Rush Creek: A Story of Redemption
CREEKS GONE WILD
Arlington Stormwater Division
 Stormwater Division of Public Works is:
 Engineers
 Education
 Environmental Compliance Officers
 Operations and Maintenance
 Stormwater Utility Fee
 Based on impervious area
 Funding raised from $1.30 in 2007 to $4.25 in 2010
($3.8 million a year to $10.3)
Arlington Stormwater Background
 Arlington Policy History
 Rational Method Design
 5-25 year storm sewer design
 Detention only required if “downstream” structural flooding
occurs
 BMPs recently required based on site size
 Erosion control projects only when infrastructure is
threatened
 Past Drainage Projects
 Drainage projects were limited scope and highly localized
 Buyout projects:
 Johnson Creek area (140 structures in 2003)
 Rush Creek – Shady Valley (6 structures in 2009)
Rush Creek Background
 Rush Creek Watershed
stats
 ~28 square miles
 ~260,000 linear feet of
creek
 ~1,500 structures in
floodplain
 Flooding history?
Rush Creek Development
1976
1962
2009
1976
September 8, 2010 – 50 Year Storm
Sept 8th, 2010 Storm
 Damage
estimates
 After the
Storm
 High water
marks
 Federal
disaster
declaration ???
Buyout Timeline
 Decision timeline
 Grants and federal uncertainty
 Previous projects and conclusions
 Letters, council executive sessions and
waiting…
 To wait or not to wait
 COUNCIL APPROVAL and spontaneous
impatience
Demo Timeline
appraisal
/ offer
gas and
electric
water
service
pay
people
closing
testing
notify
state
demo
day
internal
permit
Securit
y and
mowing
habitat
training
Lessons Learned
vegetation and
restoration are costly
unknown costs when
testing is done
coincidental to demo
news of vacant houses
travels fast
make ownership as
clear as possible, stop
ANYONE on site
make friends with
your enemies (AKA
unhappy residents)
write a policy before
you need it (lots of
reasons against it
come up after a flood)
what SWPPP???
make sure all
departments are
speaking with “one
voice”
be annoying with
coordination
What’s next
 Park Plan
 Public
meetings
 Other
buyouts
 Gauges
 Watershed
Study
Why bother with a watershed study
 Regulation of
development
 Better CIP planning
 Need accurate flood
risk
 Assessment of
channel stability
Watershed Disorders
 Watershed mixing
 Development-friendly environment
 Built-out
 Large number
of small tributaries
 Unstable
 Undersized bridges
The Plan
 Unsteady





Hec-RAS
2D Area
Hydrology
Subwatershed
boundaries
Channel
stability
analysis
Project
Alternatives
The Structure
City
Hydrology
Consultant
(Halff Associates)
Project Manager
(CDM-Smith)
Channel Stability
(Michael Baker)
RC-1 & Lower
Rush
(Dewberry)
Sub-Watershed
Consultants
Middle Rush
(AECOM)
Upper Rush &
Kee Branch
(Michael Baker)
Project Schedule
July 2011
• Project Kickoff with PMC
Nov 2011
• Hydrology Kickoff
Jan 2012
• Sub-Watershed Consultants Kickoff
Feb 2012
• Public Meeting
April 2012
• Survey Complete
Oct 2012
• Models Complete
Oct 2012
• Channel Stability Analysis Complete
Nov 2012
• Project Alternatives Complete
March 2013
• Submit Physical Map Revision to FEMA
Minor Details
 Public





meeting
Technical
Standards
Website
Memos etc.
Survey
Coordination
Hydrology
 Almost 300 sub-basins ranging from 5
acres to 163 acres
 Submitting to FEMA in July
 Example Discussion: Ultimate
development assumptions
 Assumed 75% impervious for all vacant land
 Time of concentration
Fun Example
Questions