn Creek Racoon Little - Creek Racoon Creek Richland Creek-Little Richland Creek Sinking Creek Stephen's Creek Limestone / Creek Big - River White Creek / Creek McCormick's Fall - River White Gosport - River White Hollow Pocket - River White
Figure 12: Bridge Structures by Watershed
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 18 February 2016
Low Culvert Density Medium Culvert Density High Culvert Density
20
15
10
5 Structures1,000 Acres Per
0 Bean Blossom Creek - Buck Creek/ Muddy Fork Muddy Creek/ Buck - Creek Blossom Bean Creek Honey - Creek Blossom Bean Bean Blossom Creek - Indian Creek Bean Blossom Creek - Jack's Defeat Bean Blossom Creek - Lake Lemon Creek Stout's - Creek Blossom Bean Creek Brummett Creek Bryant Creek Cave Creek Jackson - Creek Clear Creek Clear Little - Creek Clear Creek Creek-May Clear Reservoir Griffy - Creek Griffy Creek Indian Little - Creek Indian Creek Robertson - Creek Indian Indian Creek Headwaters Lake Monroe - Jacob's Creek Creek Moore - Monroe Lake Creek Ramp - Monroe Lake Creek Saddle - Monroe Lake Creek Siscoe/Allen/Sugar - Monroe Lake Creek Jordan - Creek Indian Little Creek Hunter - Salt Creek Little Creek Knob - Salt Creek Little Creek Schooner Creek Little - Salt Fork North Creek Popcorn Creek Racoon Little - Creek Racoon Creek Richland Creek-Little Richland Creek Sinking Creek Stephen's Creek Limestone / Creek Big - River White Creek / Creek McCormick's Fall - River White Gosport - River White Hollow Pocket - River White
Figure 13: Culvert Structures by Watershed
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 19 February 2016
Figure 14: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part A
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 20 February 2016
Figure 15: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part B
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 21 February 2016
Figure 16: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part C
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 22 February 2016
Figure 17: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part D
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 23 February 2016
Figure 18: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part E
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 24 February 2016
Figure 19: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part F
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 25 February 2016
Figure 20: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part G
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 26 February 2016
Figure 21: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part H
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 27 February 2016
Figure 22: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part I
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 28 February 2016
Figure 23: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part J
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 29 February 2016
Figure 24: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part K
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 30 February 2016
Figure 25: Stormwater Infrastructure Locations by Watershed Part L
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page | 31 February 2016
2.3.3 Current Capital Improvement Projects Capital Improvement Projects identified, planned for, and budgeted in Monroe County do not currently include stand-alone stormwater projects. The Bridge Replacement Program budget and schedule has been developed through 2019 and includes an overall anticipated cost of $17,114,477 with the County portion listed at $8,613,217. The Monroe County Highway Department provides quarterly status reports to INDOT for state and federally funded projects.
2.3.4 I-69 Routing Over the past 50 years the idea of having an interstate corridor between Indianapolis and Evansville has been passed around between INDOT and other agencies throughout the state. In the early 1990s the idea of this corridor was propelled into the forefront when Congress designated it as “Corridor 18” in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Then, in the late 1990s Congress made a push to enhance the travel from the north in Canada all the way to the South in Mexico. This congressional jolt resulted in I-69 being chosen as part of the national highway I-69 under construction project.
The purpose of the I-69 corridor from Indianapolis to Evansville that includes a major path through Monroe County is stated in the Tier 2 study as:
• Strengthens the transportation network in southwest Indiana • Supports economic development in southwest Indiana • Completes the portion on the National I-69 Project between Evansville and Indianapolis
Monroe and Green Counties are part of Section 4 of the I-69 project. This corridor stretches between US231 and ending at SR 37. Originally slated to be done earlier, the previous two wet summers of 2012 and 2013 and the harsh winter in between those years has delayed some of the construction progress. Section 4 opened on December 9th, 2015.
Just over 10 miles of the new I-69 corridor have been cut directly through Monroe County. The construction has impacted 3 watersheds and approximately 10 streams changing the path and flow of these waterways. During the construction phase, small streams and karst areas were affected by heavy sediment losses. Harp Spring in particular was contaminated.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 32 February 2016
Turbid water from Harp Spring (right) enters a local creek during Section 4 construction
Sinkhole excavated and later filled with crushed limestone
Section 4 of I-69 is a new terrain route through the Mitchell plateau in the southwest part of Monroe County. Characterized by karst topography, the Mitchell plateau developed on Mississippian limestone. A divide at Harmony Road splits the interstate between the Indian Creek and Clear Creek watersheds. Many sinkholes were altered by this project. When sinkholes were capped and filled the runoff from the corresponding sinkhole watersheds was diverted to surface streams. Heavy sediment loss during construction contaminated sinkholes. This was especially prevalent in the Indian Creek watershed. Harp Spring would often become highly turbid about a day after significant rain events.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 33 February 2016
Although the standards for detention contained in the Monroe County Stormwater Management Ordinance were not met, some detention and some water quality practices were incorporated in this project. Long term impacts to karst systems and to surface runoff are unknown. One property owner has documented silt laden runoff from Section 4 of I-69 despite the fact that the project is complete. All vegetation may not be fully established but steep constructed side slopes in some areas are probably a contributing factor as well. Section 5 of I-69 follows the route of State Road 37 north of Victor Pike in Monroe County and is currently under construction. The construction of Section 4 of I-69 in Monroe County serves as an example to all of the need for the best possible stormwater practices to be incorporated in public projects. Observation of area streams convinced the Monroe County MS4 Operator that effluent limitation standards will be necessary to improve water quality from earth disturbing projects.
Figure 26: Interstate 69 Route
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 34 February 2016
2.4 Documented Complaints and Field Reconnaissance Calls and emails from the public regarding drainage issues come to the Highway Maintenance Facility and to the Drainage Engineer and Stormwater Inspector. These calls tend to fall into the following categories:
1. Roadside ditches, driveway pipes, culverts under county roads, inlets, and storm sewers that are clogged (often in part due to sand deposited on the roads for snow and ice removal). 2. Runoff from county roads onto private property. 3. Runoff from neighbors onto private property. Sometimes the concern has to do with the quality of the water and trash carried by the runoff. 4. Runoff from new development onto private property. Often the concern has to do with water quality. 5. Deposition of sand from roads into yards – often through storm sewers draining county roads. 6. Track out of dirt onto county roads. This is often from sites under construction. 7. Private driveways being eroded by runoff. This is often due to driveway culverts that are either damaged, clogged, or not present. 8. Sinkholes forming in yards or close to county roads. 9. Inlets, culverts under county roads, and storm sewers that are in need of repair. 10. Additional inlets needed. 11. Eroding ditches and erosion at culvert outlets. 12. Chronic backyard drainage problems. 13. Log jams. 14. Water standing on county roads. This is often due to accumulation of sand on the shoulders. 15. Ice on roads.
Many times the concerns can be dealt with by cleaning the road shoulder, the roadside ditch, or the culvert or storm sewer. Items No. 9, 10, and 15 (inlets, culverts, and storm sewers in need of repair or to be added, and ice on road) are ones for which the County needs to seek more timely solutions. The stormwater equipment operators may be able to address some or most of these issues with proper equipment. It may be best in some cases to assign work to a contractor on retainer.
.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 35 February 2016
Figure 27: Documented Stormwater Complaints by Type and Location
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 36 February 2016
Table 2: Monroe County Flood Prone Roads is grouped by flooding source. Three groups of flooding sources are apparent. Beanblossom Creek runs generally east to west across the northern part of the county from Lake Lemon to West Fork White River. Roads that cross this creek and that run parallel to it in the floodplain generally flood from one to two days on two or three occasions a year.
Monroe Lake is a flood control reservoir operated by the Corps of Engineers. The lake level generally varies between the normal pool elevation of 538 feet, MSL to the emergency spillway elevation of 556 feet. This is an 18 foot range. On May 4, 2011 the highest level (557.3 feet – 19.3 feet above normal pool) was recorded. Whenever the lake level exceeds 556 (which has happened three times) water runs over Valley Mission Road.
McGowen Road begins to flood when the lake is only 5 feet above normal pool level. The lowest part of Friendship Road is flooded at 7 feet above normal pool. When North Fork Salt Creek is flooding, the upper end of the lake is higher than the rest of the lake. This can cause low sections of roads in the upper lake region (Friendship, Kent, Brummet Creek, and Old State Road 46) to be under water for about a day even though the level of the main body of the lake is not abnormally high.
The third major flooding source grouping is small streams. This type of flash flooding normally lasts only a few hours or less during and immediately following intense rain storms. Since segments of most county roads experience some effects of flash flooding, only the roads with more severe or chronic flash flooding issues are listed.
Projects have been assigned to some but not all of the listed flood prone roads. This does not preclude that possibility that projects could be undertaken within the next 20 years to reduce the risk of flooding on roads for which no projects are currently proposed.
Reduction of flood hazards is a primary goal for Stormwater Management. Since 2000, people drove on Monroe County Roads into floodwaters and lost their lives in three separate cases. Flood mitigation projects have been proposed for some but not all of these roads. Improving notice and warning of flooding will increase safety for those roads that will continue to experience occasional flooding. • Moores Creek Road – October 5, 2000 (This was at a low water crossing that was subsequently replaced with a bridge) • Friendship Road – January 28, 2007 • Moon Road – April 5, 2014 (two people)
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 37 February 2016
Table 2: Monroe County Flood Prone Roads
Type and Primary Flooding Type of Duration of Additional Duration of Comments and Proposed Road Source Flooding flooding Flooding Source Additional Stormwater Projects Flooding flash flooding - low SW 03 and SW 04: There are 4 low water Baby Creek Road Baby Creek water crossings hours crossings. SW 02: This is an important road. The local crossing flash flooding - most frequent flood problems occur near Anderson Road Beanblossom Creek about a day waterways shallow water Bridge 192 & intersection with Fish Road. Bottom Road Beanblossom Creek one or two days SW 20 Mel Currie Road Beanblossom Creek about a day This is backwater from Beanblossom Miller Road Beanblossom Creek about a day Creek and is therefore not flowing water road overflow at Mt. Tabor Road Beanblossom Creek Bridge 13 one or two days small creeks hours SW 11 and SW 25 Old Maple Grove Road Beanblossom Creek one or two days road overflow at Shilo Road Beanblossom Creek Bridge 59 about a day Showers Road Beanblossom Creek about a day Wampler Road Beanblossom Creek one or two days White River several days Woodall Road Beanblossom Creek one or two days Woodland Road Beanblossom Creek one or two days Wylie Road Beanblossom Creek about a day Beanblossom Creek near Maple Grove Road Bridge 42 one or two days flash flooding - usually less than Dillman Road Clear Creek overflow at Bridge 83 one day usually less than a Fluck Mill Road Clear Creek flash flooding day Gordon Pike east of S Rogers flash flooding - This may be addressed in Fullerton Pike Street Clear Creek overflow at Bridge 74 hours project Gore Road Clear Creek flash flooding about a day S. Rogers Street near Bridge 78 flash flooding - and That Road Clear Creek overflow at Bridge 78 hours Breeden Road Indian Creek flash flooding SW 32 Fry Road Indian Creek flash flooding Since the inadequate crossing at Bridge 915 was replaced with larger structure in Mt. Pleasant Road Indian Creek 2014 this road floods much less often flash flooding - Tom Phillips Road Indian Creek overflow at Bridge 70 hours Bridge 33 project completed this year will Matthews Dr Jacks Defeat Creek reduce flooding Shuffle Creek Road Lake Lemon lake flooding about a day SW 42
Brummett Creek and SW 05: Road used to be impassable for Brummett Creek Road Monroe Lake lake flooding days to weeks North Fork Salt Creek hours weeks at a time before it was raised 5 feet. lake flooding - starting Friendship Road between around 545.0 ft. (7 ft There is one residence at the end of Lampkins Ridge and Gross Monroe Lake above normal pool) days to weeks North Fork Salt Creek hours Friendship Road. lake flooding - starting Friendship Road between State around 549.5 ft. (11.5 Road 46 and Lampkins Ridge Monroe Lake feet above normal pool) days to weeks North Fork Salt Creek about a day lake flooding - starting Gross Road near intersection around 550 ft. (12 feet with Friendship Road Monroe Lake above normal pool). days to weeks lake flooding - starting around 543.0 ft. (5 ft McGowen Road Monroe Lake above normal pool) days to weeks lake flooding - starting around 551.5 ft (13.5 SW 07: This road provides access to Moores Creek Road Monroe Lake ft above normal pool) days to weeks several houses and a campground. lake flooding - starting around 554 ft (16 ft above normal pool Roberts Road Monroe Lake level) days to weeks
lake flooding - starting around 551 (13 ft Stipp Road near 4745 Monroe Lake above normal pool) days to weeks SW 08
lake flooding - starting around 544.0 (6 ft Stipp Road near Bridge 907 Monroe Lake above normal pool) days to weeks lake flooding - starting This road used to be impassable for around 555 (17 feet weeks at a time before it was raised five Old State Road 46 Monroe Lake above normal pool) days North Fork Salt Creek about a day feet.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 38 February 2016
Type and Primary Flooding Type of Duration of Additional Duration of Comments and Proposed Road Source Flooding flooding Flooding Source Additional Stormwater Projects Flooding
lake flooding - starting around 544.0 (6 ft Stipp Road near Bridge 907 Monroe Lake above normal pool) days to weeks This is emergency overflow for Monroe Lake. Water has flowed from the lake across the road several times since the dam was built in 1965 (all in the last 15 road overflow when years). Nothing can or should be done to the lake level exceeds prevent this overflow. Road needs to be Monroe Lake emergency 556 ft (18 ft above hours up to a closed when the depth of water exceeds a Valley Mission Road overflow normal pool level) couple of days few inches. This is easy to monitor. Monroe Lake - starting lake flooding - flash flooding - large around 554 (16 ft typically several Kent Road North Fork Salt Creek watershed about a day above normal pool) days to weeks Bunger Road sinkhole - Bunger Sinkhole Terminal sinkhole one or two days raise road - SW
Cave Road near W Gifford Road sinkhole - Cave Creek terminal sinkhole one or two days Cavewood Court sinkhole - Cave Creek terminal sinkhole one or two days SW 17 W Gifford Road sinkhole - Cave Creek terminal sinkhole one or two days SW 29 A neighbor is concerned the Terrace Drive sinkhole - local drainage sinkhole flooding hours floodwater will ruin his septic system. SW 19 (a, b, and c) This flooding from terminal sinkhole of Sinking Creek affects not only the road but Fernwood Drive Sinking Creek flash flooding hours Sinking Creek about a day potentially quite a few houses. SW 05 Since a new culvert was installed lake flooding - on Hash Road just west of Fleener, this small stream - Brummett typically several road does not flood as frequently as Fleener Road Creek flash flooding hours Monroe Lake days before. small stream - Bryant flash flooding - low Bryant Creek Road Creek water crossing hours replace low water crossing - SW small stream - Conrad Brock Road Branch flash flooding SW 12 small stream - Jackson flash flooding - S. Rogers Street at Bridge 77 Creek overflow at Bridge 77 hours small stream - Judah Bennett Lane Branch flash flooding hours Kerr Creek Road small stream - Kerr Creek flash flooding hours SW 14 small stream - Unnamed tributaries to Richland Vernal Pike Creek flash flooding hours SW 28 small stream - Unnamed tributary to Beanblossom The road is traversable except during and Prather Road Creek flash flooding hours shortly after intense storms. small stream - Unnamed Hash Road trib to Brummetts Creek flash flooding hours SW 13 Since inadequate driveway culverts were small stream - Unnamed replaced several years ago flood Ketchum Road tributary to Clear Creek flash flooding hours frequency has been greatly reduced SW 21 Monroe County has done a couple of drainage improvement projects along San Juan Drive. The conveyance under South Rogers Street needs to be small stream - Unnamed increased to prevent potential flooding to San Juan Drive tributary to Clear Creek flash flooding hours houses along San Juan. The west end of Whisnand floods during intense rains in part because of small stream - unnamed inadequate culverts under Stone Mill Road Whisnand Road tributary to Griffy Creek flash flooding hours and Business 37 North. small stream - Unnamed Evans Road tributary to Indian Creek flash flooding hours SW 39 The flooding is shallow and is mainly a concern from the standpoint of potential small stream - Unnamed hydroplaning and diversion of flow to the Walnut Street Pike tributary to Jackson Creek flash flooding hours Bloomington Speeday. Richardson Road at railroad small stream - Unnamed culverts added in 2014 reduced flash underpass tributary to Lake Lemon flash flooding hours Lake Lemon about a day flooding issue Boltinghouse Road near Bridge small stream - Unnamed 44 trib to Muddy Fork Creek flash flooding hours small stream - Unnamed The road is low around 4565. A low water tributary to Muddy Fork crossing at the base of the big hill was Earl Young Road Creek flash flooding hours replaced around 2013 with a large culvert. small stream - Unnnamed SW 15 Flooding is shallow but affects not tributary to "Fall Creek" only Cherry but Fairfax Road. In addition (tributary to Jackson water comes close to several homes on Cherry Lane Creek) flash flooding hours Cherry Lane and affects septic systems. small stream - Unnnamed SW 45 Not only the road but the post office Strain Ridge Road tributary to Little Salt Creek flash flooding hours floods. small stream - West Fork flash flooding - Victor Pike Clear Creek overflow at Bridge 80 hours small stream - West Fork That Road near S Rogers Street Clear Creek and Clear flash flooding - and east of Victor Pike Creek overflow at Bridge 79 hours Owen County Line Road White River river flooding several days a couple of days for Beanblossom Creek Beanblossom and Jacks Defeat Creek - hours for Moon Road White River river flooding several days Creek Jacks Defeat Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 39 February 2016
2.5 Watershed Data and Characterization
The 36 Watersheds were characterized based on physical characteristics including:
Overall size (acres and acres within County) Percent of Watershed within County Representative Land Use (Urban, Agricultural, Forest) Percent Developed Length of stream (overall and within County) Potential for additional development Number of documented flooding/drainage issues Runoff contribution from outside County Protected areas (National Forest, Conservation areas, wetlands) Steep Slopes (over 50% of watershed has slopes 15% or greater) Number of water management structures (dams, reservoirs, NPDES outfalls) Stormwater management facilities (detention ponds, storm sewers) GIS Structures (bridges and culverts) Stream/Road crossings
Similar watersheds were grouped, and a ranking matrix was developed identifying priority watersheds based on reoccurring flooding issues, complaints, number of drainage structures per acre, and potential for additional development to occur within the watershed. Watersheds encumbered by numerous issues and with the potential for additional growth and development were identified as “high” priority. Those with little area or opportunity for development and containing mostly rural or park property were categorized as “low” priority from an active stormwater management standpoint.
A brief description of each watershed follows. Table 3 contains the detailed watershed characterization and priority ranking and Figure 28 provides a color coded geographic representation of the information.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 40 February 2016
Table 3: Monroe County Watershed Characterization Data
MONROE COUNTY WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
Length of Stormwater Length of # of Over Acres % of WS Stream Potential for Runoff Protected Area - # of Water Mgmt Management Stream Documented Runoff 50% GIS GIS Size Within in Representative Within Land Use change Contribution National Forest, structures - Dams, facilities Stream / Road Priority Watershed Name/ID % Developed (NHD Flooding leaves Steep Structures Structures (Acres) Monroe Monroe Land Use Monroe Co / growth (low- from outside Conservation, Reservoirs, NPDES (detention Intersections Ranking High /Drainage County Slopes (bridges) (culverts) Co. Co (NHD High high) County Wetland Outfalls ponds / storm Res) Issues (>15%) Res) sewers) Bethal Lake Dam, Griffy Bean Blossom Creek - Buck Creek/ 12,115 12,115 100% Deciduous Forest 4% 53.2 53.2 5 X Reservoir, Griffy More than 5 11 199 23 High Muddy Fork ReservoirLazy Lake Dam Dam, University Bean Bean Blossom Creek - Honey Creek 14,078 13,527 96% Deciduous Forest 2% 68.3 66.0 2 Yes X Blossom Dam, Egenolf 1 to 5 6 133 20 High Lake Dam Henke Lake Dam (a.k.a. Bean Blossom Creek - Indian Creek 11,672 11,669 100% Deciduous Forest 2% 48.0 48.0 5 X 1 to 5 8 165 30 High Bugher Lake Dam) Bean Blossom Creek - Jack's 15,361 15,361 100% Deciduous Forest 12% 40.5 40.4 18 More than 5 12 269 70 High Defeat Bean Blossom Creek - Stout's 15,518 15,518 100% Deciduous Forest 9% 56.2 56.2 3 0 8 219 47 High Creek
Cave Creek 3,252 3,252 100% Deciduous Forest 15% 3.9 3.9 1 Fieldstone Lake Dam More than 5 0 42 5 High
Runoff from City of Clear Creek - Jackson Creek 16,073 16,073 100% Urban / Suburban 55% 34.1 34.1 17 Weimer Lake Dam 1 to 5 12 131 80 High Bloomington High (I-69 Runoff from City of Clear Creek-May Creek 19,182 19,182 100% Deciduous Forest 7% 49.6 46.9 9 1 to 5 10 224 48 High expansion) Bloomington Runoff from City of Griffy Creek - Griffy Reservoir 9,027 9,027 100% Deciduous Forest 24% 28.1 28.1 5 Griffy Reservoir More than 5 2 96 37 High Bloomington High (I- 69 Indian Creek Headwaters 15,636 11,182 72% Deciduous Forest 4% 36.0 25.1 2 X 1 to 5 13 192 25 High expansion) Lake Lemon, Lake Lemon Bean Blossom Creek - Lake Lemon 11,763 5,411 46% Deciduous Forest 2% 56.6 23.8 0 X X 0 0 73 7 Medium Dam
Brummett Creek 8,979 7,814 87% Deciduous Forest 2% 44.4 38.7 1 Yes X Shawnee Lake Dam 0 8 121 24 Medium
Clear Creek - Little Clear Creek 13,509 11,627 86% Deciduous Forest 5% 37.4 34.3 3 Yes 1 to 5 7 138 34 Medium
Indian Creek - Little Indian Creek 13,465 6,828 51% Deciduous Forest 2% 38.8 17.8 1 X 0 2 97 11 Medium
Lake Monroe - Moore Creek 11,361 11,361 100% Deciduous Forest 2% 44.4 44.4 1 X X Monroe Reservoir 1 to 5 3 93 13 Medium
Lake Monroe - Ramp Creek 5,269 5,269 100% Deciduous Forest 3% 18.6 18.6 0 X X Monroe Reservoir 1 to 5 0 47 3 Medium
Lake Monroe - Siscoe/Allen/Sugar 13,154 13,112 100% Deciduous Forest 3% 42.2 42.2 0 X X 0 0 70 10 Medium Creek
Racoon Creek - Little Racoon Creek 12,765 3,053 24% Deciduous Forest 3% 32.0 6.2 1 X 1 to 5 0 43 4 Medium
Richland Creek-Little Richland 13,256 9,760 74% Deciduous Forest 1% 34.7 23.9 0 X 1 to 5 9 87 21 Medium Creek
Sinking Creek 1,807 1,807 100% Cultivated Crops 29% 2.7 2.7 2 More than 5 1 12 3 Medium
Stephen's Creek 9,540 9,540 100% Deciduous Forest 5% 44.9 44.9 1 X Schacht Lake Dam 0 6 150 16 Medium Figure 28: Priority Rating of Watersheds within
Bryant Creek 7,276 3,872 53% Deciduous Forest 2% 29.5 14.6 1 X X 0 1 41 10 Low Monroe County
Indian Creek - Robertson Creek 10,297 1,872 18% Deciduous Forest 1% 43.3 9.6 0 X X 0 1 14 4 Low
Lake Monroe - Jacob's Creek 9,699 9,097 94% Deciduous Forest 2% 37.3 34.4 1 Yes X X 0 2 84 4 Low
Low (N. Forest / Lake Monroe - Saddle Creek 13,512 8,517 63% Deciduous Forest 1% 59.1 36.4 0 Yes X X Monroe Reservoir 0 0 8 0 Low Reservoir) Little Indian Creek - Jordan 10,896 2,776 25% Deciduous Forest 1% 48.3 13.9 0 X X 0 2 24 7 Low Creek Low (National Little Salt Creek - Hunter Creek 10,367 6,258 60% Deciduous Forest 1% 51.3 33.2 0 Yes X X X 0 1 35 10 Low Forest) Low (National Little Salt Creek - Knob Creek 5,756 2,120 37% Deciduous Forest 2% 22.8 9.4 0 X X X 0 0 13 3 Low Forest) North Fork Salt Creek - Little 14,876 1,872 13% Deciduous Forest 4% 13.4 2.5 0 Yes 0 0 0 0 Low Schooner Creek
Popcorn Creek 9,700 4,816 50% Deciduous Forest 2% 26.6 11.5 2 X X 0 2 49 5 Low
White River - Big Creek / 16,682 3,071 18% Deciduous Forest 3% 47.8 10.5 0 X 0 0 41 8 Low Limestone Creek White River - Fall Creek / 14,391 4,124 29% Cultivated Crops 6% 31.2 7.6 0 X 0 1 28 7 Low McCormick's Creek
White River - Gosport 4,636 1,613 35% Deciduous Forest 3% 11.3 4.8 0 X 0 0 13 2 Low White River - Pocket Hollow 5,873 949 16% Deciduous Forest 2% 22.6 4.3 0 X X 0 0 16 1 Low
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 41 February 2016
Bean Blossom Creek - Buck Creek / Muddy Fork The Bean Blossom Creek – Buck Creek / Muddy Fork watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 5 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 12,115 acres and is 4% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%, which limits the potential for future development. The watershed contains 11 bridges and 199 culverts. Twenty-three of those locations are road crossings and the watershed. The watershed contains Bethal Lake Dam, Griffy Reservoir, Griffy Reservoir Dam, University Lake Dam, Linnemeier Lake Dam, and 5 or more stormwater management facilities.
Bean Blossom Creek - Honey Creek The Bean Blossom Creek – Honey Creek watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 2 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 14,078 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 96% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff is generated from outside of the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15. The watershed contains 6 bridges and 133 culverts. Twenty of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Lazy Lake Dam, Bean Blossom Dam, Egenolf Lake Dam, and 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Bean Blossom Creek - Indian Creek The Bean Blossom Creek – Indian Creek watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 5 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 11,672 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 8 bridges and 165 culverts. Thirty of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Henke Lake Dam (also known as Bugher Lake Dam) and 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 42 February 2016
Bean Blossom Creek - Jack's Defeat The Bean Blossom Creek – Jack’s Defeat watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 18 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues; the highest number of issues documented in any watershed within Monroe County. The watershed is 15,361 acres and is 12% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County. The watershed contains 12 bridges and 269 culverts. Seventy of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains more than 5 stormwater management facilities and does not contain any dams or reservoirs.
Bean Blossom Creek - Lake Lemon. The Bean Blossom Creek – Lake Lemon watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 11,763 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 46% of the watershed and runoff from the watershed leaves the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 73 culverts and 7 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Lake Lemon and Lake Lemon Dam.
Bean Blossom Creek - Stout's Creek The Bean Blossom Creek – Stout’s Creek watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 3 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 15,518 acres and is 9% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County. The watershed contains 8 bridges and 219 culverts. Forty-seven of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Brummett Creek The Brummett Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 8,979 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 87% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff comes from outside of the county boundary. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 8 bridges and 121 culverts. Twenty-four of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Shawnee Lake Dam.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 43 February 2016
Bryant Creek The Bryant Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 7,276 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 53% of the watershed and the flow from the watershed leaves the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 1 bridge and 41 culverts. Ten of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Cave Creek The Cave Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 3,252 acres and is 15% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County. The Cave Creek watershed drains to a terminal sinkhole location and does not connect above ground to any downstream watershed. The watershed contains 42 culverts and 5 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Fieldstone Lake Dam and more than 5 stormwater management facilities.
Clear Creek - Jackson Creek Rating and has 17 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues; the second highest number of issues documented in any watershed within Monroe County. The watershed is 16,073 acres and is 55% developed with a representative land use of urban/suburban. This watershed is the most developed watershed within Monroe County and receives runoff from the City of Bloomington. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County. The watershed contains 12 bridges and 131 culverts. Eighty of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Weimer Lake Dam and 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 44 February 2016
Clear Creek - Little Clear Creek The Clear Creek – Little Clear Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 3 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 13,509 acres and is 5% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 86% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff comes from outside of the county boundary. The watershed contains 7 bridges and 138 culverts. Thirty-four of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Shawnee Lake Dam and 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Clear Creek - May Creek The Clear Creek – May Creek watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 9 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 19,182 acres and is 7% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is entirely contained within the county and receives runoff from the City of Bloomington. The watershed contains 10 bridges and 224 culverts. Forty-eight of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities. The Interstate 69 expansion project is proposed to cross through the Clear Creek – May Creek watershed, which could have significant impact on the volume and timing of stormwater runoff, the location of watershed boundaries, and the condition and function of natural waterways.
Griffy Creek - Griffy Reservoir The Griffy Creek – Griffy Reservoir watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 5 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 9,027 acres and is 24% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and receives runoff from the City of Bloomington. The watershed contains 2 bridges and 96 culverts. Thirty-seven of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Griffy Reservoir and more than 5 stormwater management facilities.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 45 February 2016
Indian Creek - Little Indian Creek The Indian Creek – Little Indian Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 13,465 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 51% of the watershed and runoff from the watershed leaves the county. The watershed contains 2 bridges and 97 culverts. Eleven of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Indian Creek - Robertson Creek The Indian Creek – Robertson Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 10, 297 acres and is 1% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 18% of the watershed and the flow from the watershed leaves the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 1 bridge and 14 culverts. Four of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Indian Creek Headwaters The Indian Creek Headwaters watershed has a High Critical Rating and has 2 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 15,636 acres and is 4% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 72% of the watershed and flows from the watershed leave the county. The watershed contains 13 bridges and 192 culverts. Twenty-five of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities. The Interstate 69 expansion crosses through the Indian Creek Headwaters watershed, which has had significant impact on the volume and timing of stormwater runoff, the location of watershed boundaries, and the condition and function of natural waterways.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 46 February 2016
Lake Monroe - Jacob's Creek The Lake Monroe – Jacob’s Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 9,699 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 94% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff comes from outside of the county boundary. The watershed contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest and over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%, both of these factors limit the potential for future development. The watershed contains 2 bridges and 84 culverts. Four of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Lake Monroe.
Lake Monroe - Moore Creek The Lake Monroe – Moore Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 11,361 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 3 bridges and 93 culverts. Thirteen of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Lake Monroe and 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Lake Monroe - Ramp Creek The Lake Monroe – Ramp Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 5,269 acres and is 3% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 47 culverts and 3 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains the Monroe Reservoir and 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 47 February 2016
Lake Monroe - Saddle Creek The Lake Monroe – Saddle Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 13,515 acres and is 1% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 63% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff received by the watershed comes from outside of the county boundary. The watershed contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest, which limits the potential for changes in land use and urban development. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 8 culverts and the Monroe Reservoir.
Lake Monroe - Siscoe/Allen/Sugar Creek The Lake Monroe – Siscoe/Allen/Sugar Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 13,154 acres and is 3% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 70 culverts and 10 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Lake Monroe. Little Indian Creek - Jordan Creek
The Little Indian Creek – Jordan Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 10,896 acres and is 1% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 25% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff leaves the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 2 bridges and 24 culverts. Seven of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 48 February 2016
Little Salt Creek - Hunter Creek The Little Salt Creek – Hunter Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 10,367 acres and is 1% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 60% of the watershed. A portion of the runoff received by the watershed comes from outside of the county boundary and flows from the watershed leave the county. The watershed contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest, which limits the potential for changes in land use and urban development. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 1 bridge and 35 culverts. Ten of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Little Salt Creek - Knob Creek The Little Salt Creek – Knob Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 5,756 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 37% of the watershed. A portion of the runoff received by the watershed comes from outside of the county boundary and flows from the watershed leave the county. The watershed contains a portion of the Hoosier National Forest, which limits the potential for changes in land use and urban development. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 13 culverts and 3 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
North Fork Salt Creek - Little Schooner Creek The North Fork Salt Creek - Little Schooner Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 14,876 acres and is 4% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 13% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff received by the watershed comes from outside of the county boundary. The watershed does not contain any bridges, culverts, water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 49 February 2016
Popcorn Creek The Popcorn Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has 2 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 9,700 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 50% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff leaves the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 2 bridges and 49 culverts. Five of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Raccoon Creek - Little Raccoon Creek The Raccoon Creek - Little Raccoon Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 12,765 acres and is 3% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 24% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff leaves the county. The watershed contains 43 culverts and 4 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Richland Creek - Little Richland Creek The Richland Creek - Little Richland Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 13,256 acres and is 1% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 74% of the watershed and a portion of the runoff leaves the county. The watershed contains 9 bridges and 87 culverts. Twenty-one of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains 1 to 5 stormwater management facilities.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 50 February 2016
Sinking Creek The Sinking Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 2 instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 1,807 acres and is 29% developed with a representative land use of cultivated crops. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and drains to a terminal sink hole instead of connecting to an above ground waterway. The watershed contains 1 bridge and 12 culverts. Three of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains more than 5 stormwater management facilities.
Stephen's Creek The Stephen’s Creek watershed has an Average Critical Rating and has 1 instance of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 9,540 acres and is 5% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. The watershed is contained entirely within Monroe County and over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 6 bridges and 153 culverts. Sixteen of those locations are road crossings. The watershed contains Schacht Lake Dam.
White River - Big Creek / Limestone Creek The White River Big Creek - Limestone Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 16,682 acres and is 3% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 18% of the watershed and the runoff from the watershed flows out of the county. The watershed contains 41 culverts and 8 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs
White River - Fall Creek / McCormick's Creek The Fall Creek – McCormick’s Creek watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 14,391 acres and is 6% developed with a representative land use of cultivated crops. Monroe County contains 29% of the watershed and runoff from the watershed leaves the county. The watershed contains 1 bridge and 28 culverts. Seven of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 51 February 2016
White River – Gosport The White River – Gosport watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 4,636 acres and is 3% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 35% of the watershed and a portion of the watershed flows out of the county. The watershed contains 13 culverts and 2 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
White River - Pocket Hollow The White River – Pocket Hollow watershed has a Low Critical Rating and has no instances of documented flooding and other stormwater issues. The watershed is 5,873 acres and is 2% developed with a representative land use of deciduous forest. Monroe County contains 16% of the watershed and the runoff from the watershed flows out of the county. Over 50% of the watershed has slopes steeper than 15%. The watershed contains 16 culverts and only 1 of those locations are road crossings. The watershed does not contain any water management structures, dams, or reservoirs.
2.6 Local Policy, Regulations, and Ordinances
2.6.1 Monroe County Stormwater Management Governance Monroe County was created by the State Legislature on January 14, 1818. The Monroe County Board of Commissioners have a wide range of executive and administrative authority. There are several County Departments that are directly under the authority of the Monroe County Commissioners, including the Highway Department. The Monroe County Highway Road Maintenance Department is responsible for maintenance of all county roads and drainage systems. The department's specific functions include street resurfacing, snow removal, fleet maintenance of all county owned vehicles, street sweeping, dust and vegetation control, chip and sealing, grading gravel roads, and sign maintenance.
The responsibilities of the Engineering Department include infrastructure design, traffic signals and signs, pavement markings, major capital improvements, driveway and utility permits and all drainage projects. The Engineering Department also has administration duties associated with the Monroe County Traffic Commission, Monroe County Drainage Board and provides support to various other commissions. Figure 29 provides an organizational chart of the Stormwater Governance Structure.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 52 February 2016
Figure 29: Stormwater Management Governance Structure
2.6.2 Local Policy, Regulations and Ordinances To promote the public health, safety, and welfare, among other things, Monroe County has adopted local policies, regulations, and ordinances. The local policies, regulations, and ordinances that relate to Natural Systems are further identified below: These documents include:
Clean Water Act Monroe County is one of the 22 Indiana counties that are regulated under Rule 13, Indiana’s implementation of Phase II of the Clean Water Act. Rule 13 or 327 Indiana Administrative Code 15-13-1 outlines the clean water requirements. The rule outlines how entities are supposed to improve or maintain the quality of stormwater before it is drained into the surrounding watershed. The rule requires a permit for discharge of stormwater. There are 6 minimum control measures that the County must comply with including: public awareness, public participation, illicit discharges, sediment and erosion control practices for construction sites, long term clean water practices such as ponds and rain gardens, and setting good examples with County operations. Details related to Monroe County’s obligations under Rule 13 can be found on the official Monroe County website.
Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan The Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies Vulnerable Land and Undisturbed Land. A means of protection shall be established for each identified Vulnerable Land category. Some of these protective instruments shall be in the form of specific ordinance requirement related to a property’s use: e.g. sink-hole conservancy areas, slope disturbance restrictions, and dedications for inter-connections with the transportation system. Other protective instruments may apply
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 53 February 2016
more broadly to large area and encompass many pieces of property, e.g. lakeshore building restrictions, forest canopy maintenance and protection, and drainage ways.
The plan adopts a value proposition that the special environments of karst, steep slopes, floodways, riparian areas, wetlands, and endangered species habitat shall be reserved and remain undeveloped and undisturbed, with the exception of low intensity non-invasive educational and recreational uses.
Monroe County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 761 Storm Water Management) The intent or objective of this Chapter is to promote the public benefits associated with well- designed and well-maintained stormwater drainage systems, to minimize the external costs and impacts that may arise from substandard storm water drainage systems and maintenance practices and to achieve and maintain compliance with federal, state, and local water quality and flood damage prevention regulations.
. Stormwater quantity and quality regulations apply for all developments with greater than 4,000 square feet of proposed hard surface. • For the developed condition two, ten, and 100 year storms shall not exceed the natural condition two, ten and100 year peak discharges • For proposed developments that drain to sinkholes, additional release rate and capacity criteria shall be required. For developments within Sinking and Cave Creek a minimum of three inches of runoff over the disturbed area must be released at a rate that results in a draw down time from the end of a 100 year-48 storm of no less than two days • In critical watersheds and in other areas with downstream flooding problems, the Drainage Board may require that the allowable release rate be reduced to a rate that is safely within the capacity of the receiving downstream natural features. • A long term storm water quality management plan shall be required. The goal of this plan shall be to apply technologies intended to mimic natural hydrologic conditions of peak runoff rates, peak runoff volumes, and storm water pollutants. The level of mitigation is based on the total % impervious of the development. • Riparian buffer zones encompassing the 100-year floodplain shall be provided for all waterways with a drainage area greater than ten acres. The buffer zone shall be at least 20 feet in width.
o Chapter 802 Zones and Permitted Uses . Forest Reserve (FR) District. The character of the Forest Reserve (FR) District is defined as that which is primarily intended for the preservation of forests, recreational areas, parks and greenways, limited agricultural uses and very, very low density single family residential uses. Its purposes are to permit limited single family residential development on very large lots, to discourage the development of residential subdivisions and nonresidential uses, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, such as floodplain and steep slopes and to maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Development in the FR District is hindered by extreme topography, poor access and the availability of few or no public services. Therefore, the number of uses permitted in the FR District is limited. Some uses are conditionally permitted. The conditions placed on these uses are to insure their compatibility with the low-density residential and public open space uses. . Conservation Residential (CR) District. The character of the Conservation Residential (CR) District is defined as that which is primarily intended to provide a residential option (planned unit or cluster development) at environmentally sound locations while protecting
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 54 February 2016
the environmentally sensitive watersheds of Lake Griffey and Monroe Reservoir. Its purposes are to protect the environmentally sensitive watershed, especially the floodplain and steep slopes, to permit limited single family residential development on very large lots or in subdivisions (planned unit or cluster development) at environmentally sound locations, to discourage the development of nonresidential uses, to discourage the development of sanitary sewer systems except for existing development and to maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Development in the CR District is hindered by concern over the watershed environment, and, in some cases, extreme topography, poor access and the availability of few or no public services. Therefore, the number of uses permitted in the CR District is limited. Some uses are conditionally permitted. The conditions placed on these uses are to insure their compatibility with the watershed environment and low-density residential uses. The development of new residential activities proximate to known mineral resource deposits or extraction operations may be buffered by increased setback distance. . Environmental Constraints Overlay (ECO) District. The character of the Environmental Constraints Overlay (ECO) District is defined as those areas of Monroe County, Indiana, that are within both the Monroe Reservoir and Lake Griffey watershed boundaries, as located by the Environmental Systems Applications Center, Indiana University, Bloomington, and the County Jurisdictional Area. The ECO District is divided into four areas based on topography and proximity to Monroe Reservoir and Lake Griffey and to stream beds that convey water to Monroe Reservoir and Lake Griffey. o Chapter 829 Karst and Sinkhole Development Standards . The purpose of this chapter is to establish review procedures, use limitations, design standards and performance standards applicable to site developments that encompass or affect sinkholes or other karst features.
Monroe County Subdivision Control Ordinance o Drainage: The Commission shall not approve a subdivision plat which does not make adequate provision for the safe and efficient disposal of storm and/or flood water runoff. The storm water and/or flood water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewer system and shall be designed and completed in the manner prescribed by: Monroe County Code Chapter 761 (Storm Drainage Control); Monroe County Code Chapter 808 (Flood Damage Prevention); Indiana Department of Transportation Road Design Manual; Indiana Department of Transportation Bridge Design Manual; A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO); and, all relevant Indiana Code and Indiana Administrative Code Section. o Preservation of Natural Features and Amenities: In the design of the subdivision, the preservation of existing features which would add value to the type of intended development or to the County as a whole, such as trees, watercourses falls, beaches, historic spots, and similar irreplaceable assets, shall be encouraged. No trees shall be removed from any proposed subdivision site nor any change of grade of the land affected until preliminary approval has been granted. All trees on the plat which are required to be retained shall be preserved, and all trees, where needed, shall be welled and protected against change of grade. The preliminary plat shall show the number and location of existing trees 11” in diameter or greater (measured 4.5 feet above finish grade) located in areas where any land disturbing activity is proposed, as required by these regulations, and shall further indicate all those marked for retention.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 55 February 2016
Table 4: Municipal Stormwater Practices Summary Summary of Stormwater Management Practices for Municipalities within Monroe County
Governing
Agency 69 Corridor 69 - City of Bloomington Ellettsville Stinesville Lake Lemon Morgan Monroe StateForest Hoosier National Forest I Smithville Higher Education Facilities (Ivy Tech, Indiana Unionville/New Unionville
Governing
Agency (Board,
Utility etc)
City of Bloomington Planning/Utilities Council Co. Monroe Highway Dept Lemon Lake Conservancy Monroe District; Planning County DNR USDA of State INDOT; Finance Indiana Authority Co. Monroe Indiana of State Co. Monroe Complies with State and Federal MS4 Community Separate from Monroe County Stormwater Management Ordinance (Separate from Monroe County)
2.6.3 Current Reporting and Response Process Engineering staff compiles and tabulates complaints, identifies actions needed, and assigns appropriate resources as available. The current list has approximately 90 reported issues. Details are provided in Section 2.4.
2.7 Field Reconnaissance A site field visit occurred on April 4, 2014. Figure 30 identifies the locations of the site visits.
Part of the data collection and analysis strategy includes identifying “typical” or reoccurring conditions across the County for development of standardized design solutions. The field reconnaissance allowed us to:
Examine the common and recurring problems throughout the county and classify them into Project Types such as roadway flooding issues, private drainage issues, or collection & conveyance problems.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 56 February 2016
Create and compile a toolbox of Typical Solutions that can be used to solve each identified Project Type. Detailed information regarding the site visits can be found in the Existing Conditions Report submitted to Monroe County by Amec Foster Wheeler on May 11, 2015.
Figure 30: Existing Condition Site Visit Locations Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 57 February 2016
3 Analysis and Visioning Opportunities & Constraints Project Types Typical Concept Solution for Retrofit/Repair Conceptual Project Identification Project Screening Ranking Criteria Weighted Ranking Factors
3.0 Analysis and Visioning
3.1. Opportunities & Constraints The field reconnaissance and existing conditions evaluation outlined in Section 2 and further detailed in the Existing Conditions Report provided the information to support watershed and project level analysis and visioning.
This section focuses on identifying similar drainage issues across the watersheds, grouping them logically into categories or project types that can be addressed through the application of related types of solutions, and providing concept level solutions and costs.
3.2. Project Types Roadway Flooding Private Property Drainage/Flooding Collection & Conveyance Dams Impoundments Bridges & Culverts Stream Maintenance & Blockage Stream Stabilization Prevention – Woody Debris/Log Jams Regional Detention Ongoing Maintenance, Cleaning, Stormwater Basin Retrofit Repair
3.3. Typical Concept Solution for Retrofit / Repair Standard conceptual design details are provided to address typical stormwater issues and conditions observed across the County. Solution concept designs are detailed enough to be constructible but general enough to be tailored as needed to site conditions. Appendix A contains typical details related to the concept level design solutions. These include:
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 40 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 41 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 42 2016
Collection and Conveyance: Built Systems
Existing Smithville Open Channel Conditions
Cherry Lane Ditches Roadside drainage problems and failing or undersized conveyance systems present issues including erosion, impeded property access, safety hazards related to rapidly flowing water, further degradation of downstream infrastructure and nuisance items including mosquito breeding.
Fairfax at Cherry Lane
Typical Solutions
. Pave drain . Storm sewer system . Grassed swale . Riprap channel . Infiltration & subsurface storage
Residential drainage problems can be improved and addressed with integrated conveyance, storage, and infiltration systems, both open and enclosed. Pave drain is an application that provides storm water conveyance, storage, and infiltration on the shoulder of the road.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 43 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 44 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 45 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 46 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 47 2016
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 48 2016
3.4. Conceptual Project Identification A total of 60 projects were identified from the following sources: Stormwater Engineer’s list Stormwater Engineer correspondence Site visits Resident complaints & correspondence Drainage Board meetings Highway Dept. staff interviews
Conveyance Flooding on Cherry Lane
Identification of projects such as the S. McCormick Lane Storage & Conveyance Improvement example followed the following process: 1) Identification by various source 2) Site visit 3) Desktop review of drainage area and watershed characteristics 4) Categorization of typical problem 5) Identification of typical solutions 6) Prepare concept plan
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 49 2016
Table 5 lists the projects and includes the following data for each:
Project Identification Number Site Visit ID Site Description Project Type (based on identified project type list) Origin of Project Project Notes & Details Proposed Solution Methods Special Project Needs (Land acquisition, permitting, etc.) Watershed Data – Primary Land Use Estimated Project Watershed Area Traffic Conditions at Project Area (Low, Moderate, High) Location on Critical Emergency Access Route Condition of Existing Roadway/Infrastructure Preliminary Costs Complexity of Project Construction (County Crew, General Contractor, Specialty Contractor)
Figure 31 shows the location of each project. Individual project concept plans for each of the 60 projects are provided in Appendix C.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 50 2016
Figure 31: Identified Project Locations by Type
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 51 2016
Table 5: Project Site Data
COMPLEXITY OF SPECIFIC PROJECT APPROX. PROJECT PROJECT ON CRITICAL PROJECT (County PROJECT ID WATERSHED / PRIMARY TRAFFIC INFORMATION CONDITION OF EXISTING PRELIMINARY CIP SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPE ORIGIN OF PROJECT PROJECT NOTES/DETAILS PROPOSED SOLUTION METHOD(S) NEEDS (Land acquisition, WATERSHED AREA EMERGENCY ACCESS Crew, General NUMBER LAND USE (Vehicles/Day) ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTR. COST EST. permitting, etc.) (ac) ROUTE Contractor, Specialty Contractor)
Extend to Cowden per Highway Dept.; Low points of road do N. Mt. Tabor Road drainage Barr to not drain. No ditches or conveyance. Road condition is ok Roadside Ditching; Upstream Staged O/H Utility coordination; Asphalt, narrow, no shoulder - County Crew; Typical SW 01 Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list Rural Residential 80.0 Moderate Yes $228,400 Woodland per maintenance crew; Narrow road, no shoulder, utility Storage; add/replace culverts confirm ROW Fair/Poor Contractor poles close, vegetation overgrown Project Types
Raise road and improve roadside Asphalt, narrow, no shoulder - SW 02 Anderson Road at Fish Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list Roadway flooding and two overgrown drainage crossings 401 and 404 Permitting Agriculture/Forested 38.7 Low No $420,750 Typical Contractor Roadway Flooding ditching (2 locations) Fair/Poor
4 inadequate crossings serving few residents (15 houses +/-); DOWNSTREAM CROSSINGS (2) improving access may generate development requiring Relocation of portion of stream; East Baby Road DOWNSTREAM: Baby Bridges/Culverts control; Tried to relocate road 15 yrs. ago, property owners Land Acquisition; 401 and Gravel - Narrow road, no Design Consultant / SW 03 Stormwater Engineer list Repair/Replacement of Structures; Agriculture/Steep Slopes 1,868.0 Low No $349,750 Collection & Conveyance Creek/Brummetts Creek Confluence Stream Relocation against; Creeks are full; DNR no dredging; Crew takes Grade 404 Permitting shoulder Specialty Contractor Stream bank improvements at All out every time(6-7 times/yr.) clean pipes; winter sees ice confluence with Brummetts Creek build up
2 upstream inadequate crossings serving few residents (6 houses +/-); improving access may generate development East Baby Road UPSTREAM: Baby requiring control; Tried to relocate road 15 yrs. ago, property UPSTREAM CROSSINGS (2) Narrow Gravel road, no SW 04 Bridges/Culverts Stormwater Engineer list 401 and 404 Permitting Agriculture/Steep Slopes 1,270.0 Low No $378,800 Specialty Contractor Bridges/Culverts Creek/Brummetts Creek Confluence owners against; Creeks are full; DNR no dredging; Crew takes Repair/Replacement of Structures shoulder Grade All out every time(6-7 times/yr.) clean pipes; winter sees ice build up
Road has been raised. Duration and depth of flooding is greatly decreased. When water is backed up from Salt Creek Install signage and reflective SW 05 N. Brummetts Creek Road Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list none Agriculture/Steep Slopes 8,240.0 Moderate No Asphalt; Fair $16,380 County Crew Stream Stabilization or Monroe Lake, there is no significant flow velocity over the delineator posts along shoulder road.
Only 3 houses. Part of road was raised. Per Highway Dept. Install signage and reflective Agriculture/Forested/Stee SW 06 Old SR 46 Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list none 3.9 Low No Gravel; Fair $7,200 County Crew Regional Detention residents have been stranded. delineator posts along shoulder p Slopes
Moore Creek crossing/Campground access floods when Raise Roadway 2' for 1600' and add Potential USACE SW 07 East Moore's Creek Road Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list Recreation/Flood storage 12,019.7 Low No Asphalt; Good $557,125 Typical Contractor Stormwater Basin Retrofit reservoir is high roadside ditching participation
Property buyout; Raise Roaday/ Investigate Property Potential Grant Candidate Butcher Branch/ Cartop State Recreation Area access - floods Private Property SW 08 Stipp Road West location Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list Buyout - Expand Cartop State to expand recreation Recreation/Flood storage 13,346.0 Low No Asphalt, Good $400,000 N/A when reservoir is high. Affects 4 - 5 houses Drainage/Flooding Recreation Area area; Potential USACE participation
Perform as-built survey to determine Northwest Industrial Park - Post office Stormwater Basin County owned, was based on old design criteria; at upper end potential additional storage benefits; Some pond areas are in Asphalt, Concrete C&G, SW 09 project meeting Commercial/ Industrial 16.3 Moderate No $280,080 Typical Contractor Ongoing Maintenance pond Retrofit of Jack's Defeat Retrofit pond using typical pond the floodway Sidewalk; Good retrofit details
Loesch Road parcels are county owned; paved from Karst Add stormwater swale adjacent to SW 10 Northwest Park multi use trail Regional Detention project meeting Farm to Vernal Pike. Potential to incorporate linear CIP project coordination Commercial /Industrial 101.8 Moderate No Asphalt, Good $262,875 Typical Contractor proposed trail route stormwater management with project
Mt. Tabor Road at Bean longer duration flooding (2-3 days); Tailwater from Raise roadway to bridge; provide Land Acquisition; 401 and SW 11 Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list Agricultural / Floodplain 107,800.0 Moderate Yes Asphalt; Good $348,250 Typical Contractor Blossom/Bottom Road confluence with Jack's Defeat. Portion of road is low depressional storage 404 Permitting
Stream stabilization & energy 14 houses +/- upstream of structure that experiences log dissipation; In stream structures to Design Consultant / SW 12 Brock Road Stream Stabilization Stormwater Engineer list 401 and 404 Permitting Deciduous forest 651.5 Low No Gravel; Fair $443,400 jams; Stream eroding steep bank with houses at top. prevent movement of large Specialty Contractor logs/debris
A) drainage crosses roadway; no culverts; B) Garage crew Roadway stabilization and roadside County Crew / Typical SW 13 Hash Road Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list cleans gravel from Hash at E. Fleener out 3 times per year; drainage improvements per typical none Deciduous forest 113.8 Low No Gravel; Fair $231,000 Contractor upstream private impuoundment increased risk concept drawing
Kerr Creek meanders adjacent to road; pinned by steep Roadway stabilization and roadside Asphalt; Fair; Narrow with SW 14 E. Kerr Creek Road Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list slopes; Rock Outcroppings; several driveway crossings; no drainage improvements per typical 401 and 404 Permitting Rural Residential 978.3 Low No $376,000 Specialty Contractor eroding edges ditches; high flow volume concept drawing
PaveDrain shoulders and Collection & Additional roadway inlets needed; deep ditches in front yards; supplemental subsurface storage; Typical Contractor / SW 15 Cherry Lane Drainage Stormwater Engineer list Neighborhood buy in Residential 150.9 Moderate No Good/Fair $422,500 Conveyance high flow volume; upstream channel overflows banks potential hybrid ditch solution for Specialty Contractor safety Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 52 2016
COMPLEXITY OF SPECIFIC PROJECT APPROX. PROJECT PROJECT ON CRITICAL PROJECT (County PROJECT ID WATERSHED / PRIMARY TRAFFIC INFORMATION CONDITION OF EXISTING PRELIMINARY CIP SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPE ORIGIN OF PROJECT PROJECT NOTES/DETAILS PROPOSED SOLUTION METHOD(S) NEEDS (Land acquisition, WATERSHED AREA EMERGENCY ACCESS Crew, General NUMBER LAND USE (Vehicles/Day) ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTR. COST EST. permitting, etc.) (ac) ROUTE Contractor, Specialty Contractor)
Convert impoundment area to POTENTIAL GRANT FUNED PROJECT Dam floodgate controls stormwater wetland with low flow have had issues; no consistent management; responsibility 401 and 404 permitting; channel, staged storage, and native falls to Hwy Dept.; Upstream impoundment area is Neighborhood buy in; Existing Dam controls need Design Consultant / SW 16 Fieldstone Subdivision Dam Regional Detention Stormwater Engineer list bioretention plantings; potential Residential 732.8 N/A No $451,250 overgrown and has nuisance ponding; safety hazard due to Construction on private maintenance/ updating Specialty Contractor Grant ecological WQ improvement duration of impounded water; impacts Cave Creek terminal property project; Install RealTime Monitoring - sinkhole downstream OPtiRTC or similar
Private Property Cavewood Court: Terminal Sinkhole Stormwater Engineer list; Terminal sinkhole flooding of rear yards, homes and adjacent Neighborhood buy in; Residential/ Commercial SW 17 Flooding / Roadway Property Buyout 238.7 * Low No Good $700,000 Legal Services backup flooding Resident complaint roadway FEMA funding support upstream Flooding
Private Property Development limitations; improved Study upstream impact Agriculture / Rural SW 18 Bunger Sinkhole at Bunger Road Flooding / Roadway Stormwater Engineer list Terminal Sinkhole flooding of residential common area 36.5 * High State Road 45? Asphalt; Good $138,000 Design Consultant upstream stormwater management limits Residential Flooding
3 basins under old design (were City jurisdiction); could assist Perform as-built survey to determine Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole with mitigation of Westwood Estates area homes within Stormwater Basin potential additional storage benefits; potential improvements Design Consultant / SW 19a Drainage & Conveyance Issues - Curry Todd S. Email 12/30 /2014 terminal sinkhole elevation; per Todd retrofit would be pretty Commercial/ Industrial 137.8 Moderate No Ponds overgrown; invasives $135,000 Retrofit Retrofit pond using typical pond on private property Typical Contractor Industrial Park (Jonathan Drive) straightforward; opportunity exists to require as part of retrofit details redevelopment
Development limitations; improved Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Private Property upstream stormwater management; potential improvements Design Consultant / SW 19b Drainage & Conveyance Issues - S. Progress Meeting Flooding of residential rear yards from Sinking Creek Agriculture/ Residential 894.0 Low No Asphalt; Good $414,500 Flooding - Rear Yard stream restoration/improvements on private property Specialty Contractor Fernwood Drive for 2 stage channel for conveyance
A massive amount of debris has collected in the terminal Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Stormwater Basin Clean Debris and overgrowth from potential improvements Design Consultant / SW 19c Todd S. Email 12/07 /2015 sinkhole (north of the intersection of Airport Road and State Residential 1,540.0 Moderate No Debris, overgrown; invasives $20,400 Clearing & Debris Cleanup Retrofit sinkhole area on private property Typical Contractor Road 45)
Sections of Bottom Road are subject to flooding. Need Raise 4-5 sections of Bottom Coordination with I-69 SW20 Bottom Road Roadway Flooding Todd S. Email 12/07 /2015 to facilitate movement of vehicles to and from the forested/rural residential 81,165.0 Moderate Yes Poor $752,500.00 typical Contractor Road that are subject to flooding. work Sample Road I-69 intersection.
Add additional culvert or replace Collection & Potential flooding along San Juan Drive upstream of this existing with one similar in size to the potential improvements SW 21 South Rogers Road at San Juan Flooding Resident letter/complaint Residential 7.0 Moderate No Fair $50,000 Typical Contractor Conveyance culvert crossing under the next downstream on private property road
Develop a Park Master Plan allowing POTENTIAL GRANT FUNED PROJECT Terminal sinkhole for minimal/passive use of sinkhole flooding at park; There are plans to line the detention pond to Flooding Stormwater attenuation areas and addressing Parks Department action SW 22 Karst Farm Park Stormwater Engineer list create more aesthetic wet pond which will reduce storage Recreation 30.0 High recreation use area No Poor $40,000 Design Consultant Basin Retrofit overall stormwater management / concurrence volume and create potential design issues if pond area is with potential irrigation hydraulically connected to sinkhole recirculation/reuse
POTENTIAL GRANT FUNED PROJECT There is no Area wide Stormwater Commission Study/survey and review County Fair Board action SW 23 County Fairgrounds Drainage Board meeting documentation of the existing drainage systems and Recreation 112.0 High recreation use area No Poor $30,000 Design Consultant Plan of existing drainage / concurrence improvements are needed to support expansion
Site BMP O&M Manual update & staff training; add outdoor BMP Housekeeping Runoff control and Good Housekeeping BMPs to maintain rinse/containment area; add SW 24 County Highway Garage Stormwater Basin Stormwater Engineer list none Industrial/ Maintenance 19.8 High No Asphalt & Gravel $30,000 County MS4 Rule 13 Permit compliance; contain salt runoff Bioretention area forebay; Retrofit implement surface drainage improvements (paving)
Perform as-built survey to determine Stormwater Basin Potentially improved by detention pond retrofit in Legacy potential additional storage benefits; potential improvements SW 25 Mt. Tabor Road S. of Legacy Meadows Todd S. Email 10/30/2014 Residential 8.8 Moderate No Asphalt; Good $25,000 Typical Contractor Retrofit Meadows currently only designed for 2 year event Retrofit pond using typical pond on private property retrofit details
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 53 2016
COMPLEXITY OF SPECIFIC PROJECT APPROX. PROJECT PROJECT ON CRITICAL PROJECT (County PROJECT ID WATERSHED / PRIMARY TRAFFIC INFORMATION CONDITION OF EXISTING PRELIMINARY CIP SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPE ORIGIN OF PROJECT PROJECT NOTES/DETAILS PROPOSED SOLUTION METHOD(S) NEEDS (Land acquisition, WATERSHED AREA EMERGENCY ACCESS Crew, General NUMBER LAND USE (Vehicles/Day) ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTR. COST EST. permitting, etc.) (ac) ROUTE Contractor, Specialty Contractor)
Roadway stabilization and roadside 2 inadequate crossings; I-69 development eliminating 1 drainage improvements per typical SW 26 Bryant's Creek Road Roadway Flooding Stormwater Engineer list none Rural Residential 2,948.0 low No asphalt / gravel - poor $240,000 Typical Contractor access; water over deteriorated roadway - washouts concept drawing; potential culvert replacement
Detention basin located in wooded area between 4789 and 4939 N. White River Drive. Woody debris has collected over Perform as-built survey to determine the years and blocked the outlet pipes. The embankment has Stormwater Basin potential additional storage benefits; potential improvements SW 27 Woodgate Detention Basin Stormwater Engineer list been overtopped and badly eroded. It is unlikely that either Residential 60.2 Moderate No Good $30,000 Typical Contractor Retrofit Clean and Retrofit pond using typical on private property the Homeowners Association or Maefield Development pond retrofit details (which owns the parcel) will ever fix this problem. There is a downstream residential subdivision (Lynwood Est)
Vernal Pike Drainage & Conveyance Add culvert & Ditiching to positive SW 28 Roadway Flooding Todd S. email 12/7/2015 Roadway flooding none Agricultural 2,695.0 Moderate No Gravel / Poor $20,000 County Crew Improvements outlet
residential street off of South Rogers Street that runs through a sinkhole. The sinkhole holds water probably a couple of potential improvements times a year during heavy rains for an hour or two. A SW 29 414 W. Terrace Flooding Roadway Flooding Todd S. email 12/7/2015 Add depressional storage on private property; Rural Residential 86.0 Moderate Yes (school entrance) Asphalt; Good $20,000 County Crew property owner is concerned that the water will reach the jurisdiction - Ellitsville? pump for the septic system in his front yard and surcharge the septic field in the back yard.
available uptream watershed storage to mitigate Roadside staged storage swale and S.McCormick Lane storage & private property drainage Agricultural/Rural SW 30 Regional Detention Todd S. email 1/3/2015 concentrated flow/flooding in Smithville; Stormwater upstream inline storage per concept 12.3 Moderate No Asphalt / Fair-Poor $136,600 County Crew conveyance improvements easement Residential Engineer completed preliminary study plan
POTENTIAL GRANT FUNED PROJECT ; vacant lot upstream of Integrated stormwater Land Acquisition; Design Consultant / SW 31 Smithville property north of post office Regional Detention Todd S. email 1/3/2015 post office could provide attenuation of storm volume and Commercial 13.8 Moderate No Asphalt / Fair-Poor $150,000 storage/public space neighborhood buy in Typical COntractor public space
HecRAS Study to determine cause of Moderate - likely to SW 32 South Breedon Road - Indian Creek Roadway Flooding Hwy Dept. Meeting Frequent flooding per Hwy Dept.; Cars wash off road flooding; Tailwater, tributary Study Agricultural/Forested 8,457.0 No Asphalt / Fair-Poor $40,000 Design Consultant increase w/I 69 conveyance capacity; other
Culvert & ditch maintenance & Agricultural/Rural SW 33 South Stanford Road Roadway Flooding Hwy Dept. Meeting Frequent flooding per Hwy Dept. improvements; Potential long term - none 403.5 Moderate No Fair $15,000 County Crew Residential raise portion of roadway
Roadway drains to driveway & flooded basement; Per Todd Future Road Repairs / annual ditch Agricultural/Rural SW 34 2950 Thrasher Road Roadway Flooding Todd S. Email 4/14 none 29.3 Low No Poor $10,000 County Crew ditching has been completed maintenance & inspection Residential
Upstream culvert entry partially blocked; downstream Clear & ditch upstream; cut down Evaluate condition of embankment washing out & downstream end of culvert tree blocking downstream; fill Wooded/ Rural SW 35 9400 Rockport Road Bridges/Culverts Todd S. Email 4/14 existing culvert for 13.4 Low No Fair $30,000 County Crew blocked by tree; surface runoff from roadway has eroded embankment erosion & construct Residential replacement bank & exposed culvert asphalt spillway at road low point
Collection & Culvert inlet blocked by tree & upstream basement flooded; Annual Ditch/Culvert Maintenance & SW 36 9240 Ketchum Todd S. Email 4/14 none Rural Residential 12.1 Moderate No Poor $5,000 County Crew Conveyance Per Todd, tree was cut down to clear blockage Inspection
Replace existing culvert with 3 sided significant power lines on Collection & culvert; incorporate upstream energy SW 37 W. Rock East Road at Hebron Church Todd S. Email 4/14 Culvert blocked with debris & significant bedload west side of road; Work Agricultural/Forested 30.6 Low No Poor $75,000 Typical Contractor Conveyance dissipation/forebay; Pursue drainage on private property easement to Little Indian Creek
Existing culvert serving 2 driveways is undersized; road floods Drive culvert replacement with inlet Large mature tree will be SW 38 4870 & 4920 Walnut Street Pike Roadway Flooding Todd S. Email 4/27 6+ times/year. Ditch carries wet weather spring flow; culvert structure to prevent clogging; Residential 121.2 High Yes Fair $40,000 County Crew impacted by construction becomes partially blocked, extending duration of flooding potential regional storage
Large watershed drains to crossing point - culvert no longer Roadway & Driveway culvert Trees close to road will Rural SW 39 8525 Evans Road Roadway Flooding Todd S. Email 4/27 23.0 Low No Poor $25,000 County Crew exists installation need to be removed Residential/Forested
Todd S. Email 4/27; Highway Roadway culvert installation with SW 40 6755 May Road Roadway Flooding Dept. Staff noted "Frequent Water runs over road for extended periods (icing is a concern) none Residential/Forested 316.1 Moderate No Fair $25,000 County Crew ditching and in line storage upstream Reporter - 1 house"
Lack of driveway culvert causes roadway flooding. Ice Large mature tree will be Rural Residential/ SW 41 4760 Popcorn Road Roadway Flooding Todd S. Email 4/27 Driveway Culvert & Roadside ditching 17.9 Low No Poor $20,000 County Crew buildup has been reported impacted by construction Agricultural
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 54 2016
COMPLEXITY OF SPECIFIC PROJECT APPROX. PROJECT PROJECT ON CRITICAL PROJECT (County PROJECT ID WATERSHED / PRIMARY TRAFFIC INFORMATION CONDITION OF EXISTING PRELIMINARY CIP SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPE ORIGIN OF PROJECT PROJECT NOTES/DETAILS PROPOSED SOLUTION METHOD(S) NEEDS (Land acquisition, WATERSHED AREA EMERGENCY ACCESS Crew, General NUMBER LAND USE (Vehicles/Day) ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTR. COST EST. permitting, etc.) (ac) ROUTE Contractor, Specialty Contractor)
404 permitting; stream/roadway stabilization per construction schedule SW 42 Shuffle Creek Road / Stream Stream Stabilization Todd S. Email 1/26/2015 Something better than riprap for stabilization? Recreationa;/Lake Lemon 1,666.3 Moderate No Poor $327,500 Specialty Contractor Condition 2 Detail during Lake Lemon low water Private Property Repetitive loss claim structure; appears to be Lake Lemmon SW 43 6677 Shuffle Creek Road Todd S. Email 12/3/2014 Property Buyout Land Acquisition Recreationa;/Lake Lemon 604.4 Moderate No Poor $250,000 N/A Drainage/Flooding flooding
Private Property SW 44 Smithville - Bill Slater contracting yard Todd S. Email10/31/2014 Contractor yard and building flooding; Detention in ROW none Commercial/ Residential 55.0 Low No Fair $50,000 Typical Contractor Drainage/Flooding
Collection & Improved ditching, & routing; culvert SW 45 Smithville - Conveyance improvements Todd S. Email10/31/2014 Intermittent post office flooding none Commercial/ Residential 74.1 High Yes Fair $100,000 Typical Contractor Conveyance replacement
Currently multiple culverts with potential for blockage; Baxter SW 46 Sinking Creek crossing at Curry Pike Bridges/Culverts Todd S. Email 12/30 /2014 Building upstream is low, but to date has not flooded, nor has Multiple Culvert replacement 401 and 404 Permitting Upstream commercial 460.2 High Yes Good $750,000 Typical Contractor water gone over Curry Pike
Provide general maintenance under MOU. Aging collection Stinesville Stormwater Collection Collection & SW 47 Stormwater Engineer list system consists of rock channels, swales, and inlets; Grant Fund Match & General Maintenance Se MOU with Stinesville Residential 392.0 High Yes Asphalt & Gravel; Fair / Poor $100,000 County Crew system Conveyance Match
Remote Monitoring Program for Implement system for visual remote monitoring of frequently Automated Monitoring System Phase monitoring equipment & County Crew/ Product SW 48a Roadway Flooding Consultant recommendation All N/A High Yes variable $35,000 Roadway Flooding flooded roadways within the County 1 Locations (5 sites) software Vendor
Remote Monitoring Program for Expand system for visual remote monitoring of frequently Automated Monitoring System Phase monitoring equipment & County Crew/ Product SW 48b Roadway Flooding Consultant recommendation All N/A High Yes variable $20,000 Roadway Flooding flooded roadways within the County 2 Locations (4 sites) software Vendor
Install large vane grate street Street inlets needed1479 Eagleview (end of a cul-de- Collection & inlets with open curb backs and SW 49 Street Inlet Projects Todd S. email 12/7/2015 sac), 1202 Fairwood, and Strain Ridge Road about 80 none Residential Varies Low No variable $50,000 County Crew Conveyance connect to existing inlets at 3 feet south of Zinnia. locations.
Commission Study/survey and review . POTENTIAL GRANT FUNED PROJECT Extension of Clear of existing culverts and bridges Rail Banked Trail Drainage Creek trail south of Church Road is underway and no formal spanning waterways on rail trails SW 50 Infrastructure Assessment (Culverts and Bridges/Culverts d S. email 12/7/2015 and 12/22/2assessment of existing stormwater infrastructure has taken none Varies Varies Low No variable $60,000 Design Consultant inclding Monon and Illinois Central. Bridges) place ; Need structural assesment of all bridges over water on Include recommendations for Illinois Central and Monon lines. remediation
Flash flooding during storm events. Surface runoff from roadway is routed through residential property to rear yard PaveDrain shoulders and Collection & and downstream conveyance. A culvert was recently supplemental subsurface storage; potential improvements SW 51 Fairway Lane Drainage Resident letter/complaint Residential 9.8 Moderate No Poor $127,000 Typical Contractor Conveyance replaced upstream at Rogers Road. A ditching project through potential hybrid ditch solution for on private property the adjoining golf course property west of Soutar Drive is safety planned.
Illinois Central Trail: Victor Pike INDOT Missing bridge on Illinois Central Trail corridor. Parks has 160 foot pedestrian truss bridge at SW 52 Bridges/Culverts Draft Plan review comments Agricultural/Forested 6319.36 N/A No N/A $350,000 Specialty Contractor Mitigation Site Pedestrian Bridge obtained partial funding of $235K the mitigation site - Contech DYOB
New 80' bridge span, new 80' Existing 160' long wood trestle. Previous estimate by BLN for Illinois Central Trail: Whaley Stone Mill superstructure, substructure work. SW 53 Bridges/Culverts Draft Plan review comments rehab of structure. Trail outlets onto Fluck Mill Road as that Agricultural/Forested 2846.72 N/A No N/A $550,000 Specialty Contractor Trestle Pedestrian Bridge See Project Estimate dated bridge was removed. 4/13/2015
New crossing of Jacks Defeat Creek on the Monon trail. Watershed area is just under 1 sq mi, so DNR approval not 10' x 5' box culvert with approach Potential easement for SW 54 Monon Crossing at Jack's Defeat Creek Bridges/Culverts Draft Plan review comments Agricultural / Industrial 39.2 N/A No N/A $170,000 Typical Contractor needed. A strip of ROW was purchased to connect Monon to work construction Karst Trail
Install perforated pipe, underdrain, Drainage from Railroad ROW flows through residential side Hank's Crossing Collection system Collection & and yard inlet to get sotormwater off Construction on Private SW 55 Draft Plan review comments yards to inlets on Hanks Crossing. Conveyance ditch is Residential 14.92 Low No N/A $25,000 County Crew extension Conveyance the surface to the exisitng Property inadequate slope. Yards flood close to house entry conveyance system
Sycamoe Land Trust Riparian Land Coordination with SW 56 Regional Detention Draft Plan review comments Potential mitigation sites for County projects. Open Space / Land Conservation Agricultural / Forested Varies N/A No N/A $250,000 N/A Conservation Project Sycamore Land Trust
Roadway and Stream stabilization 401 and 404 permitting; Russell Road Griffy Creek Tributary Typical contidion with stream tributary adjacent to and SW 57 Stream Stabilization Draft Plan review comments and rimprovements per Condition 2 Construction on private Rural Residential 803.84 Low No Poor $280,000 Specialty Contractor Stabilization eroding roadway typical concept drawing property
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 55 2016
3.5. Project Screening In order to compare and prioritize the 50 identified projects, each project was evaluated based on site data and performance measures including watershed area and primary land use, current system conditions, impervious surface managed, construction and maintenance costs, and engineering judgment of non-monetary implications. The evaluation of the 50 locations was a screening process leading to the development of a recommended prioritization schedule for implementation. The process included consideration of the following attributes: • Cost and Performance • Non-Monetary Factors • Advantages / Disadvantages
The Monroe County Long Range Stormwater Questionnaires were developed to gather input for the Monroe County Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan and help assist in the project screening process. There were three questionnaires developed for the following groups: the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, county employees, and the general public. Each questionnaire is further described below and a detailed analysis can be found in Appendix B.
Board of Commissioners The questionnaire was distributed to the Board of Commissioners during the board meeting on October 9th, 2014. The key information gathered from the questionnaire included drainage project ranking metrics that were discussed during the presentation and that were used to prioritize potential projects. These comments were integrated into the final project ranking matrix.
County Employees The questionnaire was distributed to county employees at the various county garages on October 9th, 2014. The key information gathered from the questionnaire included stormwater problem collection process information, available equipment to handle stormwater complaint projects, and the importance and familiarity (providing repairs/solutions) of various stormwater projects. These comments were integrated into the final project ranking matrix.
General Public The general public questionnaire was distributed by using a form hosted on the County website and was also made available at the Public Meeting held on January 15th, 2015. A total of 10 surveys were completed.
Selection and prioritization is not based solely on cost, therefore, non-monetary factors were considered in the prioritization. For the proposed projects, Non-Monetary Factors include:
• Watershed Characterization Ranking • Frequency of Flooding • Severity and Duration of Flooding • Public Health & Safety (Emergency Access Risk) • Location and Project Visibility (including traffic, site access, and tourism considerations) • Water Quality & Habitat Enhancement Potential • Number of Residents Served/ Level of Traffic • Number of Complaints Managed • Ease of Construction
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 56 2016
• Floodway, Floodplain and Wetland Constraints and Permitting • Opportunity for Coordination with other CIP Projects or Funding Sources • Potential for Additional Development (project in desirable development area)
Figure 32: Eight Stormwater treatment options available for retrofitting (Source: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices Version 1.0)
3.5.1. Ranking Criteria The attributes above are compiled in Table 7: Project Scoring and each column containing a ranking attribute was generally ranked as described below:
Watershed Characterization Ranking Projects in a high priority watershed receive a ranking of “3”; those in an average priority watershed receive a “2”, and projects in low priority watersheds receive a “1”. See Section 2.2 for a detailed description of watershed priority ranking factors.
Frequency of Flooding Project areas that report flooding more than four times per year receive a ranking of “3”. Those that flood on average two to four times per year receive a “2”, and projects that flood once per year receive a “1”. Projects where flooding was not an applicable criteria scored a 0.
Severity and Duration of Flooding Severity of flooding is based on the flooding at the project location limiting or blocking access for a given time period. A location where flooding does not limit access scores as a “0”, while a site that limits or blocks access to residences, goods, or services for more than 48 hours is considered severe = 3; Mild = 1. No flooding = 0.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 57 2016
Public Health & Safety (Emergency Access risk) Projects that solved critical access or emergency response issues or that are on the EMS plan route or a major through route receive a “3” for this metric. Those that are not, receive a “0”.
Location / Project Visibility (traffic, access, and tourism considerations): The proposed projects that are along a major roadway, part of visitor or tourist areas, support significant public use, and are highly visible to the general public are ranked highest. Remote or lightly traveled areas with minimal public impact received low scores for this parameter. 3 = yes; 0 = no.
Water Quality/Habitat Enhancement Potential: The sites were divided into 4 sections. The sites that had the highest opportunity for Water Quality or Habitat Enhancement received a score of “3”. The next sites in the ranking received a score of “2”, the following, a “1”, and projects with no potential to improve water quality, such as studies or monitoring were given a score of “0”.
Number of Residents Served / Level of Traffic: Projects are categorized based on the number of residents or landowners that potentially benefit from the project. The ranking breakdown is as follows: High (more than 10 landowners) = 3 Moderate (5 to 10 landowners) = 2 Low (less than 5 landowners) = 1
Number of Complaints Managed The projects that have the potential to mitigate the most complaints receive a score of “3”. If no complaints are managed, the project receives a “0” for this parameter.
Ease of Construction: Projects are evaluated based on the level of complexity. Projects with complex mitigating issues or projects that require a specialty contractor, receive a score of “1”, while projects that can be addressed by a general contractor are given a “2” and those that can be constructed by County forces using standardized solutions score a “3” on this metric.
Floodway, Floodplain, Wetland, Other Permitting: Sites not requiring any special permitting were scored a “3” and sites with significant or complex permitting requirements were given a “0”. Sites with standard permitting issues were listed with a “2”.
Opportunity for Coordination with other CIP Projects or other funding sources: At this time, there is minimal information available regarding other projects that may be underway near the proposed projects. Projects on the Bridge CIP list were given a ranking of “2”, while projects that might be submitted for grant funding were scored as 1 and standalone projects were given a “0”. If a project is on the CIP list and has a grant opportunity, like Stinesville, it rated a “3”.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 58 2016
Potential for Additional Development Additional development upstream of an identified problem area could serve to exacerbate the situation, making the improvements more critical. Project identified in areas where additional development is likely were ranked with a “3”.
Project Capital Cost/Benefit: This parameter was evaluated based on the construction cost per acre managed and ranked with the highest cost benefit (lowest construction cost per acre managed) receiving the highest score. The estimates of probable construction cost are conservative and contain a 20% contingency amount since they were developed at a conceptual level.
3.5.2. Weighted Ranking Factors After the raw ranking numbers were applied, the project attributes were weighted based on relative importance with respect to their overall impact in relation to the project objectives. Based on input from County staff, the weighting multipliers below were applied. For the columns weighted other than 1, the multiplier was applied and the weighted total calculated.
Table 6: Weighted Attribute Multiplier
PROJECT ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTING MULTIPLIER Watershed Characterization Ranking 1 Frequency of Flooding 1.5 Severity and Duration of Flooding 1 Public Health & Safety (Emergency Access Risk) 3 Location and Project Visibility 1 Water Quality & Habitat Enhancement Potential 1 Number of Residents Served/ Level of Traffic 1.5 Number of Complaints Managed 2 Ease of Construction 1 Floodway, Floodplain and Wetland Constraints and 1 Permitting Opportunity for Coordination with other CIP Projects 2 or Funding Sources Potential for Additional Development 2 Capital Cost/Benefit 2
3.5.3. Prioritized Ranking Once the weighted total was calculated, the spreadsheet was sorted by the Weighted Total column, and the results noted as the “Overall Priority Ranking” in Table 8.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 59 2016
Table 7: Project Scoring
Weighting Factor 1 1.5 1 3 1 1 1.5 2 1 1 2 2 2 N/A N/A
NUMBER OF WATERSHED FREQUENCY OF SEVERITY/ LOCATION / WATER QUALITY NUMBER OF PERMIITNG - PUBLIC HEALTH & RESIDENTS POTENTIAL FOR CHARACTER FLOODING (times DURATION OF PROJECT /HABITAT ENHANCEMENT COMPLAINTS EASE OF CONSTRUCTION FLOODWAY, COORD W/CIP PROJ CIP CAPITAL SAFETY/ EMERGENCY SERVED / LEVEL ADDITIONAL RATING per yr) FLOODING VISIBILITY/ NEAR POTENTIAL MANAGED County Staff = 3 FLOODPLAIN, /OTHER FUNDING CIP COST / BENEFIT ESTIMATED PROJECT CUMULATIVE COST WEIGHTED TOTAL RAW SCORE POTENTIAL CIP ID PROPOSED PROJECT PROPOSED CIP DESCRIPTION ACCESS RISK OF TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IN High = 3 4 or more = 3 Severe = 3 TOURIST AREA High = 3 More than 1 = 2 Gen Contr = 2 WETLAND, OTHER List =2 Grant/Loan Fund High = 3 Mod = 2 COST OF PROJECTS Yes = 3 High =3 DESIRABLE AREA Med. = 1 2 to 4 = 2 Mild = 1 Yes = 3 Med. = 2 One = 1 Spcialty Contr=1 Complex = 0 Standard = = 1 Both = 3 None=0 Low = 1 No = 0 Mod = 2 Yes = 3 No = 0 Low = 0 1 time/yr = 1 None = 0 No = 0 Low = 1 None = 0 2 None = 3 Low = 1
42.5 27 SW 01 N. Mt. Tabor Road drainage Barr to Woodland Roadside Ditching; Upstream Staged Storage; add/replace culverts 3 2 1 3 0 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 $228,400 $228,400
21 16 SW 02 Anderson Road at Fish Raise road and improve roadside ditching (2 locations) 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 $420,750 $649,150
DOWNSTREAM CROSSINGS (2) Relocation of portion of stream; East Baby Road DOWNSTREAM: Baby 36 21 SW 03 Repair/Replacement of Structures; Stream bank improvements at confluence Creek/Brummetts Creek Confluence 1 3 2 3 0 3 1 2 1 0 2 0 3 $349,750 $998,900 with Brummetts Creek
East Baby Road UPSTREAM: Baby 26 18 SW 04 UPSTREAM CROSSINGS (2) Repair/Replacement of Structures Creek/Brummetts Creek Confluence 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 $378,800 $1,377,700
33.5 21 SW 05 N. Brummetts Creek Road Install signage and reflective delineator posts along shoulder 1 3 2 3 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 3 $16,380 $1,394,080
26.5 17 SW 06 Old SR 46 Install signage and reflective delineator posts along shoulder 1 2 2 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 $7,200 $1,401,280
39 25 SW 07 East Moore's Creek Road Raise Roadway 2' for 1600' and add roadside ditching 1 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 0 3 $557,125 $1,958,405
Raise Roaday/ Investigate Property Buyout - Expand Cartop State Recreation 29.5 22 SW 08 Stipp Road West location Area 1 3 2 0 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 0 3 $400,000 $2,358,405
Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; 22 17 SW 09 Northwest Industrial Park - Post office pond Retrofit pond using typical pond retrofit details 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 3 1 2 1 $280,080 $2,638,485
27.5 22 SW 10 Northwest Park multi use trail Add stormwater swale adjacent to proposed trail route 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 1 2 1 $262,875 $2,901,360
41 25 SW 11 Mt. Tabor Road at Bean Blossom/Bottom Road Raise roadway to bridge; provide depressional storage 3 3 2 3 0 2 3 2 2 0 2 0 3 $348,250 $3,249,610
Stream stabilization & energy dissipation; In stream structures to prevent 17 13 SW 12 Brock Road movement of large logs/debris 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 $443,400 $3,693,010
Roadway stabilization and roadside drainage improvements per typical 15.5 12 SW 13 Hash Road concept drawing 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 $231,000 $3,924,010
Roadway stabilization and roadside drainage improvements per typical 22 16 SW 14 E. Kerr Creek Road concept drawing 1 1 1 0 0 2 3 2 2 2 0 0 2 $376,000 $4,300,010
PaveDrain shoulders and supplemental subsurface storage; potential hybrid 27 20 SW 15 Cherry Lane Drainage ditch solution for safety 3 1 1 0 0 2 3 2 2 3 0 2 1 $422,500 $4,722,510
Convert impoundment area to stormwater wetland with low flow channel, 29 21 SW 16 Fieldstone Subdivision Dam staged storage, and native bioretention plantings; potential Grant ecological 3 1 1 0 3 3 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 $451,250 $5,173,760 WQ improvement project; Install RealTime Monitoring -OPtiRTC or similar
Cavewood Court: Terminal Sinkhole backup 21.5 16 SW 17 Property Buyout flooding 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 0 1 $700,000 $5,873,760
15.5 13 SW 18 Bunger Sinkhole at Bunger Road Development limitations; improved upstream stormwater management 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 $138,000 $6,011,760
Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Drainage & Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; 27.5 18 SW 19a Conveyance Issues - Curry Industrial Park Retrofit pond using typical pond retrofit details 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 $135,000 $6,146,760 (Jonathan Drive)
Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Drainage & Development limitations; improved upstream stormwater management; stream 26.5 20 SW 19b Conveyance Issues - S. Fernwood Drive restoration/improvements for 2 stage channel for conveyance 1 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 $414,500 $6,561,260
Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Clearing & 27 20 SW 19c Clean Debris and overgrowth from sinkhole area Debris Cleanup 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 3 $20,400 $6,581,660
21 15 SW20 Bottom Road Raise 4-5 sections of Bottom Road that are subject to flooding. 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 3 $752,500 $7,334,160
Add additional culvert or replace existing with one similar in size to the crossing 20.5 16 SW 21 South Rogers Road at San Juan Flooding under the next downstream road 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 0 0 1 $50,000 $7,384,160
Develop a Park Master Plan allowing for minimal/passive use of sinkhole 25.5 20 SW 22 Karst Farm Park attenuation areas and addressing overall stormwater management with 3 2 0 0 3 2 3 0 1 3 1 0 2 $40,000 $7,424,160 potential irrigation recirculation/reuse
23.5 19 SW 23 County Fairgrounds Commission Study/survey and review of existing drainage 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 1 3 1 0 2 $30,000 $7,454,160
Site BMP O&M Manual update & staff training; add outdoor rinse/containment 26.5 21 SW 24 County Highway Garage area; add Bioretention area forebay; implement surface drainage 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 0 1 $30,000 $7,484,160 improvements (paving)
Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; 18 14 SW 25 Mt. Tabor Road S. of Legacy Meadows 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 2 1 $25,000 $7,509,160 Retrofit pond using typical pond retrofit details
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 60 2016
Weighting Factor 1 1.5 1 3 1 1 1.5 2 1 1 2 2 2 N/A N/A
NUMBER OF WATERSHED FREQUENCY OF SEVERITY/ LOCATION / WATER QUALITY NUMBER OF PERMIITNG - PUBLIC HEALTH & RESIDENTS POTENTIAL FOR CHARACTER FLOODING (times DURATION OF PROJECT /HABITAT ENHANCEMENT COMPLAINTS EASE OF CONSTRUCTION FLOODWAY, COORD W/CIP PROJ CIP CAPITAL SAFETY/ EMERGENCY SERVED / LEVEL ADDITIONAL RATING per yr) FLOODING VISIBILITY/ NEAR POTENTIAL MANAGED County Staff = 3 FLOODPLAIN, /OTHER FUNDING CIP COST / BENEFIT ESTIMATED PROJECT CUMULATIVE COST WEIGHTED TOTAL RAW SCORE POTENTIAL CIP ID PROPOSED PROJECT PROPOSED CIP DESCRIPTION ACCESS RISK OF TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IN High = 3 4 or more = 3 Severe = 3 TOURIST AREA High = 3 More than 1 = 2 Gen Contr = 2 WETLAND, OTHER List =2 Grant/Loan Fund High = 3 Mod = 2 COST OF PROJECTS Yes = 3 High =3 DESIRABLE AREA Med. = 1 2 to 4 = 2 Mild = 1 Yes = 3 Med. = 2 One = 1 Spcialty Contr=1 Complex = 0 Standard = = 1 Both = 3 None=0 Low = 1 No = 0 Mod = 2 Yes = 3 No = 0 Low = 0 1 time/yr = 1 None = 0 No = 0 Low = 1 None = 0 2 None = 3 Low = 1
Roadway stabilization and roadside drainage improvements per typical 32 19 SW 26 Bryant's Creek Road concept drawing; potential culvert replacement 0 1 1 3 0 3 1 1 2 2 0 2 3 $240,000 $7,749,160
Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; 18.5 14 SW 27 Woodgate Detention Basin Clean and Retrofit pond using typical pond retrofit details 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 2 $30,000 $7,779,160
Vernal Pike Drainage & Conveyance 24.5 18 SW 28 Add culvert & Ditiching to positive outlet Improvements 1 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 2 3 1 1 3 $20,000 $7,799,160
35.5 23 SW 29 414 W. Terrace Flooding Add depressional storage 0 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 $20,000 $7,819,160
S.McCormick Lane storage & conveyance 26.5 19 SW 30 Roadside staged storage swale and upstream inline storage per concept plan improvements 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 $136,600 $7,955,760
32.5 24 SW 31 Smithville property north of post office Integrated stormwater storage/public space 1 2 1 0 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 3 1 $150,000 $8,105,760
HecRAS Study to determine cause of flooding; Tailwater, tributary conveyance 37 22 SW 32 South Breedon Road - Indian Creek capacity; other 3 2 1 3 0 0 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 $40,000 $8,145,760
Culvert & ditch maintenance & improvements; Potential long term - raise 27 20 SW 33 South Stanford Road portion of roadway 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 3 $15,000 $8,160,760
21.5 16 SW 34 2950 Thrasher Road Ditching work completed; Perform annual ditch maintenance and inspection 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 2 $10,000 $8,170,760
Clear & ditch upstream; cut down tree blocking downstream; fill embankment 17 13 SW 35 9400 Rockport Road erosion & construct asphalt spillway at road low point 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 1 $30,000 $8,200,760
20 15 SW 36 9240 Ketchum Annual Ditch/Culvert Maintenance & Inspection 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 2 $5,000 $8,205,760
Replace existing culvert with 3 sided culvert; incorporate upstream energy 22 16 SW 37 W. Rock East Road at Hebron Church dissipation/forebay; Pursue drainage easement to Little Indian Creek 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 $75,000 $8,280,760
Drive culvert replacement with inlet structure to prevent clogging; potential 26 19 SW 38 4870 & 4920 Walnut Street Pike regional storage 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 2 2 $40,000 $8,320,760
20 16 SW 39 8525 Evans Road Roadway & Driveway culvert installation 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 1 $25,000 $8,345,760
27 20 SW 40 6755 May Road Roadway culvert installation with ditching and in line storage upstream 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 3 $25,000 $8,370,760
21 16 SW 41 4760 Popcorn Road Driveway Culvert & Roadside ditching 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 1 $20,000 $8,390,760
39 25 SW 42 Shuffle Creek Road / Stream stream/roadway stabilization per Condition 2 Detail 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 0 1 0 2 $327,500 $8,718,260
20 15 SW 43 6677 Shuffle Creek Road Property Buyout 1 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 $250,000 $8,968,260
24.5 19 SW 44 Smithville - Bill Slater contracting yard Detention in ROW 1 2 3 0 0 2 3 1 2 3 0 0 2 $50,000 $9,018,260
27 21 SW 45 Smithville - Conveyance improvements Improved ditching, & routing; culvert replacement 1 1 1 0 3 3 3 1 2 3 0 2 1 $100,000 $9,118,260
18.5 14 SW 46 Sinking Creek crossing at Curry Pike Multiple Culvert replacement 1 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 $750,000 $9,868,260
33.5 25 SW 47 Stinesville Stormwater Collection system Grant Fund Match & General Maintenance Services 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 2 2 $100,000 $9,968,260 Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway 50 33 SW 48a Automated Monitoring System Phase 1 Locations (5 sites) Flooding 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 3 $35,000 $10,003,260 Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway 37 24 SW 48b Automated Monitoring System Phase 2 Locations (4 sites) Flooding 2 2 3 3 0 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 3 $20,000 $10,023,260 Install large vane grate street inlets with open curb backs and connect to 27.5 20 SW 49 Street Inlet Projects existing inlets at 3 locations. 3 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 2 3 $50,000 $10,073,260 Commission Study/survey and review of existing culverts and bridges spanning Rail Banked Trail Drainage Infrastructure 31 22 SW 50 waterways on rail trails inclding Monon and Illinois Central. Include Assessment (Culverts and Bridges) 3 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 1 3 3 2 3 $60,000 $10,133,260 recommendations for remediation
PaveDrain shoulders and supplemental subsurface storage; potential hybrid 29.5 22 SW 51 Fairway Lane Drainage ditch solution for safety 3 3 3 0 0 1 2 2 2 3 0 2 1 $127,000 $10,260,260
Illinois Central Trail: Victor Pike INDOT Mitigation 28 19 SW 52 160 foot pedestrian truss bridge at the mitigation site - Contech DYOB Site Pedestrian Bridge 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 3 2 3 $350,000 $10,610,260
Illinois Central Trail: Whaley Stone Mill Trestle New 80' bridge span, new 80' superstructure, substructure work. See Project 28 19 SW 53 Pedestrian Bridge Estimate dated 4/13/2015 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 3 2 3 $550,000 $11,160,260
25 18 SW 54 Monon Crossing at Jack's Defeat Creek 10' x 5' box culvert with approach work 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 2 3 2 1 $170,000 $11,330,260
Install perforated pipe, underdrain, and yard inlet to get sotormwater off the 25.5 18 SW 55 Hank's Crossing Collection system extension surface to the exisitng conveyance system 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 0 2 2 $25,000 $11,355,260
Sycamoe Land Trust Riparian Land Conservation 34 25 SW 56 Open Space / Land Conservation Project 3 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 3 3 3 2 3 $250,000 $11,605,260
Roadway and Stream stabilization and rimprovements per Condition 2 typical 21.5 16 SW 57 Russell Road Griffy Creek Tributary Stabilization concept drawing 3 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 $280,000 $11,885,260
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 61 2016
Table 8: Project Prioritization
OVERALL WEIGHTED ESTIMATED PROJECT CUMULATIVE COST PRIORITY POTENTIAL CIP ID PROPOSED PROJECT PROPOSED CIP DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST OF PROJECTS RANKING
Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway 1 50 SW 48a Automated Monitoring System Phase 1 Locations (5 sites) $35,000 $35,000 Flooding Project Types
2 42.5 SW 01 N. Mt. Tabor Road drainage Barr to Woodland Roadside Ditching; Upstream Staged Storage; add/replace culverts $228,400 $263,400 Roadway Flooding
3 41 SW 11 Mt. Tabor Road at Bean Blossom/Bottom Road Raise roadway to bridge; provide depressional storage $348,250 $611,650 Collection & Conveyance
4 39 SW 07 East Moore's Creek Road Raise Roadway 2' for 1600' and add roadside ditching $557,125 $1,168,775 Bridges/Culverts
5 39 SW 42 Shuffle Creek Road / Stream stream/roadway stabilization per Condition 2 Detail $327,500 $1,496,275 Stream Stabilization
Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway 6 37 SW 48b Automated Monitoring System Phase 2 Locations (4 sites) $20,000 $1,516,275 Regional Detention Flooding
HecRAS Study to determine cause of flooding; Tailwater, tributary conveyance 7 37 SW 32 South Breedon Road - Indian Creek $40,000 $1,556,275 Stormwater Basin Retrofit capacity; other 5 DOWNSTREAM CROSSINGS (2) Relocation of portion of stream; East Baby Road DOWNSTREAM: Baby 8 36 SW 03 Repair/Replacement of Structures; Stream bank improvements at confluence with $349,750 $1,906,025 Y Private Property Drainage/Flooding Creek/Brummetts Creek Confluence Brummetts Creek E 9 35.5 SW 29 414 W. Terrace Flooding Add depressional storage $20,000 $1,926,025 A Ongoing Maintenance R Sycamoe Land Trust Riparian Land Conservation 10 34 SW 56 Open Space / Land Conservation $250,000 $2,176,025 Project
11 33.5 SW 05 N. Brummetts Creek Road Install signage and reflective delineator posts along shoulder $16,380 $2,192,405
12 33.5 SW 47 Stinesville Stormwater Collection system Grant Fund Match & General Maintenance Services $100,000 $2,292,405
13 32.5 SW 31 Smithville property north of post office Integrated stormwater storage/public space $150,000 $2,442,405
Roadway stabilization and roadside drainage improvements per typical concept 14 32 SW 26 Bryant's Creek Road $240,000 $2,682,405 drawing; potential culvert replacement Commission Study/survey and review of existing culverts and bridges spanning Rail Banked Trail Drainage Infrastructure 15 31 SW 50 waterways on rail trails inclding Monon and Illinois Central. Include recommendations $60,000 $2,742,405 Assessment (Culverts and Bridges) for remediation
16 29.5 SW 08 Stipp Road West location Raise Roaday/ Investigate Property Buyout - Expand Cartop State Recreation Area $400,000 $3,142,405
PaveDrain shoulders and supplemental subsurface storage; potential hybrid ditch 17 29.5 SW 51 Fairway Lane Drainage $127,000 $3,269,405 solution for safety Convert impoundment area to stormwater wetland with low flow channel, staged 18 29 SW 16 Fieldstone Subdivision Dam storage, and native bioretention plantings; potential Grant ecological WQ $451,250 $3,720,655 improvement project; Install RealTime Monitoring -OPtiRTC or similar
Illinois Central Trail: Victor Pike INDOT 19 28 SW 52 160 foot pedestrian truss bridge at the mitigation site - Contech DYOB $350,000 $4,070,655 Mitigation Site Pedestrian Bridge
Illinois Central Trail: Whaley Stone Mill Trestle New 80' bridge span, new 80' superstructure, substructure work. See Project 20 28 SW 53 $550,000 $4,620,655 Pedestrian Bridge Estimate dated 4/13/2015 Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Drainage & Development limitations; improved upstream stormwater management; stream 21 27.5 SW 19a Conveyance Issues - Curry Industrial Park $135,000 $4,755,655 restoration/improvements for 2 stage channel for conveyance (Jonathan Drive)
22 27.5 SW 10 Northwest Park multi use trail Add stormwater swale adjacent to proposed trail route $262,875 $5,018,530 1 Install large vane grate street inlets with open curb backs and connect to existing 0 23 27.5 SW 49 Street Inlet Projects $50,000 $5,068,530 inlets at 3 locations. PaveDrain shoulders and supplemental subsurface storage; potential hybrid ditch Y 24 27 SW 15 Cherry Lane Drainage $422,500 $5,491,030 solution for safety E A 25 27 SW 45 Smithville - Conveyance improvements Improved ditching, & routing; culvert replacement $100,000 $5,591,030 R Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Clearing & 26 27 SW 19c Clean Debris and overgrowth from sinkhole area $20,400 $5,611,430 Debris Cleanup Culvert & ditch maintenance & improvements; Potential long term - raise portion of 27 27 SW 33 South Stanford Road $15,000 $5,626,430 roadway
28 27 SW 40 6755 May Road Roadway culvert installation with ditching and in line storage upstream $25,000 $5,651,430
S.McCormick Lane storage & conveyance 29 26.5 SW 30 Roadside staged storage swale and upstream inline storage per concept plan $136,600 $5,788,030 improvements Site BMP O&M Manual update & staff training; add outdoor rinse/containment area; 30 26.5 SW 24 County Highway Garage $30,000 $5,818,030 add Bioretention area forebay; implement surface drainage improvements (paving) Sinking Creek Terminal Sinkhole Drainage & Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; Retrofit 31 26.5 SW 19b $414,500 $6,232,530 Conveyance Issues - S. Fernwood Drive pond using typical pond retrofit details 32 26.5 SW 06 Old SR 46 Install signage and reflective delineator posts along shoulder $7,200 $6,239,730 Drive culvert replacement with inlet structure to prevent clogging; potential regional 33 26 SW 38 4870 & 4920 Walnut Street Pike $40,000 $6,279,730 storage East Baby Road UPSTREAM: Baby 34 26 SW 04 UPSTREAM CROSSINGS (2) Repair/Replacement of Structures $378,800 $6,658,530 Creek/Brummetts Creek Confluence Develop a Park Master Plan allowing for minimal/passive use of sinkhole attenuation 35 25.5 SW 22 Karst Farm Park areas and addressing overall stormwater management with potential irrigation $40,000 $6,698,530 recirculation/reuse Install perforated pipe, underdrain, and yard inlet to get sotormwater off the surface to 36 25.5 SW 55 Hank's Crossing Collection system extension $25,000 $6,723,530 the exisitng conveyance system
37 25 SW 54 Monon Crossing at Jack's Defeat Creek 10' x 5' box culvert with approach work $170,000 $6,893,530 Vernal Pike Drainage & Conveyance 38 24.5 SW 28 Add culvert & Ditiching to positive outlet $20,000 $6,913,530 1 Improvements 5 39 24.5 SW 44 Smithville - Bill Slater contracting yard Detention in ROW $50,000 $6,963,530
40 23.5 SW 23 County Fairgrounds Commission Study/survey and review of existing drainage $30,000 $6,993,530 Y Replace existing culvert with 3 sided culvert; incorporate upstream energy E 41 22 SW 37 W. Rock East Road at Hebron Church $75,000 $7,068,530 dissipation/forebay; Pursue drainage easement to Little Indian Creek A Roadway stabilization and roadside drainage improvements per typical concept 42 22 SW 14 E. Kerr Creek Road $376,000 $7,444,530 R drawing Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; Retrofit 43 22 SW 09 Northwest Industrial Park - Post office pond $280,080 $7,724,610 pond using typical pond retrofit details Cavewood Court: Terminal Sinkhole backup 44 21.5 SW 17 Property Buyout $700,000 $8,424,610 flooding
45 21.5 SW 34 2950 Thrasher Road Future Road Repairs / annual ditch maintenance & inspection $10,000 $8,434,610 Roadway and Stream stabilization and rimprovements per Condition 2 typical concept 46 21.5 SW 57 Russell Road Griffy Creek Tributary Stabilization $280,000 $8,714,610 drawing 47 21 SW 41 4760 Popcorn Road Driveway Culvert & Roadside ditching $20,000 $8,734,610
48 21 SW 02 Anderson Road at Fish Raise road and improve roadside ditching (2 locations) $420,750 $9,155,360
49 21 SW20 Bottom Road Raise 4-5 sections of Bottom Road that are subject to flooding. $752,500 $9,907,860 Add additional culvert or replace existing with one similar in size to the crossing under 50 20.5 SW 21 South Rogers Road at San Juan Flooding $50,000 $9,957,860 the next downstream road 51 20 SW 39 8525 Evans Road Roadway & Driveway culvert installation $25,000 $9,982,860
52 20 SW 36 9240 Ketchum Annual Ditch/Culvert Maintenance & Inspection $5,000 $9,987,860
53 20 SW 43 6677 Shuffle Creek Road Property Buyout $250,000 $10,237,860 2 Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; Clean and 54 18.5 SW 27 Woodgate Detention Basin $30,000 $10,267,860 0 Retrofit pond using typical pond retrofit details 55 18.5 SW 46 Sinking Creek crossing at Curry Pike Multiple Culvert replacement $750,000 $11,017,860 Y E Perform as-built survey to determine potential additional storage benefits; Retrofit A 56 18 SW 25 Mt. Tabor Road S. of Legacy Meadows $25,000 $11,042,860 pond using typical pond retrofit details R Clear & ditch upstream; cut down tree blocking downstream; fill embankment erosion 57 17 SW 35 9400 Rockport Road $30,000 $11,072,860 & construct asphalt spillway at road low point Stream stabilization & energy dissipation; In stream structures to prevent movement 58 17 SW 12 Brock Road $443,400 $11,516,260 of large logs/debris 59 15.5 SW 18 Bunger Sinkhole at Bunger Road Development limitations; improved upstream stormwater management $138,000 $11,654,260 Roadway stabilization and roadside drainage improvements per typical concept 60 15.5 SW 13 Hash Road $231,000 $11,885,260 drawing
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 62 2016
4 Results Project Characteristics Funding
4.0 Results All of the proposed projects show beneficial results in improving flooding and stormwater conveyance across the County.
The results of the analysis and prioritized project ranking using the specified parameters indicate that the highest priority project to benefit the overall stormwater management in Monroe County is implementation of Phase 1 of the Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway Flooding (Project SW 48a). The full prioritized project list is presented in Table 8.
4.1 Project Characteristics Specific characteristics of note are listed below:
Most Effective Characteristics: 1. Lowest Capital Cost Per Area Managed = SW 05 N. Brummetts Creek Road Reflective Delineators 2. Largest Raw Scored Impact = SW 01 N. Mt. Tabor Road Drainage Bar to Woodland 3. Largest Weighted Scored Impact = SW 48a Remote Monitoring Program for Road Flooding 4. Most Overall Watershed Area Managed = SW 11 Mt. Tabor Road at Bean Blossom Creek
Least Effective Characteristics: 1. Highest Capital Cost Per Area Managed = SW09 – Post Office Pond Retrofit 2. Smallest Raw Scored Impact = SW 13 Hash Road 3. Smallest Weighted Scored Impact = SW 13 Hash Road 4. Least Overall Watershed Area Managed = SW21 – S. Rogers Road at San Juan Drive
The estimated total of all currently identified projects is approximately $12 Million including design services, land acquisition, permitting. A 20% contingency has been applied due to the preliminary nature of the information used for pricing analysis.
Sixteen (16) projects totaling just over $2.0 Million are identified for completion by 2021 (Year 5 of the document). All of these projects are primarily related to the alleviation of roadway flooding.
Implementation of the projects outlined in this plan will contribute to management of over 260,000 acres across 23 watersheds and will have a significant positive impact on flooding, public safety, ongoing maintenance and water quality.
Project information is broken down by number of projects of each project type identified in Section 3.2, and by overall cost per project type. See Figures 33 and 34.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 64 2016
1; 2% Roadway Flooding 5; 8%
Collection & Conveyance 6; 10% 21; 35% Bridges/Culverts
Stream Stabilization 5; 8% Regional Detention
3; 5% Stormwater Basin Retrofit
Private Property Drainage/Flooding 8; 14% 11; 18% Ongoing Maintenance
Figure 33: Number of Projects by Type
$30,000; 0% Roadway Flooding $1,552,500; 13% Collection & Conveyance
$540,080; 5% $3,827,605; 32% Bridges/Culverts
Stream Stabilization $1,250,725; 10% Regional Detention
Stormwater Basin Retrofit $1,050,900; 9%
$1,034,900; 9% Private Property Drainage/Flooding Ongoing Maintenance $2,598,550; 22%
Figure 34: Cost of Projects by Type Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 65 2016
4.2 Funding This funding analysis is intended to present information on mechanisms that may be utilized to fund the range of stormwater problem mitigation projects that are recommended in the report. As will be seen, there are a number of federal, state, county, and private programs available to assist with the funding of stormwater projects. Each method has qualifications and limitations on how the funding may be used and for whether local matching funds (local financial participation) will be required.
Currently, Monroe County operates a $1.13 million stormwater budget generated from the County Stormwater Utility Fee. The Monroe County Stormwater Budget of $1.13 million is divided into the following categories: Personal Services ($293K), Expenses ($146K), Other Services & Charges ($513K) and Capital Outlays ($105K). The items funded under Personal Services include staff salaries, overtime, and uniforms expenses. The items funded under Expenses include: office supplies, vehicle maintenance, see/mulch/compost/plantings, pipes, backfill/pavement repairs, and signs. The items funded under Other Services and Charges include: General Engineering Studies, Equipment Repair, Equipment Rental, General Contract Services, and Misc. Drainage Improvements. The items funded under the Capital Outlays include: vac truck, street sweeper, dump truck, and computer hardware. Approximately $228,000 is allocated to misc. drainage improvements, $50,000 to seed/mulch/composting/plantings and $40,000 to pipes. It is unlikely that the stormwater projects identified in this report would be funded from the general fund.
The state, federal, and private funding sources that might be utilized to by the County to fund stormwater projects are identified in the following table. The table below identifies the funding program name, the name of the administering entity in the state of Indiana, a website for additional information, a description of the program, eligibility requirements for each identified funding program.
Applying for and receiving grants identified in the table will allow the County to perform more projects than it would by relying only on local funding. Some of the below grants would require private public partnerships or the County partnering with a local 501 C (3) non for profit.
It should be noted that government assistance programs are ever evolving, particularly in the funding levels and application requirements. Existing programs may not be suitable, or adequate, for a given project at the time of implementation. In addition, some of these programs may sunset and new programs become available in the future.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 66 2016
Table 9: Identified Grant Programs
DRAFT
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 67 2016L
5 Conclusions and Recommendations Summary Immediate Short Term Actions 5 Year Goals 10 Year Goals 20 Year Goals
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
Immediate Short Term Actions
Based on the outcomes of this report, the County should consider how best to allocate its staff and financial assets to meet stormwater management goals and obligations. Recommended short term actions include: Refine proposed stormwater project costs and ranking to determine final number of projects for construction for years 1 through 5 based on available staff and budget resources. Develop a database entry form and accompanying Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to populate future projects within the project ranking system and track project completion, implementation, and ongoing maintenance. Implement project SW 48a – Phase 1 of the Remote Monitoring Program for Roadway Flooding. (Appendix D) Complete topographic survey and preliminary design documents and make recommendation for the implementation of the SW 01 N. Mt. Tabor Road drainage project. Develop a Commercial and Industrial Park stormwater basin retrofit program. Perform an Ordinance / Policy / Incentive review relevant to Stormwater Management with recommendations and guidance for future development standards for stormwater management. Develop and issue a Request for Qualifications for annual on-call contracting services for storm infrastructure general contractor and stream stabilization specialty contractor for maintenance & improvement projects $50,000 or less. Develop and implement an internal project tracking and review process to ensure compliance with MS4 regulatory requirements and stormwater management on County Capital Improvement Projects. A draft outline of this process is included as Appendix E. Establish a budget line item for maintenance of stormwater infrastructure specific to multi-use trails, including temporary rehabilitation of bridges and replacement of culverts. Establish a budget line item for ongoing maintenance and funding of improvements outlined in this plan. Engage consultant to capitalize on the multiple grants identified in this report and assist with strategic grant writing, administration and targeting opportune public, private, and nonprofit partnerships. Develop a public outreach strategy to promote and consistently brand the Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan and the implemented projects.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 69 2016
5 Year Goals and Actions Complete design and implementation of top 16 ranked projects from Table 8, totaling approximately $3.0 Million • Establish a database to track, monitor, and report efforts to improve stormwater management through implementation of projects in this plan as well as ongoing projects identified. • Apply projects for local and national awards and recognition (e.g. Indiana Association of Floodplain and Stormwater Managers (INAFSM) • Provide presentation of Long Term Stormwater Master Plan and completed projects at local, state, and national conferences (e.g. StormCon) • Implement an outreach program for multiple audiences with appropriate delivery mechanisms and venues specific to each target audience to build interest in the new incentives program(s) • Expand intern program to allow for data collection, analysis, and monitoring of expanding stormwater management infrastructure across the County. • Re-analyze the 10, 15, and 20 year goals based on accomplishments in years 1-5 and incorporation of newly identified CIPs, stormwater projects, and funding opportunities. • Develop Municipal Staff training workshops • Develop Contractor training program
10 Year Goals and Actions Complete design and implementation of projects 17-32 from Table 8, totaling approximately $3.1 Million • Identify additional projects to be implemented in the next 5 years beyond year 20. • Re-analyze the 15, and 20 year goals based on accomplishments in years 1-5 and incorporation of newly identified CIPs, stormwater projects, and funding opportunities • Hire/Engage a grant coordinator to build public private partnerships, refine and update funding matrix, and administer grants
15 Year Goals and Actions • Become recognized as a State leader for Stormwater Management activities. • Complete design and implementation of projects 33 - 48 from Table 8, totaling approximately $2.9 Million • Identify additional projects to be implemented in the next 5 years beyond year 25.
20 Year Goals and Actions • Complete design and implementation of projects 49-60 from Table 8, totaling approximately $1.9 Million • Review and update the Long Range Stormwater Management Plan for the next 20 years.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 70 2016
APPENDIX A – TYPICAL DETAILS
DRAFT
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 72 2016
DRAFT
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 73 2016
DRAFT
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 74 2016
DRAFT
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 75 2016
DRAFT
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 76 2016
APPENDIX B –PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY AND SURVEYS
Monroe County Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan- Community Questionnaire
The Monroe County Long Range Stormwater Questionnaires were developed to gather input for the Monroe County Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan. There were three questionnaires developed for the following groups: the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, county employees, and the general public. Each questionnaire is further described below.
Board of Commissioners The questionnaire was distributed to the Board of Commissioners during the board meeting on October 9th, 2014. The key information gathered from the questionnaire included drainage project ranking metrics that were discussed during the presentation and that were used to prioritize potential projects. These comments were integrated into the final project ranking matrix.
County Employees The questionnaire was distributed to county employees at the various county garages on October 9th, 2014. The key information gathered from the questionnaire included stormwater problem collection process information, available equipment to handle stormwater complaint projects, and the importance and familiarity (providing repairs/solutions) of various stormwater projects. These comments were integrated into the final project ranking matrix.
General Public The general public questionnaire was distributed by using a form hosted on the County website and was also made available at the Public Meeting held on January 15th, 2015. A total of 10 surveys were completed.
The results of these surveys are further described below.
The first section of the survey determined how long the resident has lived at the property and how often flooding has been noticed during that time. The average length of ownership was 16 years with the maximum being 30 years and the shortest was 5 years. Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they have had flooding in their yard, while only 2 people provided information that their basement had flooded. Another respondent indicated that their crawl space had been flooded once during a heavy storm. Each person that responded to the survey with flooding problems had some type of evidence, like a photograph, water line or other, to show the extent of these flood events.
Each respondent was asked if they were part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and if they had taken any personal measures to control the flooding on their property. Forty percent of those who responded said they were part of the NFIP. Many people had already taken measures to protect their property. Some example of control measures given in the survey were:
• Trenching around house • Installing flood walls • Installation of a sump pump • Install drains around house
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 78 February 2016
A majority of the respondents indicated that they had experienced erosion becoming worse along the streets and the banks of streams on their property. Others reported sink holes on their property getting larger, gravel on driveway washed out and the dirt around drain pipes being washed away. A few respondents had taken the following actions: purchasing gravel for along the roadways, filling holes in their yard where it had been washed away and installing drains and trenches with riprap on their property to control the flooding.
Questions were also asked about the age and type of foundation of the house of the residence. The average age of the houses from the people filling out the questionnaire was 43 years old with the oldest being over 100 years old and the most recent build being just 9 years old. The supporting structure under the houses were as follows:
• 2 split level with crawl space • 5 crawl space only • 2 slab only • 1 with basement only
Of the respondents, only three people had sump pumps and none of those had led to any flooding due to failure of the pumps. Sixty percent of the respondents reported having private septic systems and the other forty percent are on public systems. Three respondents reported that during some of the rain events they have been blocked from gaining access to their homes due to flood waters.
The survey also gathered information on how the public learns of flooding in the area and how the communications could improve. All of the respondents to the survey marked that they learned of the flooding by their own observations and by obtaining information on television and radio.
When given options on the best methods to distribute or share information with the public, the results were as follows:
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 79 February 2016
Table 1.B: Best Method (s) for the Public to Receive Information 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 Mail Website Meetings Email Newspaper Social Media Mindmixer
The survey asked for final thoughts and additional comments. Below are the summaries of those that responded:
• Wants the city to put storm sewers throughout town. Since they have to pay for the service each, they should get the service that they currently don’t receive.
• The city has known about their issue for years and when they complain the city comes out each time. The city will make some marks in the yard and the street, but nothing is ever resolved with the issue. The water continues to not go into the drain and will sit in the street and in front of their house.
• Has complained and shared videos of the problem on Rockport Road. The highway department has cleaned the ditched on both side of Rockport road. Last year the department installed a drainage culvert across Stansifer Lane. Respondent told the city that it would not fix the problem and there needed to be an east/west drainage on the north side of Stansifer Lane. Currently the respondent has a large rut or crevice running across the gravel driveway in front of his house. Every rain gravel is removed from the driveway and it has to be shoveled back into the driveway.
• Has talked with the airport about their problem and they offered to help the situation, but nobody else he has contacted believes he has a problem. The city has been out to the area but don’t seem to want to be involved with the fix. A simple culvert upgrade would eliminate the issue.
• According to the surveyors and mortgage people the house is not located in a flood area. The house sits on higher ground and isn’t threatened but there is a large sink hole that is located close to the path of the culvert that exits from under SR 45. The storm water was brown in early January so it contained soil. Photographs can be provided to show the water breeching the access road during the storm.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 80 February 2016
• Jack’s Defeat Creek bisects his property with the floodplain on one side. No damage has been experienced, but the biggest issue was from FEMA replotting the floodplain. Respondent had to pay for a LOMA so he wasn’t paying for flood insurance on his property unnecessarily.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan Page 81 February 2016
APPENDIX C – PROJECT CONCEPT PLANS
APPENDIX D – AUTOMATED MONITORING MEMO
Memo
To: Todd Stevenson, Monroe County Public Works From: Danny Ketzer, P.E., Amec Foster Wheeler CC: Jean Ramsey, P.E., Amec Foster Wheeler Re: Remote Flood Monitoring
Amec Foster Wheeler conducted research to determine a few options available to Monroe County to establish an advanced flood warning system. These sensors would be installed at bridges or culverts and are capable of measuring water depth and sending electronic warnings at predetermined water elevations. Depending on the setup, this data can be available online in real time. There are several components to the flood monitoring setup:
Data Logger ($1,420-$1,780 each) The data logger is the computer that the water elevation sensor and any other sensors (eg. rainfall gage) connects to. These data loggers run on batters, with some batter lives recorded as lasting up to 5 years. Batteries can also be supplemented with mounted solar panels at additional cost.
Housing ($400 each using commercial products) The data logger needs to be housed to protect it from the elements and vandalism. Commercially available houses made of fiber glass are available, though these houses are not always durable enough to withstand vandalism. The project team has used corrugated plastic piping and sheet metal to construct rugged houses in the past.
Sensors ($800 each) A sensor is used to physically measure the water depth. The sensor is connected with a cable to the data logger and will be mounted outside of the housing unit to a bridge, culvert, or in a stream bed. The sensor may need to be mounted inside of a piece of piping for additional protection. There are two main types of depth sensors: pressure transducers and radar sensors. Pressure transducers are mounted in the stream bed and measure the water pressure above them. They are often out of sight but need to be adjust seasonally as frozen water can damage the sensor. Radar sensors are mounted at the crown of culverts or the low chord of bridges and measure the distance the water surface elevation is below the sensor. These sensors are often high enough to avoid ice and debris, but are visible to the public. The radar sensors also cannot measure the water elevation once the sensor is flooded.
Communication Device ($682 each) The data logger will need to be attached to a communication device for incoming and outgoing signal exchange. This is often a cellular modem as priced here, but can be a radio or other transmission device.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 139 2016
Software ($600+ one time purchase) The data logger and sensor are managed using proprietary software. This software is capable of sending out electronic warnings over text and email and often allows users or the public to view the data in real time. The software license only needs to be purchased once and is capable of managing all of the deployed sensors and data loggers. Advanced versions of the software can manage electronic warning signs remotely, though these signs are not available commercially from the vendors contacted.
Maintenance According the vendors, each sensor typically requires maintenance once to twice per year. Typical maintenance involves clearing the sensor of debris, checking its functionality, changing batteries, and moving the position of pressure transducers to avoid ice. A faulty or blocked sensor can often be detected from its data, which can help determine if additional maintenance visits are required.
Summary ($3290+ per site plus $600+ software) The quoted price for a single sampling station was $3290 plus the software license and maintenance. This price may vary depending on choice of sensor, housing, and communication device. Some data loggers are cable of using water quality sensors, which may allow the deployment to be paired with water quality grants and funding sources. Amec Foster Wheeler can coordinate with vendors to tailor a deployment strategy that best meets Monroe County’s needs and resources.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 140 2016
APPENDIX E – STORMWATER REVIEW PROCESS FOR CIPs
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 141 2016
Integrating comprehensive stormwater planning into the capital improvement project process from the onset is the most effective approach for reducing and preventing potential pollution and flooding problems. Early stormwater management planning will generally minimize the size and cost of structural and nonstructural solutions. Interdepartmental coordination, communication, and collaboration is recommended for the most cost effective design solution and can also identify overlapping projects to help minimize overall County costs. The flow chart below outlines the process for inclusion/integration of Stormwater review for capital improvement projects.
Long Range Stormwater Improvement Plan – February Page 142 2016