NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING

CLARK COUNTY FLOODCONTROL DISTRICT

NOVEMBER 13,1986

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2200 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NORTH US VEGAS, NEVADA 89030

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: VIRGINIA BAX, P*E* GENERAL MANAGER 230 LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 386-4481

POSTED: NOVEMBER 6, 1986 CLARKCOUNTY COURTHOUSE NORTH LAS VEGAS CITY HALL CITY OF LAS VEGAS CITY HALL REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION \

LT:NOTICE4 AGENDA ,

CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT November 13, 1986

-. -. ACTION ITE?4S :

1 ) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of October 9, 1986

2) REPORT ON FEDERALLEGISLATION

3) CORPSOF ENGINEERS STATUS REPORT

4) POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACCEPTTHE CORPS' RECOMMENDATIONS FORFURTHER STUDY

5) AUTHORIZECHIEF ENGINEER TO REQUEST STATEMENT OFQUALIFICATIONS OR AUTHORIZE TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERINGSERVICES WITH A CONSULTING FIRM

91 AUTHORIZE CHIEF ENGINEER TO REQUEST THE ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEER TO STUDY MFSQUITE, NEVADA

10) APPOINT CHIEF ENGINEER/GENERAL MANAGER

11) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

12) REPORT ON LEGISLATIVEOVERSITE COMMITTEE WORKSHOP

LT:AGENDA:! CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT P.O. Box 396 Las Vegas, Nevada 89125 (702) 386-4481 VIRGINIA E. BAX, P.E. [;enera1 Manager November 6,1986

TO : ClarkCounty Regional Flood Control District

FROM : VirginiaBax-Valentine, P.E., General Manager

SUBJECT: Meetingof November 13, 1986

ACTION ITEMS :

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval is requested for theminutes of theregularly scheduled meeting of October 9, 1986.

2. REPORT ON FED- LEGISLATION: Included in yourbackup material are excerpts from the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 which pertain to the Las Vegas Valley. The Act includes $2 million for planning,engineering, and design of flood control facilities in the Las Vegas Valley,in additon to thefeasibility study. This Act willenable the Corps tobegin actual planning and design of flood control facilities beforethe projects are authorized for construction.

Genericlanguage included in the bill will allow for federalcost- sharing credit oneligible projects which the Flood Control District funds prior to theCorps' authorization. Guidelines will be developedfor determining eligibility within one year from the date (10-17-86) of the Act by the Secretary of the Army.

The Act further states thatprojects constructed within the last fiveyears may be eligible for cost-sharing credit. Inorder to receive credit for projectseligible under this section of the Act, we mustsubmit a listing ofthese projects to theCorps by March 31, 1987. Staff will be workingwith the Technical Committee to determinewhich of the 1981 and1984 Bond Projects may be eligiblefor credit againstthe non-federal share of the cost ofthe Las Vegas Valleyprojects under this provision.

Board Members Bruce L Woodbury, Charrman, Clark County. AI Levy, Vlce-Chairman. Clty of Las Vegas jay fllngham, Clark Countv. Chr~s Chr~stensen. Clty ot Boulder Cltv. Theron Covnes. City of North Las Vegas Carlton Lawrence, Cltv of Henderson, Craig Pulslpher. Cltv ot Mesquite, Ron Lune. Cltv of Las Vepas Memorandum Page 2 November 6, 1986

3. CORPS OF ENGINEERS' STATUS REPORTS: A representative of the Corps of Engineers will be present to report on the Corps of Engineers' Feasibility Study progress.

4. POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACCEPT THE CORPS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: Projectsidentified for further study by the Corps in the Las Vegas Valley areindicated on a map included in yourbackup material. These projectsare Phase I Master Plan projects which have been identified by the Corps as beingeconomically justi- fiableas required for federal funding. The Technical Committee has reviewed theprojects identified on the Corps' map.The Corps hasincluded additional projects at therequest of the staff and the Technical Committee.

5. AUTHORIZE CHIEF ENGINEER TO REQUEST STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AUTHORIZE TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH A CONSULTING FIRM: The Corps of Engineerssuggested that the Flood ControlDistrict contract with consulting firms to perform the task of extending overflowcross-sections on the floodways identified by the Corps in theirfeasibility study. A draft scope ofwork is included in the backup material.This task is on the critical path for timelycompletion of the feasibilitystudy. The Corps will refund cost of this task out of the $1 60,000 fiscal year 1987 share of the study paid by the Flood Control District.

The Corps has recommended that the District contractfor these servicesrather than the Corps to expeditethe selection process. TheBoard may authorizethe ChiefEngineer to negotiate a contract forengineering services with oneof three Eirms recommended, authorizethe Chief Engineer to issue a formal request for state- mentof qualifications, or directthe Corps to contract with a consulting firm through theirprocess.

6. STATUS REPORT ON THE PROJECT PRIORITY LIST: The Technical Committee hasappointed a subcommittee, chaired by Richard GOecke, to developthe criteria for evaluatingpriority and to developthe short- and long-range projectpriority lists. The Subcommittee has met three times and has developed a listing of prioritycriteria which is included in the backup material. The subcommittee is in theprocess now of evaluating every Phase I project identified in the Master Planaccording to these criteria.

Also included in the backup is a draft of a Go-No Go formwhich could be used by otheragencies or private citizens as a method of

-2- Memorandum Page 3 November 6, 1986

communicating publicinterest in theirparticular flood control priorities to theTechnical Committeeand the Board.

The subcommittee will report to the Technical Committee attheir December meeting andmake recommendations to the Board attheir January 1987 meeting.

7. STATUS REPORT ON THE UNIFORM FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE AND RYLICY COMMITTEE: The Technical Committee hasappointed a subcommittee, chaired by Richard Holmes, to work on developing a Uniform Floodplain Ordinance and OperatingPolicy for the Flood ControlDistrict. The subommittee has met three times and has reviewed the Model Ordinancesubnmitted by Montgomeryand numerous otherordinances from around the county. The subcommittee membershad several suggestions onwhat should andwhat shouldnot be included in the ordinance. A partiallisting of theseitems is included in your backup material. The Chief Engineer and John Murchiefrom the City of North LasVegas are in theprocess of drafting theordi- nance to send to theTechnical Committee attheir December mee ti ng . The subcommittee has also beenworking on developingoperating policyfor the District. The subcommittee has begun this task by defininglocal versus regional functions. Listings of the regional and localfunctions discussed so farare included in the backup material.Ultimately, these functions will be worked into the Flood ControlDistrict Policies and Procedures. Also included in the backup material is a draftpolicy which definesthe Flood Control Districts' role in reviewingland development projects.

8. MASTER PLAN DISTRIBUTION: Master Plan Volumes I and I1 have been printed and areavailable at the Flood Control District office. They will be distributed free of charge to publicagencies and will be sold atprinting cost to localconsultants and otherinterested parties. Check-out copies will be availablefor the general public at thepublic libraries and at the Flood Control District office.

9. AUTHORIZE CHIEF ENGINEER TO REQUEST THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER TO STUDY MESQUITE, NEVADA: Staffrequests authorization requestto that the Corps of Engineersconduct a reconnaissancelevel study of Mesquite, Nevada. Mesquite is eligiblefor potential study as a smallpro- ject and does notrequire congressional action to be studied. Reconnaissance studiesare funded entirely by thefederal govern-

-3- :leaorandurn Page 4 November 6, 1986

ment todetermine if there is a federal interestin solving the problem.Ifthe results of thereconnaissance study indicates there is federal interest,then the Flood Control District would be asked to participate in a cost shared feasibility studysimilar to the study underway in the Las Vegas Valley.

10. APPOINT A CHIEF ENGINEER/GENERAL .rlANAGER: The Board previouslyextended the Chief Engineer/General Manager contractthrough Novewmber 15, 1986. At this time, staff request that the Board take action to appointthe interim Chief Engineer andGeneral tanager as permanent. The agreementoutlining the previouslynegotiated salary and a recommendation from the origi- nalsix members of the Citizen'sAdvisory Committee are included in the backup material.

11. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: Ann Zorn will be present to report on the activities of the CitizensAdvisory Committee. The Citizens Committee has been activelyinvolved in working with the Technical Committee in deve- lopingthe Model Ordinanceand the Priority List. Additionally, the Citizens Committee hasbeen working with staff to recommend changes to the state flood control law.

12. REPORT ON LEGISLATIVE OVERSITE COMMITTEE WORKSHOP: The Legislative Oversite Committee held a workshopon October 28, 1986, to discuss the contents of a draft bill to amend NRS 543. Includedin the backup material for this item are the recommen- dations of the Nevada TaxpayersAssociation and the recommen- dationsdeveloped by the staff and the Citizens Committee. The recommendations were discussed at lengthand the Committee agreed to incorporate some of the Taxpayersrecommendations into the bill draft. Of the items suggestedby the TaxpayersAssociation not includedin the bill draft, most will be includedin the Flood PlainOrdinance or in the Districts' Policyand Procedures mnual. The Chief Engineer will coverbriefly the items which will be included in the bill draft.

c /

-VIRgINIA BAX-VALENTINE, P.E. General Manager wjr

MI: Memo Heron, Burchette, RuckertQ8Rothwell suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.20007 (202) 337-7700 TWX 710-822-9270

October 28, 1986 Mr. Bruce L. Woodbury Commissioner Board of County Commissioners Clark County Bridger Building 225 Bridger Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89155 Dear Commissioner Woodbury: Attached is the bill and report language we discussed regarding the Las Vegas Valley flood control area. The general guidelines for receiving credit for non-Federal expenditures are on pages 7 and 8. As you can see, the law requires the Secretary to issue guidelinesfor determining whether work carried out with local funds is compatible with the Federal flood control project. Compatible local expenditures would qualify under the bills' cost sharing provisions. A further explanation of this part of the Act is included in the Conference report on pages 208 and 209. In addition, the specific authorization for your project is on pages 50 and 51. The bill has not yet reached the White House due to problems sorting out the massive volumes of legislation that passed the last week of the session. However, I talked to my friends at the White House this morning and they assured me the President would sign the bill when it reaches him. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to Cali me. Good luck on the construction. Sincerely,

Richard L. Spees ..

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986 s

Onoent 17, 1986.4hdered to be printed

Mr. HOWARD,from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

.Poaccompany H.R.q The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6) to pre vide for the conservation and development of water and related re- sources and the improvement and rehabilitation of the Nation's water resources infrastructure, having met, after full and free con- . .. ference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their re- ,I . ,. spective Houses as follows: .. .* . I . I That the House recede from ita disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol- lows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following SECTION I. SEORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS (a) SHORT TXTLE.-T~~SAct may be cited as the "Water ~esources lkvelopment Actof 1986'! (b, TULE OF &h"EIWS.- Title I--Cart shoring .. Tit& II-Harbor awlopment - .. . I Title III-Inland Waterway lhznaportation -tern Tit& IV--Flood Control Title V-Shomlitw Roktion TTtle VI- Water Rgourog Chuyvation and awbpment Tit& Ti- Water Raourca Studus I Title VIZI-Rvject Modificcltionr Title fl&nCld hVi8WM Titie X-&jet acOutirorizatio~ Title XI-Mkllonrour Rrgmmr and hjccb J Tit& XII-hm Safety Tit& XIII-Namingr Title XIV-Rewnue huiswna . .. '. 64-555 0 ! ! I 7 i to satisfy agreements with other non-Federal interests in connection with the project; and (BI may terminate or adjust the rights and privileges of I the non-Federal interest to project outputs under the terms ! of the agreement. 1 (KI PAYMENTOpTronls.-Except as otherwise provided in this see- tion, the Secretary may permit the full non-Fedenrl contribution to be made without interest during construction of the project or sep- mble element, or with interest at a mte determined pursuant to set- hn106 over a period of not more thax thirty years from the date of completion of the project or sepamble dement. Repayment contracts &all provide for recalculation of the interest mte at five-year inter- vals. (1) DELAYOF INITMLPAY.UENT.-At the request of any non-Feder- a1 interest the Secretary may permit such nor?-Federal interest to dehy the initial payment of any non-Fedeml contribution under this section or section 101 for up to one year after the date when mmtruction is begun on the project for which such contribution is to be made. Any such delay in initicl payment shall be subject to interest charges for up to six months at a mte determined pursuant to section 106. (m) ABILITYTO PAY.-Any costsharing agreement under this sec- tion for flood control or agricultuml water supply shall be subject to the ability of a non-Fedeml interest to py. The ability of any non- Fedem1 interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in ac- coniance with procedures established by the Secretary. SC. 101. GENERAL CREDIT FOR FLOOD CONTROL f (a) GwzDELINEs.-within one year after the date of enactment of ? this Act, the Secrvtary shall issue guidelines to carry out this sec- tion, consistent with the principlea and guidelines on project formu- lation The guidelines shall include criteria for determining wheth- er work cwried out by non-Fedeml interests is compatible with a project for flood control and procedures for making such determina- tions. The guidelines under this section shall be promulgated after notice in the Fedeml Register and opportunity for comment. (b) ANALYSISOF Cosn AND BEIvEFITs.-The guidelines estab lished under subsection (a) shallprovide for the Secretary to consid- er, in analyzing the costs and benefits of a proposed project for flood control. the costs and benefits produced by any flood control work carried out by non-Fedeml interests that the Secretary determines to be compatible with the pmjet. For purpapes of the preceding sen- tence the Secretary may consider only workcarried out after the date which is 5 years before the fimt obligation of finds for the re- t connaissance study for such projet. In no case may work uhich was i cad out more than 5 before the dute of the enactment of years this Act be considered under this subsection, unless otherwise pro- vided in thisAct. (c) CREDITINGOF NON-hDERALs€URE.-me guidelines estab- lished under subsection (a) shall provide for crediting the cost of work carried out by the non-Fedeml interests against the non-Feder- a1 share of the cost of an authorized project for frood control as fol- lows: 8 (1) Work which is carried out after the end of the reconnais- sance study and before the submission to Congress of the final report of the Chief of Engineers on the project and which is de- termined by the Secretary to be compatible with the project shall be included as port of the project and shall be recom- mended by the Secretary in the final report for credit against the non-Fedeml share of the cost of the project. (2) Work which is caried out after submission of the final report o the Chief of Engineem to Congress and which is deter- mined the Secretary to be compatible with the project shall be considered6 as part of the project and shall be credited by the Secretary against the non-Fedeml share of the castof the project in accordance with the guidelinespromulgated pursuant to subsection (a). In no event may work which was carried out mom than 5 years before the date of enuctment of this Act be considered under this subsection, unless otherwise provided in this Act. i (d) ~OCEDUREFOR WORK&NE BEFOREDATE OF ENACTMENT.- The Secretary shall consider, under subsections 0 and (c), work car- ried out before the date of enactment of this Act by non-Fedeml in- terests ona roject for fld control, if the non-Fedeml interests apply to the &? cretary for considemtion of such work not later than March 31, 1987. me Secretary shallmake determinations under subsections (b) and (c) with mpct to such work not later than 6 month after guidelines are issued under subsection (a). (e) PROCEDURE FOR WORKDONE AP~ERDATE OF ENACTMENT.- The Secretary shall consider work carried out after the date of en- actment of this Act by non-Federal interests on a project for flood control under subsections (b/ and (c) in accordance with the guide- lines iasued under subsectwn (a). The guidelines shall require prior a pmval by the Secretary of any flood control work camkd out after tkdate of enactment of this Act in order to be considered under this section, taking into account the economic and environmental feasibility of the project. (0 LIMITATION~VOT APPLIcuLE.-Any flood control work includ- ed as part of the non-Fedeml share of the cost of a project under this section shall not be subject to the limitation contained in the last sentence of section 215(aJof the Flood Control Act of1968. (gJ CASH CONTRIBUTIONAY~ AFFECTED.-Nothing in this section affects the requirement of section 103(aXlXA). SEC. 105. FEASiBILiTY STUDIES. PUNNING. ENGINEERING, AND DESIGX (a) F’EASZBZLITYST~DIES.-~) The Secretary shall not initiate any f-ibility study for a water resources pmject after the dateof enact- ment of this Act until appropriate non-Fedeml interests agree, bu contmct, to contribute 50 percent of the cost for such study during the period of such study. Not more than one-half of such non-Feder- 01 contribution may be made by the provision of services. materials. supplies, or other in-kind senices necessary to prepare the fe’easibility rcport. (2) This subsection shall not apply to any water resources study primarily &sWed for the purposes of navigational improvements in the nature of dams, locks. and channels on the Nation k system of inland waterways. 50

(c] hE-CONSTRUCTION AUTnoRIz4TION.-The &creta?y is author- ized Lo carry out planning, engineering, and des@ for the following projects:

GdU GULCH, SANTA CRVZ COUNTY. CALIFORNZA Flood damage prevention in the community of Gold Gulch, near Felton, Santa Cruz County, California, at a total cast of $8#,000. CALLECUAS CREEK, CALIFQRNIA

Flood control works along the lower portion ofGallegucrs Creek, , Conejo Creek to the Pacific Ocean, California, at a total cost of . s2,000,000. COYOTE CREEK, C.UIFORNLA i- A project for ha1 flood control protection measures along the . lower portion of Cbyote Cteek adjacent to ad inthe vicinity of 1 Alviso, California, at a total cost of $750,OiW. LQoISVZLLEs KELWCKY Mecrsums to comt wingproblems in the south end of Louis- vilk, Kentucky, within an are0 bounded by New Cut Road west to the city limits and PabtkaRoad south to the city limits, at a total cast of $300,iWO. The Sectetary is authorized to provide technical as- sistance to the city of Louisville, Kentucky, to assist such city in the correction of flooding caused by drainage problems in such city. LOUISIANA A project to rovide a kvel of protection sufficient to prevent re- curring frood nuages along the following rivers, at a total cost of ~10,ooo,ooo: L (1) Amite River, Louisiana; (2) Comite River, Louisiamx (3) Tangipahoa River, Louisiana; (4) Tchefuncte River,Louisiana; (5) Tickfaw River,Louisiaq (6)Bogue Chitto River,Louisialur. and (7? Natalbany River, Louisiana &I YOU RIWLETTE, WUlSiXNA A project to construct six additional froodgates at Bayou Rig* kt&, Louisia~,djacent to the existing druinage structure, at a total mt Of $&?m,m. BROCXlVN, X4SSACYVSE"s Fzood mnhl works for the protection of Bmckton, Massachusetts, at a total cost of $1,XW,000. The plans for such project shall in- clude, but not & limited to, improuements to ponds in the D. W Field Park area and the existing Bmckton-Avon Reservoir to pro- vide additional stomge, improvements to the dminage system under E. 8. Keith Field, new culverts. improvements to miscellaneous and utilities, and such other downstmum improvements as deems necessary. 51

USYEGAS VALLEY AND TRIBUTARIES AREA, NEVADA A comprehensive project for frood control in the Las Vegas Val& ',*d tributaries area, Nevada, at a total cost of $2,ooO,000. KANALAPAN mWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY Local flood protection measures, inclr!ding such channel widening a& deepening and environmental measures as the Secretary and the Governor of the State of New Jersey may agree, to prevent flood &mage to the midents of the fine Bmk section of Manakrpan Townshi New Jersey, substantially in accordance with the report of the Kvision Engineer, NorthAtlantic Division, entitled'Ex- ndkd Reconnaissance Report for Flood Control on Pine Brook, $w Jersey, Manalapn, New Jersey': dated September 8, 1977, at a &?tal cost of SI600,ooO. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY A project for flood da protection andallied purposes in the plrsscric River Basin, New""$ ersqy and New York, at a total cost of $3,750,000, consisting of the ollowing: (1) UDwr Rockaway R iver Basin, New Jew, at a total cost

$5.G, e*~ - ~~ (3) The roject for frood protection in the Third River, Passa- ic Basin, fiew Jew,at a total cast of $500,000. UUERAND HARNEY LAKES, OREWN Stnrctuml and nonstructuml measures to prevent multing from rising lake levels at Malhauer and Oregon, at a total cast of $3,37O,OOO. MILTON. PENNSYLVANIA A flood control~. project - at Milton, Pennsylvania, at a total cost of $gsh;&@.~ ~ (d) SECTION205 PRwEcTs.-The Secretary is authorized and di- meted to carry outthe followin rojects under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (53 UQ6 701s): SAN FRANCISCO RIVER AT CLImN, ARIZONA A project for frood contml on the San hncisco River at Clifton, Arizona, for the purpose of protecting midential and commercial pmperties on the east side of the river downstmam of the State Highway 666 Bndge, at a total cost of $8,000,000, with an estimated first Fedeml cost of $4,500,000 and an rst non-Fedeml cost of $3,500,000. Such work shall be to complete all Studies and proposals of the Secretary for such area MISSION ZANJA CREEK, REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, a project for flood control works along Mission Zanja Creek within the city of Redlands, Cali- fornia, in accordiznce with the plan developed by the District Engi- neer based on studies pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control 208 It is the intent of the Conferees that where local interests are de- termined by the Secretary to be unable to satisfy the otherwise ap plicablenon-Federal cost sharingrequirements, this inability to pay should not be used to penalize them. In such cases, the Secre- tary should not assign an lower priority to otherwise meritorious rojects because the locdsponsor is economically disadvantaged. . htherrnore, the Conferees intend that the ability to pay test & ap plicableto all projectswith flood controland agricultural water supply benefits, regardless of the project’s overall benefit to cost ratio. Accordingly, any costs required to be paid by local interests by virtue of the provisions of subsection 903(c) of the Conference Report would also be subject to a local sponsor’s ability to pay. Geneml Credits The House bill contained a number of provisions that authorized the Secretary to credit against the non-Federal share of project costs any work undertaken by local interests which was compatible with the flood control project authorized in the bill but which w- undertaken prior to the project’s authorization. As a general matter, the Conference Report deletes such credit- ing rovisionsapplicable to individualprojects. As an alternative, the Eonferees have expanded upon general provisions contained in the House and Senate bills allowing the Secretaryto credit thecost of certain work undertaken by local interests prior to project au- thorization against the non-Federal share of project costs. Under the compromise in the Conference Report. the Secretary, within one year, will developguidelines for the consideration of compatible work. These guidelines are to be developed with public articipationand in conformance with the principles and guide- es on water project review. KThe non-Federal sponsor of any flood control project authorized in this Act may submit to the Secretary a request that work under- taken by the sponsor in the five ears preceding the enactment of this Act be considered as compati i: le, and thus a part of the project for purposes of calculating project benefits and costs and for the purposes of cost sharingcalculating the non-Federal share of project costs. If the Secretary, based on the guidelines called for under the ge neric crediting provision, agrees with the non-Federal sponsor that the work is compatible with the authorized project, then the bene- fits and costs of the work will be counted towards the benefits and costs of the authorized project and the cost of such work can be ap plied toward the non-Federal share of project costs. Such crediting does not relieve the non-Federal sponsor of the re- uirement that it contribute 5 percent of the project cost in cash 8uring the period of construction. number of specific cases, the Conferees have made workInah%unde en prior to the five-yearperiod eligible for consider- ation by the Secretary within the overall framework of the generic provision on crediting. However, consistent with the general credit- mg provision, the Conferees have deleted specific crediting provi- sions for the Three Mile Creek,Alabama: Metropolitan Atlanta. Georgia; Quincy Coastal Streams, Massachusetts; and Lake Wichita (Holliday Creek), Texas, projects. The work specifically referenced 208 209 oes that where local interests are de for crediting in the House bill with respect to these four projects e unable to satisfy the otherwise ap would, however, be eligiblefor consideration underthe generic ring requirements,this inability to credit provision. due them. In such cases, the Secre- er priority to otherwise meritorious Feasibility Reports Wr is economically disadvantaged. Bothbills andthe conferencereport require a reconnaissance nd that the ability to pay test is ap study, at Federal expense, and a feasibility report at 50% non-Fed- bod control and agricultural water era1 cost. Up to half of the non-Federal share is payable in in-bd the project's overall benefit to cost services. The Senate and the House bills and the conference repod quired to be paid by local interests do not apply a study cost sharing to projects on the inland water- subsection 903k) of the Conference way system. a local sponsor's ability to pay. Interest Rate Both theSenate and House billscontained similar provisions umber of provisions that authorized modifjmg the interest rate to be paid by non-Federal interests for the non-Federalshare of project that portion of project costs to be repaid over time. The Senate pro- bcal interests which was compatible visionrequired an extfa oneeight of onepercent to be paid to uthorized in the bill but which was cover Treasury transaction costs. s authorization. The conference report adopts the Senate provision. Lference Report deletes such credit- tividual projects. As an alternative, Additional Work pon general provisions contained in ring the Secretary to credit the cost A number of projects authorized in the Conference Report re local interests prior to project au- quire the Secretary to review certain project-associated problems, cral share of project costs. such as problems associated with the fuh and wildlife or other en- vironmental of a project. a number of such cases, the ! ConferenceRe rt, the Secretary, impacts In guidelines for tR" e consideration of Conference Report authorizes the Secretary to modify the project pes are to be developed with public based on the result of such review. Ice with the principles and guide Such a modifkationmay increase project costs, althoughthe extent of such cost increase may not be known at the time project ny flood control project authorized construction is initiated. ecretary a request that work under- Therefore, the Secretary is expected to includein cost-sharing e yeam preceding the enactment of agreements for such projects, a provision requiring that non-Feder- tible, and thus a part of the project al interests pay the appropriate share of any project modifkations tect benefits and costs and for the implemented by the Secretary pursuant to the authority conferred datingthe non-Federalshare of in this Act. II-HARBOR DEVELOPMENT * guidelines called for under the ge TITLE i with the non-Federal sponsor that The House bill.authorized thirty-seven harbor improvement ! authorized project, then the bene projects in coastal waters and on the Great Lakes. In addition, it e counted towards the benefits and contained several specific provisions-for certain port facilities, ad- nd the cost of such work can be ap ministrative requirementa, and limits on .certain dredging activi- rre of project costs. ties. Major provisions included: c the non-Federal sponsor of the re- -Allowing the study, design, and construction of harbor projects percent of the project cost in cash by non-Federal interest and, under certain circumstances, ai- 1. lowing Federal participation in the funding of such projects. Cc cases, the Conferees have made -Establishing procedures for expediting Federal, state, and local veyear period eligible for consider decisions on approvals for harbor projects, including L overall framework of the genenc required landside facilities. , consistent with the generalcredit- ve deletedspecific crediting row -Creation of a program for Federal guarantees of non-Federal obligations to frnance harbor projects. 1. Alabama; Metropolitan At Panta, I, Massachusetts; and Late Wichita The Senate bill authorized thirty-two harbor projects in coastal L The work specifically referenced waters and on the Great Lakes. In addition, it contained several U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District STATUS REPORT FOR LAS VEGAS WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL STUDY

This report covers the period from October 1, 1986 to November 7, 1986 and will discuss the following topics:

GENERAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES COMPLETED ACTIVITIES CTNDEXWAY FUTURE ACTIVITIES LIST OF CURRENT CONTACTS

I. GENERAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES The first Executive Management Committee was held on October 20, 1986. The meeting was attended by LTC Jackson, Acting District Engineer, C. Enson, Chief, Planning Division; B. Woodbury, Chairman, Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD); V. Bax-Valentine, General Manager, CCRFCD; B. Moore, Chief, Water Resources Branch; J. Dixon, Chief, Planning Section C; D. Gross, Study Manager. The items discussed at the meeting are shown in attachment #l. Two important results of the meeting are: Agreement was reached on the features of the CCRFCD Master Plan to be evaluated by the Corps during the Feasibility Phase Study, and a Study Management Committee was established. D. Gross attended the CCRFCDBoard Meeting and Nevada State Legislature Oversight Committee Meeting on October 9, 1986. D. Gross, J. Mantey and R. Conner made a presentation'regardingFlood Control Economics to the CCRFCD Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on October 22, 1986. The meeting was followed by individual sessions with the members of the TAC on October 23, 1986. D. Gross attended the second meeting of the CCRFCD TAC Subcommittee on Priorities on October 28, 1986. D. Gross and B. Moore attended the CCRFCD TAC Meeting on October 30, 1986. The TAC agreed at the meeting with the map displaying the elements to be evaluated by the Corps during the Feasibility Phase Study. Page 2

11. ACTIVITIES COMPLEI'J?,D HYDROLOGY STUDIES: - A revised draft of the Hydrologic Engineering Center's (HEC) review of the Kinematic Wave Application in the CCRFCD Hydrologic Model was received. A copy has been furnished to V. Bax-Valentine. HYDRAULIC STUDIES: - Completed their review andevaluation of utilizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEW) Re-Study Flood Insurance information for the Feasibility Study. A decision will be made as to whether to utilize the FEMA information entirely or make major modifications to meet Corps standards at the first Study Management Committee meetingon November 14, 1986. Also a decision will be made to contract the flood overflow analysis or do the analysis in-house. The CCRFCD has been approached to determine if the CCRFCD could possibly do this work. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES: - Geotechnical personnel performed a field reconnaissance of detention basin sites during the week of November 3 - November 7, 1986. 111. ACTIVITIES UNDERWAY HYDROLOGY STITDIES: - Continue effort on the development of without project flow values for present and future conditions. These studies are approximately 1 month behind schedule. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES: - Continue preparation of Preliminary Geotechnical Report of detention basin sites. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: - Continue preparation of Planning Aid Letter which will provide an preliminary evaluation of the impacts of the detention basin and channel facilities on fish and wildlife. IV. FUTURE ACTIVITIES CCRFCD Board Meeting - November 13, 1986 Study Management Committee Meeting - November 14, 1986 HEC-1 Seminar in Las Vegas - November 19, 1986 Follow-up meetings with CCRFCD TAC members regarding flood damage assessment information - first week in December, 1986 Page 3

V. LIST OF CURRENT CONTACTS DURING REPORT PERIOD

CONTACT AGENCY SUBJECT V. Bax-Valentine CCRFCD Executive Management Committee Meeting J. Murchie North Las Vegas FloodDamage Assessment Data

T. Carrasco Clark County FloodDamage Assessment Data Comprehensive Planning J. Toth Clark County Flood Damage Information Public Works

C. Kajkowski City of Las Vegas G. Gilpin City of Las Vegas Flood Damage G. Frazer City of Las Vegas Assessment Information A. Gove City of Boulder City Flood Damage Assessment Information

J. Schulz City of Henderson Flood Damage Assessment Information LAS VEGAS WASH AND TRIBUTARIES OCTOBER 20, 1986

AGENDA

ITFM # 1 - ESTABLISH EXECUTIVECO"I"EE - Introduction LTC Jackson - Purpose of Executive Management Committee hrl Enson - Elect Chairman - Establish Study Management Committee ITPi # 2 - STAFF REPORT Don Gross Virginia Valentine - Purpose of Feasibility Study - Current Status -Corps'Feasibility Study -Clark County Regional Flood Control Mstrict Master Plan - Review of Schedules -Corps' FeasibilityStudy -CCRFCD Master Plan Implementation - Interrelationship between Feasibility Study and CCRFCD Master Plan -Discussion of elements of CCRF'CD Haster Plan to be evaluated during feasibility phase by the Corps. -Role of Technical Advisory and Citizens Advisory Committee IT@l # 3 - ESTABLISH NEXTMEETING DATE

Attachment #1 SCOPE OF WORK 1. INSTAUATION AND LOCATION: Las Vegas Wash and Tributaries, Clark County, Nevada. 2. ITEM: Flood Overflow Analysis and Report.

3. AUTHORIZATION : 4. DESCRIPTION OF WORK AND SERVICES: The Architect-Engineer shall conduct field investigations, conduct an overflow analysis and prepare a report for Las Vegas Wash and Tributaries, Nevada. Specifically, a flood overflow analysis shall be prepared for the following watercourses: (See attached map) --Las Vegas Wash - from Interstate 15 toDuck Creek; --Las Vegas Creek - from Valley View Road to Las Vegas Wash; --Las Vegas Range Wash - from Interstate 15 to Las Vegas Wash; --Flamingo Wash - from Rainbow Road to Las Vegas Wash; --Tropicana Wash - from Rainbow Road to Flamingo Wash; --Duck Creek - from Rainbow Road to Las Vegas Wash; --Pittman Wash - from Gibson Road to Las Vegas Wash; --Henderson Area - C-1 Channel. The Architect-Engineer shall follow the procedures outlined in this scope of work. 5. SERVICES REQUIRED: The Architect-Engineer shall perform the work and services as follows: a. Conduct an overflow study for existing conditions: (1) Off ice and FieldInvestigation. The Architect-Engineer shall make office and field investigations of existing data and analyze existing conditions. The District Project Manager shall be available for a field reconnaissance. No topographic surveys shall be undertaken by the Architect- Engineer. The Architect-Engineer shall obtain the most current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEW) flood overflow analysis and topography developed for the areas listed in item#4 above. (2) Flood Overflow Analysis. The Architect-Engineer shall conduct the flood overflow analysis using the Corpsof Engineers HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles computer program and other programs involving normal depth, weir flow, reservoir routing, bridge analysis, and culvert analysis, together with any necessary supplemental manual calculations. The analysis shall be conducted for the 10 year, 50 year, 100 year and 500 year floods using hydrologic data for without-project conditions furnished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The analysis shall include determination of the non-damaging discharge at representa- tive locations along the watercourses listed in item14 above. The non-damaging discharge being defined as the limiting discharge Page 2

._ .. .ii

that causes damage either due to inadequatechannel capacity or or inadequate bridge capacity. (3) Special Guidance. The Architect-Engineer shall modifythe F'EMA flood overflow analysis to account for the following: (a) Expansion andcontraction losses at locations where appreciable changes in cross-sections occur. (b) Revision to HEC-2 bridge routine to account for the following: --Increases in losses due to significant effect ofexpansion and contraction conditions. --Redefinition of roadway profileand soffit information to better account for weir and pressure flow components. --Adjustments of bridge geometry and data inputto increase debris loading. (c) Re-establishment of cross-section channel bank stationing to better reflect proper channel bank and overbank flow distribu- tion. (d) Use of higher "n" overbank values that what was utilized in the FEMA overflow analysis. "N" values of shall be used to account for existing and future development. (e) Where necessary, existing FEM cross-sections shall be extended to accomodate the 500 year discharge. (f) Channel and overbank flow to be considered as homogeneous flow with uniform water surface elevation. (g) Current channel improvements done by local interests shall be included in the flood overflow analysis

The Architect-Engineer shall coordinate the above items with the District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Architect-Engineer shall prepare memoranda documenting the results of the coordination meetings. (4) Overflow Study Summary Report.

, The Architect-Engineer shall present the results of the study by means of plotted overflow boundary maps, floodprofiles, cross-sections with plotted water surface elevations and a summary report text that documents and summarizes .the study. 6. PERIOD OF SERVICE: The Architect-Engineer shall perform the work and services in the time allowed in the following phases: a. Phase I - Flood Overflow Analysis: Within 110 calendar days after the date of written notification of award. Specifically for the f0110wing groups of watercourses: Group 1: Flamingo Wash, Tropicana Wash and Duck Creek - within 50 calendar days: Group 2: Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Creek and Las Vegas Range Wash - within 80 calendar days: Page 3

Group 3: Pittman Wash and the Henderson Area - within 110 calendar days.

b. Phase I1 - Draft Overflow Report: within 125 calendar days. c. Phase I11 - Final Overflow Report: within 140 calendar days. 7. REVIEWS: There shall be two sets of reviews: In-progress review and a final report review. These reviews will be accomplished by the District with assistance from technical specialists from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1) In-progress Review: The Architect-Engineer shall be available for three in-progress reviews - 10% completion, 25% completion and 50% completion. The purpose of these reviews will be to address any problems, discuss procedures and methodologies and to insure that the work is progressing satisfactorily. (2) Final Report Review:The final report materialshall have review periods at the following completion stages. a. Phase I - Flood Overflow Analysis: The Architect-Engineer shall prepare for a review conference to be held at the District Office after submittal of the flood overflow analysis. A review of ten (10) calendar days is required by the District. The Architect-Engineer shall continue work on other phases of the work during the review period. After the review period, a review conference shall be held in the District Office for the specific purposes of examining the progress of the work. Written review comments shall be returned to the Architect-Engineer, who shall immediately make the required corrections and continue with the report material. b. Phase I1 - Draft Overflow Report: The Architect-Engineer shall prepare for a telephonic review conference after submittal of the draft overflow report. A review period of five (5) calendar days is required by the District. The Architect-Engineer shall continue work on other phases of the work during the review period. After the review period, a telephonic review conference shall be held for the specific purpose of examining the progress of the work. Written review comments shall be returned to the Architect-Engineer, who shall immediately make the required corrections and continue with the report material. c. Phase I11 - Final Overflow Report: After the final report material (100%) has been reviewed, a conference may be heldin the District Office to resolve the written review comments. The Architect-Engineer shall immediately make the required corrections and resubmit the report. The corrected material shall consist of the originals of all material and shall include the marked-up material.

8. SUBMI7TALS:

a. Phase I - Flood Overflow Analysis: The Architect-Engineer shall submit three (3) blueline copies of the topographic workmaps with stream stationing and cross sections, two (2) copies of all computer output, two (2) set of cross section plots with water surface elevations, and two 'age 4

(2) xerographic copies of all manual computation sheets on standard size 8-1/2" x 11" paper. The study name, project engineer's name, the date of the computations and page number shall be included on all sheets. All computations shall be neatly prepared in a professional engineering manner. Sufficient written explanation and documentation shall be included within the computations to enable a reviewer to follow and comprehend the computation procedure, including the supporting rationale and criteria. The objective of each set of calculationsas well as the results and conclusions shall be clearly indicated. All minor assumptions too detailed to be discussed in the report text shallbe discussed within the computations. The source of all input data as well as reference for computation procedures shall be indicated by title, author or agency, date, and applicable page numbers. All individual sets of computations within the study shall be cross-referenced as required to indicate how the results from set may be used as input to another. Sketches and schematics be provided as required. All graphs shall be completely labeled titles, sources of data, andalso variable names, units, andscales on each axes. Graphs shall not be larger than 11" x 17" b. Phase I1 - Draft Overflow Report: The Architect-Engineer shall submit three (3) blueline copies of the overflow boundary maps, flood profiles, cross-section plots withwater surface elevations, and three (3) copies of the report text, which shall be typed double spaced on standard size 8-1/2" x 11" paper. The maps and profiles shall be neatly hand drafted with worksheet quality in dark pencil; final drafting, lettering, and inking is not required. The ArchLtect-Engineer shall also resubmit all flood overflow analysis material that was determined to require revision.

d. Phase I11 - Final Report: The final submittal shall consist of three corrected originals of all report materials. Overflow maps, flood profiles and cross-section plots shall be submitted separately: three (3) brown line copies of each are required. Computer output shall also be submitted separately. The report text shall be typed single-spaced on 8-1/2" x 11" paper; three (3) copies are required. One workbook shall also be provided and subdivided, using dividertabs, into the following minimum number of sections:

(a) Correspondence and miscellaneous administrative documents. (b) Photographs, which shall be mounted on both aides of heavy mounting paper in a logical sequence. All photographs shall be labeled to include a complete description of the subject matter, including its pertinent features, the direction looking, the date taken, and the photographer's name. All photograph negatives shall be placed in an envelope and attached to the last page. (c) Field notes. (d) Manual computations

The Architect-Engineer shall provide a detailed lsiting of all material submitted. Page 5

9. ITEMS PdD DATA TO BE FURNISHED BY THE DISTRICT: (a) Hydrologic data for without-project, future conditions. This information to be provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (b) All material shall be returned to the District Office upon completion of the delivery order. 10. PROJECT MANAGFMENT: a. The Architect-Engineer shall name and assign a responsible engineer as Project Manager. The project manager shall maintain a project file to contain all correspondence and criteria pertinent to this project and shall provide the District with the name of the individual respon- sible for preparation and coordination of the overflow analysis.

b. During the progress of the work, the Architect-Engineer shall confer with the District, as required, to assure approval of the completed work. c. The Mstrict shall visit the Architect-Engineer's office at any time during the progress of the work for the specific purpose of examining the progress of the work and to resolve any questions the Architect- Engineers may have concerning the development of the report. 11. VISITS TO SITE, PRIVATE SOURCES, AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES: The Architect-Engineer shall advise the District, of each proposed visitto the site, private sources, and governmental agencies (Federal, State, County, and City) prior to each visit. Contracts with governmental agency representatives shall be limited to research and coordination of data pertinent to the project. The Architect-Engineer will be informed of any requirements necessary for access to the site. 12. DEVIATION FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK: a. The Architect-Engineer shall not incorporate into this project any instructions received (in writing or orally) directly from other govern- mental agencies, without written approval from the District. The coordin- ation of the report material with other governmental agencies is the responsibility of the District. b. The Architect-Engineer shall not depart from or perform beyond the Scope of Work and criteria on which the scope of work is based without the written direction of the District. 13. OTHER REQUIREMENTS : a. Subcontractors: The Architect-Engineer shall not enter into any subcontracts without prior written approval of the District, b. Responsibility for Field Work: The Architect-Engineer shall be responsible for all damages to persons and property thatoccur as a result Page 6

of the Architec-Engineer's fault or negligence in connection with field work, and shallsave and hold the District free from all claims and suits arising from damages. c. Release of Data: All data, reports, and materials relative to this Scope of Work are the property of the District and will not be released by the Architect-Engineer, subcontractors, or employees on temporary duty, without written approval of the District. FRIORITY EVALUATION APPLICATION DRAFT NAME OF PROJECT:

LOCATION:

DATE OF APPLICATION:

1. Is theproject identified in the Master Plan? -. 2. Can theproject be constructed now? (i.e., riqht-of-way 'available,project can functionindependently)

3. Is funding forthis project available?

4. Why doyou feel this project is a critical Regional Flood Control Facility?

All answers to Questions 1-3 must be Yes for a "GO" project.

co Technical Codttee Agenda date:

NO GO

CCRFCD: MI : EVAL

** . .. '* '. PRIORITY CRITERIA AND DEFINITIONS

1. POPULATION IMPACTED: Refers to the existingpopulation impacted by the construction of the project considered. Impact. includesreducing flood hazards. 2. ASSESSED LAND VALUE IMPACTED: Assessed landvalue includes developed and undeveloped land inthe flood plainincluding all structures, commercial or residential, located on a property. Reduced flood plainarea will be consideredunder this item.

3. PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF NEED: This criteria reflects the visibility of the project in terms of satisfying the public desire to see their money spent.

4. ENERGENCY ACCESS AND PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE: This item includes access of emergencyvehicles including police, ambu- lance,and fire vehiclesto their respectivesubstation, hospital or sta- tion.Additionally, it includesprojects which will contributeto the development of anall-weather transportation sirstem andprovide access to flood isolated residences,business, and public facilities.

5. COST AVOIDANCE: Costavoidance includes projects which will reducefuture cost, including potential damage, construction of oversizedfacilities, and the ability to construct at lesser cost than if the project is delayed. This item includes the cost of lost opportunity and the risk associated with inade- quate or undersizedfacilities.

6. AVAILABILITY OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES: Thisincludes the potential for funds from grants,developers, the Corps ofEngineers, and other publicand private interests.Additional other fundingsources shall include land donated by privatedevelopers and the Bureauof LandManagement.

7. INTERRELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS: Projects which score highon this criteria canfunction independently or are needed to complete or increasethe effectiveness of the existing regionaland local drainagesystem.

8. TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION: All aspects oftiming and implementation will be consideredunder this item includingavailability of right-of-way, permitting if necessary, and ability to administer andbegin a project in a resonable time frame.

9. ENVIRONMENTALENHANCEMENT: Environmentalenhancement includes benefits derived from mitigating the threat to public healthresulting fromstagnant water, erosion, raw sewage spills,and contamination of the domestic water supply. Additionally,this includes projects which add to habitat, recreational opportunities,and water quality.

10. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST: Projects which will rankhigh on this criteria have a lower maintenance cost thanthose facilities now inexistence or will reducemaintenance costs downstream. LOCAL FUNCTIONS

1. Fennittino, Sonding, and inspection authority of proposed development including earthwork operations

2. Enforcement of NFIP regulations and flood zone determination

4. Develop a right-of-way acquisition program consistent with Master Plan priority list

5. Construct and maintain the local drainage system

6. Enforcement of uniform standards

7. Community preparedness and response

8. Post-disaster administration

9. Coordinate cooperative funding

10. Develop and update priority list

11. Administer construction of Master Plan facilities REGIONAL FUNCTIONS

1. Fundand verifylocal maintenance or regionalfacilities

2. Publiceducation programs

3. Collection andmanagement of data

4. Master Planupdates

5. Legislative changes

6. Management of Advance Flood WarningSystem

7. Hear appeals and issuevariances

8. Coordinatecooperative funding with federal,private, local and RegionalTransporation funds

9. Developand update priority list

10. Manage Corps of Engineers Study

11. Apply to FEW forregional map amendments

12. Develop project scope for Master Plan facilities LOCAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS 1) Requiregrading and drainageplans on all new structural starts which identify finish.floor elevations, corners, methodof drainage and perimeter control (i.e., retaining walls for high cuts and fills). 2) Finishfloor elevations to be 1 footabove water surface elevation and 18" above T/C center of lot.

3) . Requireonsite detention orunderground system if development will use up the street capacity. 4) As-builtdevelopment to. be certified by professional architect, engineer or surveyor as being in compliance with the approved grading and drainage plan (surveyor certification to be allowed for individual single family starts). 5) Regulate development to 10 year storm (to be determined). 6) Appeals or variances to be reviewed by a district appointed board . 7) Require a grading and drainage plan for all substantial grading, filling, cutting or other work which may materially affectstormwater runoff, sedimentation or erosion. This will also require approval and a permit from local entities. 8) All entities use the same methods of drainage analysis, calculation forms, permits and fees. 9) All as-built data to be input into IBM compatible mainframe through IBM PC standard programs and software. ' 10) District to audit or inspect entity enforcement and record- keep i ng . 11) Latest FEMA NPIP regulations to be adopted by all agencies. 12) Each entity to provide' NFIP FIRM map locator service and as-built floodproofing certifications or to contract it to a central map locator service approvedby the district. 13) Each entity to provide its own FIS appeals except when the appeal will provide a substantial cost saving to the district or when it is interjurisdictional or disputed by another entity in which case the appeal may be funded by the district.

14) Each entity to be allowed to designate interim floodplains or to utilize latest and more accurate hydrologic or hydraulic technicaldata provided that itis firstapproved by the district. CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT REVILW

When a development is located within 1 mile ofany XasterPlan facility, it is the

responsibility of thePublic Works Department (PWD) with jurisdictionto submit the

plansto the Clark County Regional Flood ControlDistrict (CCRFCD). CCRFCD will

determine whether or notthe proposed development impactsa Master Plan Facility or

Sub-basinDrainage. The District will thennotify the PWD if it appearsthe project has regional impact. The PWD will coordinate with thedeveloper or his engineerto ensurethat new improvements are compatiblewith the Master Plan or request an amendment tothe Master Plan. Approval by CCRFCD will be requiredprior to issuance of permits,approval of final map and approval of a zone change use permit.

Notification of the Flood Control District shall be the responsibility of each indi- vidual jurisdiction.

CCRFCD approva 1 will be one of :

1. Does not fall within thejurisdiction of the Master Plan and has no

regional impact.

2. Falls within thejurisdiction of the Master Plan and has been designed

accordingly and necessarydedications have been completed.

3. Falls within thejurisdiction of the Master Plan and cannot conform to the

MasterPlan because of upstream conditions or lack of contiguous improve-

ments but will conform toexisting conditions and landhas been dedicated

for future use by CCRFCD.

4. Does not conform. tothe Master Plan,but is workablea solution and

requires aMaster Plan amendment,

5. Does not’ conform tothe Master Plan and cannot be constructed as planned

withoutadverse impacts. DISCUSSION ITEMS CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MODEL ORDINANCE PAGE 1

A. Delineation of CCRFCD and local jurisdiction for floodplain management. 1. Permitting,bonding andinspection authority for proposed development including earthwork operations. 2. Recordskeeping. 3. Enforcement of theNFIP regulations and flood zone determination. 4. Funding,design, R.O.W. acquisition,construction, inspection and maintenance of flood control facilities: a. Localpublic agency. b. Private (with discharge into public facility). c. Regional . 5. Enforcement of uniformflood control, oriented development standards. B. Establishment of uniformlocal and regional floodplain management code, ground rules, policies, etc. C. Establishment of uniform design policy standards. D. Guidelines for advance right-of-way acquisition. E. Policyfor public education including consulting firms, citizens, builders, flood control enforcement personnel.

1. Public speaking programs, media p.r. 2. Workshops-technical, for layman. P. Standardization of data collecting.

1. Standardized drainage study calculations and forms.

2. Use of IBM Compatible PC and mainframe hardware and software for calculations, data transfer and storage. 3. Manipulation of data to refine and keep master Plan current. DISCUSSION ITEMS CLARKCOUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WODEL ORDINANCE PAGE 2 G. Hazard mitigation: 1. Pub1 ic awareness. 2. Earlywarning system.

3. Disaster preparednessand response.

4. Postdisaster administration, i.e., requestsfor disaster relief, records of damage, etc. H. Preparemethods for funding projects through cooperative agreements: 1. Groundrules - guidelines. 2. Administration.

3. Priorities.

4. Rulesfor leveraging CCRFCD fundswith local, RTC, Federal or privatematching funds.

I. Appeals, disputesbetween entities, legal considerations, notices of non-compliance.

Staff ina of CCRFCD. I

LIST OF WHAT IS NEEDED IN ORDINANCETO MANAGE DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTEMASTER PLAN

DEFINITION OF TERMS

A1 luvial fan' Area of shallowflooding . Base flood

Base flood elevation Development F1 oodway Regional F1 ood

Sediment

Stormwaterdetention

Stormwaterretention

Drainageplanning

Drainagebasin

Gradlng of. 1 and POLICY STATEMENTS 1. The policy of urban areas is to consider stormwater drainage as a sub-system of the overall urban system and to require storm drainage planning for all developments to include the allocation ofspace for drainage facilities. 2. The success of the Flood Master Plan depends greatly upon juristictional cooperation in accomplishing goals. 3. The policy ofurban areas shall be to implement and maintain a comprehensive program to collect and analyze rainfall-runoff data. From this information hydrologic data and procedures will be updated for use in drainage planning and evaluation. 4. The policy of the urban areas is tocollect and maintaina fadility performance information file. This information will be used when planning and designing future flood control facilities. 1

RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. Right-of-way A. Master Plan Projects 1. Perpetual easement on dedicatedright-of-way 2. Account for: a.Ingress and egress b. Maintenance and maintenance equipment c.Possible other purposes B. Other Drainage ProjectsTributary to Master Plan Projects 1. If within 300 feetof Master Plan Project a. Perpetualeasement ordedicated right-of-way b. Account for: i. Ingress and egress ii. Maintenance and maintenanceequipment iii. Possible other purposes 2. Outside of 300 feet ofMaster Plan Project a. Perpetualeasement or dedicatedright-of-way b. Adequate tocontain flows C. Other Drainage Projects. These drainageprojects would not be necessary onceMaster Plan Projects are installed. 1. Temporary easement or right-of-way 2. Account forexisting flood flows 11. Control and Alleviate Land and Soil Erosion and theSiltation of Drainage Systems A. Constructedwith a side alope,as determined by properengineering practicegiving due consideration to: 1. Intendedcapacity 2. Depth 3. Width

4. Elevation 5. Characterof the soil B. Water inlets,-culvert openings and bridgeapproaches shall have adequateshoulder and bank protection C. If development of a parcel of land is expected to be delayed for any reason after rough grading has been completed, or is in theprocess of beingcompleted, then measures shall be taken to minimize erosion of the land and resultingsiltation of drainage system. 111. OneNo Shall Cut an Artificial Drainageway .Acrossa Subwatershed and Thereby Deliver Water Into AnotherSubwatershed Unless: A. Receivingwatershed has adequate capactiy 8. Projectsare built that takeinto consideration the diversion flows in the receiving watershedreceiving the inof flows . IV. No One Shall Undertake theConstruction, Alteration, Repair or Removal of the FollowingWithout a Permit from theRespective Governing Body: A. Drainage Systems 1. Open channel 2. Conduit 3. Bridge B. Dikes C. Reservoirs V. No Refuse, Garbage or Obnoxious Materials Shall BeDumped in or Within 50 Feet of any Drainage System or Shall beDumped or Placed in any Location Where the Same Would,by Natural Runoff *or Overflow, be CastInto a Drainage System. VI. No One Shall Change theIngress and Egress of an Existing Drainageway on Their Property Unless: A. Proper engineeringpractice can depict an improvement by said changes upstreamand/or downstream and B. .Adequateright-of-way is obtainedto construct modifications VII. No One ShallConstruct Improvements in Designateda Floodway That Would Cause theFloodwaters toIncrease in Elevation Moreby Than One Foot (Maybe should be 1/2 foot) Unless:

A. Properengineering practice can . depictthat no damages will exist B. Adequate right-of-way is acquired to insurethat no damages willexist I

VIII. All Improvements and/orConstruction Shall Conform. to theNational Flood Insurance Program and CLV Flood Hazard, ReductionOrdinance. IX. All New Developments ShallConsider Employing "On-Site" Detention as a Means of ReducingPeak Flow Rates and SedimentationAffecting Downstream Properties and DrainageCourses. A. An exemption from this requirement may be granted forsubdivisions of one (1 ) acreor less with an impervious area of less than 50%. B. Other situations that thereviewing engineer determines to be in the best interest of the urban area.

X. ' Development Shall be Restrictedto AreasOutside of a.Detention Basin HighwaterLine Created by the Design Storm and OutsideExisting or Proposed SpillwayDischarge Paths. XI. Before Occupancyan Permit Can be issued, a RegisteredProfessional Engineer or Land SurveyorShall Certify Thatthe Finish Floor Elevations of all Structures in a Development HaveBeen Constructed as per the' Approved Development P1 ans.

XII. Development Grading Plans Shall Address Surrounding Topography, Utilities and LandUse. XIII. The Developer ShallParticipate in the Cost of Future Required "Off-Site" Flood Control Facilities by Providing a SecurityDeposit as .described in CLV Municipal Code 18.24.030. XIV. No Developer Shall Commence Grading or CleaningOperations Without First Obtaining an Approved GradingPermit from the Respective Governmental Agency. XV. Methodology to Calculate and Develop Flood Discharges for Various Storm Events Shall Conform to the MasterPlan or as the Clark County Regional Flood Control District Mandates.

10-1 6-86 October 3, 1986

TO: CommissionerBruce Woodbury, Chainan ClarkCounty Regional Flood Control District

FROM: CitizensCodttee for Recommendations on ChiefEngineer (RonaldHerr, Stanton Jones, Paul Yay, JamesMcNutt, Reber, Ann Zorn)

Afterpassage of the flood control ballot question, the Citizens Committee met on October 2, 1986, toreview its earlier recommendations forthe Chief Engineer's post.

The Committeeunanimously reaffirmed its January 13, 1986, recomendation to the Flood Control District Board that Virginia Bax-Valentine be appointed as ChiefEngineer of theDistrict. Themembers wish toexpress our continued support for andconfidence in 143. Eax-7alentine as tne Gistrict's General Manager.

TheCommittee also supportsearly Board action to approve the hiring of a secretary/administrative assistant for the ChiefZngineer. This staff supportposition was included in the initial budget figures and is essential to the District as it moves into the next phase of development.

Rnn A. Zorn Chaimn,Citizens Advisory Committee THIS AGFEENDX, is madeand entered into this l3t1day of February, 198G,

by and between the CLARK CCU" mMlD CCXTFIWL DISTRIm ("Distri.ct")

230 Las VegasBoulevard South, P.O. Box 396, Las Vegas,Nevada 89125, and

VIRGINIA BAX, P.E. ("Engineer"), 6770 Garden &me, Las Vegas,Nevada 89103.

WI'rNEsSETH

WHERCAS, the District desires to appoint a chief engineer and general

mger ( "Chief mgineer" ) : and

iIHEREAS, the Engineer desires to accept the said appintmnt: and

the District only has funding to prepare a bster Plan for flrd control in Clark Cokty and intends to suhnit the cost of the inplementation thereof to the voters at the September 2, 1986 election.

MW, TkEREFDRE, in mideration of the premises, the ,prties agree as follo&i: 1. ?he District appoints Wgineer as ChiefEngineer of the District upn

the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 2. The hgineer accepts the appointmnt as ChiefEngineer and certifit-s

and warrants that she is a civil engineer registsred in the State of ::evads

as a professional engineer pursuant to Chapter 625 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

3. "he hgineer shall report and be responsible to tke brd of

Directors of the District ( "Board") and shall not hire or rotain any agents, employees or other persmell or sign any contracts without the prior appre

va1 of the Bmrd.

4. The Ehgineer will imediately ccrrmnce wrk under this Agreemnt on a part-tinre basisr as necessary, to carry out the duties of the Chief Cngin-r with the understanding that no later than April 1, 198G, she wibl wi:l m!Z

as Chief Ehgineer on a full-time basis, namely, at least forty (40) hours C,,I every week. 5. "he District at its expense will provide office space and cler:cdl

support for the Chief hgineer at the office of the District or at such m!!..r

-1- location as the Pard my determine. ?he District at its expnse will also provide, mintain and furnish fuel for 3 mor vehicle for the Chief Ehgineer for use only in the perfomce of her enployment under this Agreemnt. 6. The entire capensation of+&e Engineer for her employment as Quef

Engineer shall be as follws:

(a) Ihile workingon a part-time basis the amunt of $33.00 per hour.

(b) 'Whileworking on a full-time basis the arru>unt of $4,583.33 per

month base salary plus $1,166.67 per rionth as total canpensation

for all fringe benefits.

The Engineer shall receive no fringe benefits in addition to the said caqxnsation nor accrue any sick leave or vacation benefits. In the event the District must legally pay any such benefits it is agreed that the cost thereof my be deducted frah the ccmpensation hereinabove set forth.

7. ?he duties of the ChiefEngineer shall include: (a) General managanent of the affairs of the District urxler the direc

tim of the Board.

(b) Assist in the devel-nt and adoption of the MasterPlan for flcd

control in Clark County ("Master Plan").

(c) Assist, as necessary: the work of Mont-ry Ehgineers in their preparation of the Master Plan: the work of the Corps of Ehgineers

in their flood control feasibility stud1 for the Ids Vegas Valley;

insure that the District receives the mximm allanmble credit for

"in kind" services in the District's agreement with the Corps of Engineers: and otherwise dtorand administer all contracts and

agreements of the District.

(a) Supervise the adoption ofuniform regulations for the control of drainage in amrdance with the Master Plan.

(e) Prepre and present agendas for the meetingsof the Board, its

Technical Cannittee and the Citizens' Advisory Camittee.

(f) Fully inform and educate the public regarding the Master Plm and

its irrplementation.

-2- (g) Perform all other duties of the ChiefDlgineer as set forth in

Chapter 543 of the Nevada Fevisd Statutes.

8. It is understood and agreed that the Engineer is a tmprary er.lployee or officer of the District and while so employed is entitled to the ind- nification provided by the District pursuant to NR5 41.0349.

9. ';his Agreulmt, unless terrninatecl ashereinafter set forth, shall terminate on September 15, 1986. The District, prior.to said termination date, my terraimte this Agreemznt for any reason by giving written notice thereof to the mgineer andby paying the Pngineer one mnth's salary as severance pay or if less than one mnth rerains on this Fqreemnt the ccnpn- saticn for the time so raining. If the notice is placed in the U.S. Mail with postage prepaid, it shall be deemd received on the third business day after certified or registered miling. ?he notice my also be delivered in per-.

IN \~ITNEsSWHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date hereinahwe set forth.

DISTFUCi':

UAEW CXUNIY mMlD CONTRDL DISTRICT:

A!ITIX?:

Deputy District Attorney

-3- (1

November 6, 1386

RECOMMENDATIONS To THE LEGISLATIVE OVERSITE COMMITTEE SECTIONAL SUMMARY

543.600 Advance the effectivedate of the sales tax to March 1, 1987 orApril 1, 1987 to provideadditional revenue for first year projects.

543.030 Amend toauthorize the Chief Engineer/General Manager to perform acts required by theSecretary of the Army and Congress of the United Statesfor Flood Control Districts whichhave a Chief Engineer/General Manager.

543.050 Appropriate funds toState flood control fund in years 'of State surplusfor emergency responseto flooding events.

543,100 Appropriaterather than loan funds forthe design and construction of floodcontrol facilities in years of Statesurplus to flood control districts with local matching funds.

543 .368 Require that all State and local government projects be designed and constructed in compliance with District policies and standards according to the Master Planrequirements.

543 510 Create a Citizens' Advisory Committee for the District to advise and assist the District on a continuing basis.

543.590 Add a provisionrequiring a periodic review, evaluation,update, and revision of the Master Plan.Require anannual review, a more exhaustivereview in 5 years, and thorough-going reworking in 10 years, or earlier if facts and conditionsindicate.

The annualreview would check on whether the growth and development of the area was consistent with the originaldata; check on the progress toward implementation of theplan in terms of facilities, costs, codeand standard development and enforcementi progress of USACE. Identify any legislative changes andany problem areas. Make recommendations and propose solutionsto the problems.

The five year review will encompass all the above and integrate new data,identify problems andrecommend revisions.Overall assessment of how the District is workingand what it hasaccomplished.

The 10 year review will undertake a major update with respectto what has been accomplished and major longrange goals and objectives.

Ifthe situation indicates that either the 5 yearor 10 year review needs to be done at an earlier time, thenthe work should be ini- tiated when needed.

The Flood ControlDistrict budgets will include funding forperiodic updating of the Master Plan.

Revisions andamendments tothe Master Plan will require passage by a favorablevote of 2/3 of the Board. 543.595 Add criteria for grantingvariances from the Uniform Standardsand floodplain ordinance. Variances shall not be issuedwithin the floodplain if anincrease in flood levels of more than one (1) foot shouldoccur during a 100-year flood discharge,except when such changes are consistentwith the Flood Control Master Plan. The Board shall make the followingfindings before issuing a variance from the floodplain regulations and Uniform Standards.

1. Good andsufficient cause has been shown.

2. Failure to grant the variance would resultinexceptional hardship to theapplicant.

3. The granting of thevariance will not result inincreased flood heightswhich create additional threats publicto safety, extraordinarypublic expense, a publicnuisance, cause fraud on or victimization of thepublic or conflictwith existing laws or ordinances.

4. The variance is the minimum necessary,considering the flood hazard, to offer refief.

5. Channeland wash relocationsshall not be permitted unlessthe proposal resultsin an overall benefit to or maintains a flood controlsystem of equal effectiveness in terms offlood control.

543.610 Qualifythis section and otherswhich apply to Districts fundedby an 543.650 ad valorum tax.

543.361a Amend thissection to preventaccessing land in a floodplain at values comparable to developableland. COMMENTS ON NEVADA TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION COMMENTS

1. Eliminating the fundingsource inten years would make obtaining federal fundingdifficult because we mustprove that we have the funds available to costshare with the Corps.Corps projects may not be authorizedfor 10 or more years.Additionally, sunsetting the sales tax would not be fair totaxpayers who would benefit from projects that would become priorities after the Llth year.

2. This is currentlycovered in the law; however,without bonding, $12 million a yearalone would prohibit us from building larger projects in a singleshot and may prohibitus fromhaving the local match required for the large Corps' projects. The Flood Control District is not pursuing a change in the law to allow bonding. 3a . This is includedin our draft policy. The District has no objections to this item but feels it is more appropriately covered in the ordinance.

3b This is a designstandard we havealready agreed to and is addressed in Volume IV. It is notan appropriate topic for State law; however, we have no objections to this item.

3c 0 All construction work will be competitively bid. For maintenance we will optimizethe use of existing forces first andcontract the remaining work. This is a topic more approriate for the Policy Manual than State law.

4. We are currentlyspending less thanone percent on administration. I don't object to item 4 as policy,but again, I don't think it is appropriate as State law.

Again, this is not a topic for State law. We canconsider it in design, but retention is extremelyexpensive and creates public health problems, may raise the groundwater inunpredictable places, and in urban areas may contaminategroundwater.

6. We already plan on preparingan annual report andhave no objection to language requiring preparation of anannual report in Subsection

543 0 590 0

7. We are workingon the Ordinance. It is alreadyrequired bylaw that we develop and adopt a uniformordinance. The Board shouldhave the power to decide onvariances rather thanthe Technical Committee, which is advisory to the Board. We are supporting a varianceprovision to the law.

8. The Board shouldreserve the authority to authorizeprojects. They are the elected bodyand are thereforeanswerable to the publicfor these decisions. The Technical Committee currentlyreviews and makesrecom- mendationson all Board items. HEADQUARTERS: 204 NORTH FALL STREET CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701 (702) 882-2697 BRANCH OFFICE: 2303 EAST SAHARA AVENUE, SUTE 202 USVEGAS, NEVADA 89104 (702) 457-8442

James Cashman, Ir., Las Vegas R.G.(Zack) Taylor. Las Vegas Wallie Warren, Reno ROY E NICKSON. CARSON CITY President vice Raidcat vice President EXECUTWEDIN?.€WR

CAROLE VILARW. LAS VECAS DEPUTY DlPECrOl October 1, 1986 IAMES Y ROBERTSON. CARSON CITY SECReTAnY.lR~

BOMDOFDUECTUUS BARRY BECKER L.WBENNFlT TO : Chairman Jim McGaugheyand of the LEROY R. BERGSTROM members RANDALL v. cmo LegislativeOversight Committee on FloodControl LWNND L. CARAN0 WlLUAMCH*MPIoN JOHN D€RMODY FROM: EverettPerlberg, Chairman, Nevada Taxpayers MEAD DIXON RlCHARDm AssociationCommittee on Flood Control GARY FTEDLFR JOHNFTIZGERAU) WRGIL GETTO FRED GIBSON The following items are presentedto the Oversight JOE GRAY CLARK GUILD. JR. Committeewith the request that they be included as part KENNY C. GUINN of theOversight Committee Legislative Recommendations PRESDN Q. HALE HARLEY E. HARMON tothe 1987 Legislative. ROBERT L. HELMS JAMES HENWWN E.T. rn)HERMANN These Items, as proposed are theresults of numerous meet- JERRY HIGGINS CHARLES rnG ings of the Clark CountyFlood Control District attended GEORGE B. KEMRE bythe Nevada Taxpayers Association Subcommittee on Flood Wlw B. KcnnNGEu m CHARLESA. WLIE Control,and a number of meetings of our own subcommittee. €RNE!xMARTINFLu The recommendations are submittedto withthe con- JOHNMARVEL you CHARLES- currence of the SouthernNevada Board of Directors of JOE McKIBBEN theNevada Taxpayers Association. JAMES L. MURPHY EvERE17PERLBolG DEAN A. RHOAM 1. CHAWS Rm A sunsetprovision be enacted TERMINATING the sales FRANK E. scm tax increaseof June 30, 1997 unlessapproved for DONAU) L. SIMPSON "E SLOAN continuationby a ballotquestion submitted to the GLEN C. TAYLOR voters at the generalelection in November 1996. JOHN m mER71 RlcHARDVANhlLEN w HowARDwmN 2. All expendituresfor Flood Control in Clark County EMWTUS shouldbe on a ''pay as you go basis"and no bonded Flu3 DRESSLER indebtednessfor Flood Control should be incurred unlessapproved by the voters at a generalelection.

3. In accordancewith NRS 543.340 sub 4, NOTE:- section, "The Board of Clark CountyRegional Flood Control District shalladopt written policies and procedures foradministering the District andfor operating and maintaining its projectsand improvements."

a) TheClark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) TechnicalCommittee should establish a uniformmaintenance plan to standardize the maintenanceprogram for each of thelocal entities. Thisplan should set standards for the repair and cleaning of all newand existing drainage ditches, washes,decention basins or water storageareas it establishes. -2-

b) Impermeable surfacingshould be provided where necessaryto prevent soil erosion and plant growth.

c) Bids shouldbe obtained from private contractors forall maintenance and surfacing work.

AdministrationCosts should be limited to no more than 15X ofthe funds available and at least 85% of thetax increase funds should be dedicated to maintenanceand construction.

The new constructionprogram should consider retention basins as analternative to detention basins. Once prioritiesfor newconstruction are established, publichearings should be held on the projects.

6. At least oneannual report should be preparedby the Board of the CCRFCD. Thisreport should outline

a)Funds Received b)Funds Expended c) ProjectsCompleted d)Projects under construction e)Projects proposed, and estimated time for completion.

7. An ordinancemust be established covering private or publicconstruction on flood plain areas, washesand drainageditches.

a) Thisordinance should preclude all variance that impingeon flood areas as outlinedin the Flood Control Master Plan.

b) In case of conflict,the variance should be sub- mittedto the Technical Committee of the CCRFCD. If not approved or modifiedby the Technical Committee, NO varianceshall be granted.

8. TheTechnical Committee of the CCRFCD mustreview and approve all capitalexpenditure in excess of $2,000,000.

Thebasic wording of NRS 338.080paragraph 3, Page 2041 of the63rd session of theLegislature should be incorporatedin establishing the size of theproject, except that it shouldbe modified to read as follows:

"Any contract for a publicwork whose cost is more than $2,000,000. A unit of theproject must not be separatedfrom the total project, even if that unit is tobe completed at a later time, inorder to lower thecost of theproject below $2,000,000.