Flood Project Working Group FINAL MINUTES WEDNESDAY ~ FEBRUARY 25, 2009 ~ 3:00 P.M. Washoe County Department of Water Resources Conference Room 4930 Energy Way, Reno,

1. INTRODUCTIONS

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, opened the meeting at approximately 3:00 p.m. and reordered the agenda.

5. TRACTION PROJECTS – A) Virginia Street Bridge - Phase II Design; and B) Lower Mustang Restoration [Taken out of agenda order]

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, commented that Jay Aldean, Paul Urban and she had just returned from a Reno City Council meeting at which the Virginia Street Bridge was discussed. The discussion focused on the level of protection, bridge design and the like. It appears that the design supported by the Working Group - no piers in the channel – might be appropriate as did the City of Reno staff with an above supported bridge. Ms. Duerr noted that she had been asked to comment on the presentation and expressed her support of the Reno staff’s recommendation. The Reno City Council expressed their support for the under supported design that she was unaware of. Ms. Duerr stated that the City Council had supported the 100-year level of protection with two feet of freeboard. Reno staff will move forward with design options including a draw bridge, which apparently is nearly twice the cost. The concerns include view and other historic aspects of the river corridor. The cost estimates provided for the draw bridge design may have been for a more robust and larger structure(s) that accommodates large ocean going type vessels.

During the discussion it was suggested that an under-supported bridge complicates water flows and that the concern expressed during the City Council meeting was obstruction of view by above supported bridges. It was explained that a clear span under supported bridge would have a larger beam with some elevation and ramping. The intent is to make recommendations that provide a clear view of the Truckee River while maintaining the same flow characteristics as an above supported bridge.

Ms. Duerr re-introduced Susie Kapahee who will function as the support liaison to the Working Group for agenda items and point of contact for information.

Susie Kapahee – Public Information Officer, commented that she could be reached at 775-850-7456 if there are any questions or requests for additional information.

PRESENT: Connie Butts – Canyon General Improvement District; Franco Crivelli – Community Coalition; John Dyer – AMFC; Mark Forest – HDR; Marge Frandsen – citizen; Dennis Ghiglieri – Truckee River Yacht Club; Tom Greco – Regional Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 2 of 13

Transportation Commission; Vicki Healey – University of Nevada, Reno - Government Relations; Mary Horvath – Wood Rodgers; John Jackson – Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; Noel Laughlin – HDR; Debra Lemke – Michael Baker Jr. Inc.; Dennis Miller – Storey County; Shirley Miller – Rainbow Bend Homeowners’ Association; Garth Oksol – Regional Transportation Commission; Kevin Piper – University of Nevada, Reno Main Station Farm; David Potter – Fish and Wildlife Service; Jerry Purdy – citizen; Bob Ramsey – Rosewood Lakes Homeowners’ Association; Scott Smith – Kleinfelder; Rose Strickland – Sierra Club; Candace Siwarga – Kennedy Jenks; and Todd Welty – Reno Tahoe Airport Authority. STAFF PRESENT: Jay Aldean, Naomi Duerr, Mimi Fujii-Strickler Danielle Henderson Susie Kapahee, Greg Salter and Paul Urban.

3. UPDATE ON FLOOD PROJECT BILL DRAFT REQUEST [Taken out of agenda order]

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, commented that the region needs a way forward to identify and collect additional funding for the Flood Project based on the benefits received from a Flood Project in lieu of other taxes such as sales tax and the like. A Flood Funding Study and Benefits Analysis is underway to determine the level of funding from specific areas. A vote of the three elected bodies in a joint meeting in February 2009 supported the concept of a JPA (Joint Powers Agreement) similar to that used for the Western Regional Water Commission and TMWA (Truckee Meadows Water Authority). The intent of the JPA is to allow the region to continue the governance of the Flood Project in a manner similar to what is being currently being used. Ms. Duerr noted that Deputy District Attorney Greg Salter had worked with bond counsel and others to develop the legislative proposal. Ms. Duerr then outlined the legislative process and drew attention to the Living River Map, and explained that the LPP (Locally Preferred Plan) includes flood proofing in addition to flood walls and levees. Ms. Duerr noted that +9.000 buildings have been flood proofed by the Corps (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) nationwide at a far lesser cost that building a flood wall or levee. Ms. Duerr noted the flood proofing has been proposed for some homes in Hidden Valley (Pebble Beach) as well as the Eastside Subdivision in lieu of the more costly levees/flood walls proposed by the Corps. The floodwalls/levees would, in some instances take most of the rear yard for most homes. The Nevada Constitution prohibits the use of public funds on privately owned property. The cost saving of nearly $40- million can be achieved using the home elevation/flood proofing of property. AB54 was introduced by Washoe County to deal with water quality issues involving both private domestic well, county owned municipal wells and septic systems. The intent is to provide financial assistance to homeowners in connecting to community water or sewer services. The legislation was amended to include the Flood Project and fund the flood proofing and building elevation as an alternative to construction of a levee or flood wall.

During the discussion it was noted that the Flood Project staff has conducted a significant amount of public outreach and that the FPCC (Flood Project Coordinating Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 3 of 13

Committee) has emphasized their intent to conduct a number of public workshops on the rate, tolls or charges that may be levied for the local cost share for construction of the Flood Project. The 30-day public comment period is designed to set a timeline for objections and comments on the proposed rates, tolls and charges. It was pointed out that rates for public utilities including electrical and gas services as well as water and sewer services are not subject to a public vote. It was noted that the local jurisdictions already have the ability to impose rates, tolls and charges. The proposed legislation will provide specific authority for the local jurisdictions to enact rates, tolls and charges under specific circumstances that provide a benefit roughly equal to the rate, toll or charge being collected. The expectation that the governing body of the JPA will be similar to what is already in place and may or may not include non-voting members, UNR (University of Nevada, Reno) or others. It was explained that a Flood Board could be formed under existing statutes and would not be required to include other entities such as Storey County or the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. The JPA, as proposed, allows the region to include other jurisdictions that also benefit from the Flood Project including, but not limited to: Story County and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. It was noted that Clark County has already established a Flood Control District and imposed a ¼-cent sales tax. This legislation allows Washoe County to impose the fees needed to fund the local sponsor cost share. The fee will be charged to existing and future residents as well as local governments. It was pointed out that the rates, tolls and charges could not be applied to those living in Washoe County. It was determined that the flood benefits areas should not include certain areas of Washoe County and focus on those areas that actually flood in Reno, Sparks Industrial and other areas as well as those located in close proximity to the flood prone areas with those in the flood prone areas paying somewhat more than the general benefit area. It was pointed out that rental properties would pay their fee through the property owner who will be billed for a portion of the project. It was noted that the City of Sparks has already implemented a $5.00 per month charge as their portion of the local cost share. Other discussion noted that new development must be mitigated and constructed in a fashion that does not have any detrimental effect on the flood project. Once the official Washoe County population that currently exceeds 400,000 individuals is verified in the 2010 census a global change to NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) that are written to cover Clark County only would take place. Other discussion focused on the anticipated cost of the overall Flood Project that currently is estimated at $1.6-billion. It was emphasized that only the FPCC has the power to determine the size, scope and ultimately the costs and rates, tolls and charges to fund the Flood Project.

2. APPROVE WORKING GROUP MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2009

The motion maker and second were inaudible.

An unknown speaker questioned the verbiage on page 7, about understatement of project costs and TRAction Projects coming in at about half the Corps (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) estimate.

Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 4 of 13

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, commented that there are two choices strike the sentence or write two sentences that clarify the intent. Ms. Duerr believes that Paul is right and that Bob combined two concepts: 1) the global projects have been understated; and 2) individual projects, some of them so far have been overstated such as Reno Sparks Indian Colony, 102 Ranch and Lockwood have all had project costs higher than what they actually cost. And then this paragraph speaking about the Corps now trying to compensate for previously understated costs and now they are going high and the reason is the cost estimate has to be good for fifteen years. You guys build roads you know that a cost estimate is only good for about five years at best. Well either high or low they are trying to estimate costs out fifteen years. So what they are trying to do is be conservative and not have to go back to Congress. It says here additional funding it should say additional authority. They would have to raise the authority. Ms. Duerr asked the attorney what he recommends to clarify all of this. What would you recommend Greg?

Mr. Salter’s response is not audible.

Ms. Duerr well it really wasn’t he mixed two sentences, two concepts here entirely.

Mr. Salter’s response is not audible.

Ms. Duerr but we did not say for example that has in the past have tendency to understate project costs which is may be why TRAction projects, those are two completely unrelated issues. I mean he has connected two issues that were said in separate sentences on separate subjects. Anyway there is a proposal to amend the minutes which we can do. So would you like us to have two sentences like “Other discussion noted that the Corps has in the past had a tendency to understate project costs.” And “Of note TRAction Projects are coming in about half the cost of the Corps estimate.”

Unidentified speaker suggested striking “and be why.”

Ms. Duerr okay TRAction period.

An unidentified speaker stated that this is a suggestion from someone that wasn’t here and did not listen to the conversation.

Unidentified speaker I wasn’t here but I and then inaudible.

Ms. Duerr I think both things were said but I don’t think they were linked as cause and effect. Will amend to add a period after the words “project costs” and strike “and may be why.” Any other recommended changes to the minutes or clarifications? Good catch. Thank you.

Unidentified speaker withdrew the motion Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 5 of 13

Ms. Duerr Garth you want to make a motion

Garth I wasn’t here.

Ms. Duerr it doesn’t matter.

Garth okay I will make a motion.

Ms. Duerr a second over here Storey County. Is everyone in agreement? Anyone opposed? Mumbling in the back.

An unidentified speaker was not audible.

Ms. Duerr that wasn’t our, I mean let’s ask our attorney. I’ve been told at the FPCC (Flood Project Coordinating Committee) that they do not have to have been present to make a motion to approve the minutes.

Mr. Salter’s response inaudible.

Unidentified speaker as amended.

Unidentified speaker I’ll second again. I was there.

Ms. Duerr to clarify I’ve often thought that too but we’ve had it explained at the Flood Board meeting that you do not have to be there to make a motion to approve the minutes. I was going on that. Well we fixed it. Now what I’m going to do is go look it up under Robert’s Rules so that when I get to the Flood Board meeting I know what the right answer is. Of course they may not have adopted Roberts Rules of Order as their bylaws. So there you go.

Unidentified speaker have to be absolutely accurate.

Ms. Duerr I have a better answer just come to all the meetings. Was there a vote on the last motion?

Is anyone in favor?

Aye.

Is anybody opposed?

No response.

Ms. Duerr the motion passes by acclimation. Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 6 of 13

4. STATUS OF THE HUFFAKER PROJECT ELEMENT IN THE FLOOD PROJECT

Paul Urban – Flood Project Manager, commented that he had not brought the PowerPoint presentation and noted that the PowerPoint did not have any pictures only words that can be read on paper. At the onset of the Flood Project every effort was made to store flood water rather than allow it to move downstream. Based on that the Huffaker Detention facility was an important component of the Flood Project to minimize downstream effects. Until August 2008 the results of hydraulic modeling runs led staff to believe that the facility would attenuate flows. However, before August 2008 the Corps (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) went into the model and used the 117 year event. Mr. Urban recalled that the 100 year event had been the basis of modeling in the past. The results of the 117 year event modeling and found that with the Huffaker Reservoir slightly increased downstream flows. It has been determined that Huffaker does not have any significant effect with the Huffaker Detention facility. Drawing attention to the hydrographs, Mr. Urban noted the care taken in calibrating the model on the expected flows at Vista. Mr. Urban noted that the benching envisioned in the Community Coalition had been included in the model to lower flood levels downstream such that property built to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) criteria would not be below the water elevation identified in FEMA guidelines. Mr. Urban outlined the downstream peak flows and harm such flows cause resulting in restoration to accommodate increased flows as it attenuates the peaks and slow velocities somewhat. Mr. Urban outlined the peak flows associated with flood events as well as the effects of tributaries such as Steamboat Creek. The hydraulic data from the Truckee River as well as tributaries was used to design a 100 year event. This does not represent any single storm such as the 1986, 1997 or 2005 events to develop the hydrographs. Mr. Urban stated there is no set mathematical formula to determine flows as each event is unique. The data shown in the report is generated on the designed hydrographs, which are designed to reflect a suite of things that could occur during a flood event. Mr. Urban outlined the outflow of a 5 year event that shows the flows are the same with or without Huffaker Detention. Mr. Urban then defined the flows at Vista based on 5, 10, 20 and 100 year event models. At 100 years the attenuation is about 120 CFS compared to the higher 600 CFS associated with a 20 year event. Mr. Urban also noted that with a 100 year event the outflow from Huffaker is increased. Some of the reasons for the lack of detention at the 100 year event and above is that the facility had to be designed so it could store water to the elevation of the Centex development to the south. The +$300-million cost of the Huffaker Detention was in part caused by the need for a 400 foot wide concrete spillway so that flows went over the spillway and did not cause undo flooding in the Centex development. Mr. Urban noted that there are also timing issues involved in the process of developing hydrographs. The available storage in Huffaker tends to change the timing of the peak so that it does not match the Truckee River at a higher flow rate. Thus a decision was made that there is no significant benefit to the $300-million Huffaker Detention. A review of downstream protection have been adjusted for the 117 year event and having Huffaker or not does Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 7 of 13

not change those downstream designs. Therefore, the loss of Huffaker Detention will not increase flood levels downstream.

During the discussion it was explained that the benefits had been determined based on a 100 year event attenuation but the increased level of protection to the 1997 level of event the design flows were changed to the 117 year event thus causing some changes in the model. It was noted that storage extended to the 4,335 elevation and that Centex development had been removed from the storage area. Other discussion noted that while detention provides several benefits water volume must be addressed. In some instances construction of 10 to 15 detention basins have actually increased flows. It was pointed out that detention in other areas and elevations of the valley can cause a different end result. Discussion then focused on the assumptions and whether the assumptions have changed from the original. It was explained that this is based on the same hydrographs that have been used in the past. Other discussion noted that the 100 year event does not come down Steamboat at the same time as the Truckee River as each has it own unique flow rates. Examples of the monitoring gauges and their respective watershed reading were explained with the notation that there is no math that can accurately determine the effects of each event. As the discussion continued, it was explained that a peak flow for a 100 year event on the Steamboat Creek will not occur at the same time as a similar peak flow on the Truckee River. The odds of having peak flows at the same time are about 1-percent with the odds of a 1-percent occurrence happening at the same time as another other is significantly less than 1-percent. It was emphasized that models are based on statistics that 100 year event at 23,700 CFS with Vista gauge below Steamboat is the same or less at 19,000 CFS. Discussion then focused on the climatic changes and how that might affect the flows. It was noted that there is no additional consideration for global warming in this particular process. Is it thought that the climatic changes may result in more rainfall than snow in the future. In 2005 there was a 50 year event with no snow fall. It was explained that at some point there may be a storm that would allow Huffaker Detention to provide some benefits. It was noted that if the Guadalupe River hits the Bay with inches of additional flow that overtops levees and that there is no simple explanation due to tides and other effects that must be considered. Therefore, storm designs are meant to fit certain events with some over capacity. As a matter of practicality there is $300-million set aside for Huffaker, which does not provide $300-million in protection. Other discussion pointed out the cost/benefit analysis used in development of public projects. In this particular instance the benefit does not outweigh the cost of the Huffaker Detention facility. Other discussion noted that the benefit occurs in the channel as it should compared to the increased level of benefit if the flow occurred outside the channel. It was pointed out that Steamboat Creek is not the problem and that the storage in the Meadows area has been reduced to the point that additional water is going downstream. One of the ways to attenuate the flows was Huffaker Detention with the restoration projects now providing attenuation. A widening and deepening of Steamboat Creek could increase the peak flow as it would remove storage from the flood plain thus increasing flows downstream. It was explained that TROA (Truckee River Operating Agreement) had restrictions that affect the Flood Project and that while Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 8 of 13

a different regulation of Lake Tahoe might provide some benefit, it is a separate negotiation that could take up to 20 years.

Franco Crivelli outlined his concerns with the removal of Huffaker Detention and asked that the benefit analysis and need associated with other events be considered by the Working Group and others.

Mr. Urban noted that every year there would be a different flow pattern. As you develop the data based on those events a man-made picture of the river can be developed. In this case the peak events get to a single point less than 1-percent of the time.

Mr. Aldean noted that is one of the reasons that flood projects are not developed for the 500 year events.

Discussion then pointed out that while there was some benefit with the 10, 20 and 50 year event that protection was lost at 117 year event. Other discussion suggested that a design to handle the confluence of waters at Vista and whether the Flood Project to accommodate a 100 year event for both the Truckee River and Steamboat Creek at the same time which is in the range of a one in a million probability and thus not of any particular value. A comparison of probability was made to the roll of dice whether rolled singly or as a pair. In the 1997 event the Truckee River experienced a 117 year event measured at Reno and Vista gauges. It was noted that not all water sheds experience the same magnitude of event at the same time as storms tend to be more localized. The only change was the storage capacity of Huffaker Detention and the additional development behind the proposed location. It was pointed out that there had been some changes that affect the discharge of the North Truckee Drain and the need to relocate the point of entry into the Truckee River. The $300-million is for the dam, spillway and land. It was noted that there are some containment features needed to protect Bella Vista, South Meadows Parkway and certain commercial buildings along Steamboat Creek. It is possible to have recreational component if the land is acquired as part of the project. If the land is not purchased there may be no footprint for restoration or recreation components. It is estimated that a removal of the recreation component could also result in some additional cost savings.

Discussion then focused on how roads may be affected. It was explained that the roadways were not included in this analysis. The Huffaker Detention provides protection only between the proposed dam and the Truckee River. It was noted that it is possible that a 50-year event could cause one of the roadways (Mira Loma or Pembroke) and could have some benefit with Huffaker Detention. This particular analysis looked at the perimeter of the Huffaker area and that certain roadways will continue to flood in less than 100 year events and Tom Greco had requested an analysis on those roads with and without the dam. As the discussion continued, it was explained that the Southeast Connector analysis indicated that flooding could be caused by a combination of factors (e.g., culvert sizing or debris). The Southeast Connector will have a single lane in each direction above the flood level to maintain Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 9 of 13

access during a flood event. It was explained that if RTC-5 includes funding for permitting of the Southeast Connector that may take 4 years to acquire with another 2 years in design. It was pointed out that the Flood Project can be amended after Congressional authorization and that changes in design during the fifteen year construction timeline will provide the desired level of protection. There is some concern about removal of the Huffaker Detention that could provide less than 117 year event protection between the dam and the Truckee River. It was explained that the inclusion or elimination of Huffaker Detention would not cause flooding in certain areas of Hidden Valley and Rosewood Lakes by Steamboat Creek. It was emphasized that the area north of Huffaker Narrows is part of Critical Flood Zone One. It was noted that the Cyan Development is within Critical Flood Zone One. In Washoe County ordinances the flood plain storage criteria was applied across all of Critical Flood Zone One, whereas the City of Reno did not apply their ordinance south of Huffaker Narrows.

Ms. Duerr noted that the FPCC (Flood Project Coordinating Committee) had recommended that the flood mitigation ordinance be adopted region wide for Critical Flood Zone one. However, the City of Reno is waiting for additional information before adding the area south of Huffaker Narrows in their Flood Mitigation Ordinance.

Mr. Urban noted that the City of Reno had decided to not consider flood plain storage in the Steamboat Flood Plan south of Huffaker Narrows. One of the major arguments was that the Flood Pool is actually located at University Farms and that the water surface elevations south of Huffaker Narrows is 50 feet higher and therefore does not affect the Flood Project. Mr. Urban explained that the loss of storage south of Huffaker Narrows can and will affect the water elevations of the Flood Project.

Ms. Duerr commented that there are no benefits to homes in the 5 and 10 year events with some homes starting to flood at the 100 year event and higher. Ms. Duerr noted that the feature has been in the plan for some time and that Flood Project staff has spent time reviewing models and other data before reaching a decision to recommend that the Huffaker Detention be removed from the LPP as the feature is not included in the NED (National Economic Development) Plan. Therefore, the Flood Project staff is recommending that the feature be removed. Ms. Duerr noted that the TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) has concurred with the removal. The discussion was brought back to this Working Group meeting as several key individuals were not present at the January meeting. The FPCC directed Flood Project staff to seek additional comments before making a final decision. Ms Duerr asked that the Working Group provide their input on the removal of the feature.

Mr. Crivelli suggested that a white paper be developed that summarizes the underlying reasoning and validation for the removal of the Huffaker Detention facility.

During the discussion it was noted that the audio recording of the meeting would provide the questions and answers posed during the presentation. It was noted that all of the spreadsheets of the comparisons are on file and can be provided. It was Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 10 of 13

suggested that perhaps a linkage should be established to protect the land as part of the flood plain even without a flood protection structural feature. Other discussion focused on the model resolution that included Huffaker Detention and the inclusion of areas south of Huffaker as part of the Flood Project. It was emphasized that it is crucial that the area be retained as part of the Flood Project. Other discussion focused on whether the Southeast Connector had an adverse impact on the Flood Project storage. It was suggested that the white paper also articulate flood potential of existing roadways and the Southeast Connector. Other discussion suggested that the lower level of risk associated with the removal of the Huffaker Detention be included along with the duration and effect of flooding.

Ms. Duerr commented that she too was led to understand that there were many benefits associated with the Huffaker Detention facility. The question is to explain how this has changed. Ms. Duerr commented that Mr. Urban had explained how the modeling has improved over time including the two dimensional flow and can show that the gains that were anticipated are not there.

Mr. Urban noted that the differences are in what has occurred in the Huffaker Reservoir and had gotten smaller over time. However, events exceeding the 20 year event cannot allow the water to rise due to development. Originally, Huffaker held more water and that development has encroached on the reservoirs ability to store water.

Mr. Urban commented that since this is done by consensus and that those individuals who cannot support the recommendation should so state. Mr. Urban noted that, in his opinion, not everyone will always be completely satisfied. While hesitant to say what the Working Group recommendation should be, Mr. Urban stated his understanding of the recommendation: that the Huffaker Detention facility be taken out of the Locally Preferred Plan and that a white paper be developed that explains how that decision was reached.

Mr. Aldean suggested that the caveat that the area south, the old foot print be retained and treated as part of the Critical Flood Zone.

Ms. Duerr noted that the Working Group is not making a recommendation to the FPCC other than as individuals if so desired nor is a recommendation being made to the TAC since those are publicly noticed meetings. Ms. Duerr explained that the Working Group is advising her and that she will take that recommendation and everything said on what the LPP should include. Ms. Duerr commented that the stature and process for the TAC has been formalized such that the meetings are now publicly noticed and are advisory to the FPCC directly. However, the Working Group has not been formalized and that two members of the Working Group also serve in a non-voting capacity on the FPCC. When the FPCC discusses the matter the two representatives are there to voice Working Groups comments.

Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 11 of 13

Mr. Urban noted that this is not a change as Flood Project staff is committed to following the open meeting law in all venues. Therefore, it is critical that it be clear that the recommendation is to be passed through to the Flood Board.

Ms. Duerr noted that the Working Group could change to a more formal process.

Mr. Urban summarized the recommendation and contents of the white paper with the flood plain remaining as identified in 2004 and that Flood Mitigation Ordinance be applied to the area south of the Huffaker Narrows as well. The intent is to have the City of Reno ordinance applied to that area south of the Huffaker Narrows as well. Mr. Urban noted that if anyone says no a change to make the proposal tolerable has to be identified. The intent is to determine whether those present find the proposal tolerable.

An unidentified speaker stated he would support the recommendation and added that the removal of the Huffaker Detention area from the plan would also remove the recreation component(s) that would have been there. The white paper should also address impacts or changes in impacts to the three roads that cross Steamboat and that the recreational components be retained.

Another unidentified speaker suggested that impacts to the neighborhoods be identified and explained with the slight increase in water surface.

Mr. Urban you are trusting me there are no impact.

Unidentified but there are impacts. The point is there are negative impacts to the water surface elevation. There is a tradeoff that at some point in time there may be a negative impact, but the impacts are not considered to be worth the $300-million cost.

Responding to Ms. Duerr’s inquiry about the low flow, Mr. Urban explained there are changes between the 10 year and 100 year event with or without the Huffaker Dam but not at the 5 year event.

Mr. Urban noted that the white paper did not need pages for everything it should include the points used in making the determination. With the addition to the impacts to the road we in agreement to the recommendation.

5. TRACTION PROJECTS – A) Virginia Street Bridge-Phase II Design; and B) Lower Mustang Restoration

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, noted that Virginia Street Bridge Phase 2 and Lower Mustang Restoration were approved at the last meeting as TRAction projects.

6. RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY GROUNDBREAKING (1.29.09) AND ASA WOODLEY VISIT (2.13.09)

Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 12 of 13

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, noted that several individuals had attended the RSIC (Reno Sparks Indian Colony) groundbreaking ceremony and thanks those that had attend. Ms. Duerr then noted that ASA (Assistant Secretary of the Army) Woodley had visited the region.

7. CORPS PROJECT SCHEDULE

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, noted that the Corps schedule is being reviewed and put in a different format but it is unclear how it will change.

8. FUTURE MEETING LOCATION CHANGE

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, commented that the Flood Project staff is considering a move to the Conference Room at the Gateway Drive offices and that a conference room has been constructed. The Flood Project office is located about 15 minutes south of the Washoe County Department of Water Resources facility.

9. OTHER TOPICS?

An unidentified speaker asked that it be noted in the minutes he stayed until the end of the meeting.

The meeting ended at approximately 5:20 p.m.

Flood Project Working Group – DRAFT Minutes February 25, 2009 Page 13 of 13

WORKING GROUP BIN LIST FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

ITEM SCHEDULED DISCUSSED Flood Funding Study 7-30-08 7-30-08 Governance 1-28-09 1-28-09 2-25-09 Corps Project Schedule/timeline 7-30-08 7-30-08 8-27-08 8-27-08 9-24-08 2-25-09 Southeast Connector 7-30-08 7-30-08 8-27-08 8-27-08 9-24-08 9-24-08 Flood Mitigation Ordinance 8-27-08 8-27-08 Flood Mitigation Resolution 9-24-08 9-24-08 12-17-08 12-17-08 Recreation Plan

Restoration Projects 8-27-08 Lockwood Groundbreaking 10-29-08 Lower Mustang Restoration 2-25-09 Downtown Bridges TRAction Bridge Visioning Meetings 9-24-08 9-24-08 Easements 10-29-08 10-29-08 1-28-09 1-28-09 Hidden Valley TRAction Project Home Elevation & Buyouts 1-28-09 1-28-09

Aesthetics Design Committee

Rainbow Bend – Flood Mitigation & 117yr level of 10-29-08 protection Value Engineering Study 1-28-09 1-28-09