EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF
LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
This Project Is Being Conducted In Part
With Funds Provided By The United
States Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-01-3533, Entitled
DEMONSTRATION OF STATE WATER OUAI.I I Y
MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULAI IONS I OK
CONTROL OF LAND DISTURBING ACT IVII II S
IN THE STATE OF NEVADA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY
Problem Statement 3
Recommended Solutions 3
Solution Development Process 10
RECOMMENDATIONS
Legislative Action Proposal 27
Early Action Program 28
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Background 35
Land Disturbing Activities 38
Magnitude 46
Priorities 64
CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Control Strategies 71
Implementing Strategies 78
Effectiveness 86
Resource Requirements 90
EXISTING INSTITUTIONS
Framework 97
Federal 97
State 125
Regional/Local 160
EVALUATION SYSTEM
Evaluation Model 167
Assessment of Authorities and Programs 180
Questionnaires 184
Data Collection Process 201
AGENCY EVALUATION
Agency Capabilities 207
General Observations 212
AUTHORITY EVALUATION
Agency/Activity Intervention 217
Agency/Authority Intervention 221
Apparent Deficiencies 221
General Observations 243
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Development of Alternatives 246
Alternative Evaluation 249
JE? APPENDIX
® Abbreviations 251
^ Bibliography 252
o
-------
Introduction
-------
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was inacted by Congress to
alleviate pollution threats and preserve and enhance the nations water
quality. The Act establishes national goals for pollution control, and
gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority and the
responsibility of preserving water quality. The 50 states have, in
turn, established state level programs for alleviating water quality
problems. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, provides for the development and implementation of area-wide
waste treatment management plans, which, among other things, must
establish a regulatory program providing for the control or treatment of
all point and non-point sources of pollution.
The State of Nevada has in operation an effective permit program aimed
at controlling point discharges of pollutants into the waters of the
state. Attainment of Nevada's water quality standards, however, must be
predicated upon a substantially greater degree of attention to pollutants
from non-point sources. Non-point sources of pollution are diffuse, not
easily identified nor always directly relatable to the source, and are
caused by a broad spectrum of man's activities. Runoff and erosion from
land-disturbing activities is the largest common denominator of the many
types of diffuse pollution sources. The existing institutional sets and
control authorities that operate within the state of Nevada are inadequate
in terms of solution to the non-point water quality problem.
Initiation of this project was approved by EPA as a result of a technical
proposal submitted by the Environmental Protection Services of the State
of Nevada. The stated project goal is to "provide the State of Nevada
with a management discharge of pollutants to waters of the state from land-
disturbing activities." The project has been conducted as part of the
Section 208 planning process, and has been largely financed by EPA funding.
This interim report, covering the first year's effort in what is scheduled
to be a two year program, details the recommended solutions, and describes
the process used to develop those solutions.
Work on the project started in June, 1975, with James C. Breitlow,
Nevada Department of Human Resources, Environmental Protection Services,
as project director. The project team has consisted of consultants from
four separate firms (Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc.; Vasey-Scott
Engineering Co.; Harper & Owes; and Organizational Consultants of the
Northwest; a deputy attorney general, and staff support from Environ-
mental Protection Services.
The project proceeded from seven key assumptions, which are listed below:
(1) water quality is degraded by land-disturbing activities;
(2) management techniques exist and are in the literature;
(3) for effective regulation, neither the regulated entities nor
regulating organizations need to have the water quality problem
specifically demonstrated—demonstration from the literature
and pilot 208 planning will suffice;
1
-------
(4) with any newly regulated entity, inertia and stress exist,
in terms of attainment of the goal of the regulation;
(5) due to limited administrative and other resources, imple-
mentation must be on a priority basis, in terms of geographical
area and the particular land-disturbing activity;
(6) the existing institutional sets and control authorities are
inadequate in terms of solution of the water quality problem; and
(7) the solution lies predominantly in management practices, as
opposed to capital-intensive structures.
In order to assure that the methodology and recommendations were being
developed on a sound basis, a project Sounding Board has been used
throughout the study. This Sounding Board has acted in an advisory
capacity, and has had significant impact on the study. Board membership
has included the following:
Joe Dini, Jr. - State Assemblyman
Bob Stewart - Administrative^Assistant and Press Secretary, Governors Office
Bruce Arkell - State Planning Coordinator, Governors Office
John Maclntyre - Assistant County Manager, Washoe County
Ernie Gregory - Director, Environmental Protection Services
Implementation of the recommended solutions will require the involvement
of many persons, most of whom have only a superficial knowledge of the
project results to date. As the size of the interim report is somewhat
imposing, a rather detailed summary has been prepared. This summary is
the first section in the interim report, and has also been printed as a
separate document. It contains some sections of the interim report
verbatim, while other sections are abridged.
2
-------
Summary
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was inacted by Congress to
alleviate pollution threats and preserve and enhance the nations water
quality. The Act establishes national goals for pollution control, and
gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority and the
responsibility of preserving water quality. The 50 states have, in
turn, established state level programs for alleviating water quality
problems. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, provides for the development and implementation of area-wide
waste treatment management plans, which, among other things, must
establish a regulatory program providing for the control or treatment of
all point and non-point sources of pollution.
The State of Nevada has in operation an effective permit program aimed
at controlling point discharges of pollutants into the waters of the
state. Attainment of Nevada's water quality standards, however, must be
predicated upon a substantially greater degree of attention to pollutants
from non-point sources. Non-point sources of pollution are diffuse, not
easily identified nor always directly relatable to the source, and are
caused by a broad spectrum of man's activities. Runoff and erosion from
land-disturbing activities is the largest common demoninator of the many
types of diffuse pollution sources. The existing institutional sets and
control authorities that operate within the state of Nevada are inadequate
in terms of solution to the non-point water quality problem. This proj-
ect has been directed at identifying specific inadequacies in the insti-
tutional structure, and developing appropriate institutional solutions.
Initiation of this project was approved by EPA as a result of a technical
proposal submitted by the Environmental Protection Section of the State
of Nevada. The stated project goal is to "provide the State of Nevada
with a management system for the control of accelerated erosion and
attendant discharge of pollutants to waters of the state from land-
disturbing activities." The project has been conducted as part of the
Section 208 planning process, and has been largely financed by EPA
funding. This interim report covering the first year's effort in what
is scheduled to be a two year program, details the recommended solutions
and describes the process used to develop those solutions.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
The efforts of this study have been directed at two possible methods of
solving the runoff and erosion problem in Nevada. The first method is
the recommended alternative, which will require legislative action by
the 1977 session of the Nevada State Legislature for its implementation.
The development of this alternative is described in the section on
Alternative Solutions. The second area of emphasis is on actions which
can be taken to assist in control of runoff and erosion within the
3
-------
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOR RUNOFF AND EROSION CONTROL
No
knvirommnul
Piolcdion
Service*
No
fcnmuMKiHii
Commaston
[Upheld
County
/"if ViublKJit \
I Uiuvwlvcd |
* Then lu LPS/
s K s
T
,-u
J Permit J
I Itfucd i
ftfMl-htUMg
Agencies
(CotMtift, Ciiin,
Fish & Game Dept,
Forestry Dtvmon)
/ Conuder«t*on N
/ With
\ Appl*c*4too ,
^ For Permit /
I Enforcement |
Per Uth j.
j Agency'* |
LProU^ures^ _J
Key: Apptocibte If Projeit t»
Subject Also To A
Per mil Requirement
-------
existing institutional structure, thus requiring no legislative changes.
This constitutes the Early Action Program, because implementation
procedures can begin prior to any action by the Legislature.
Although some progress on controlling runoff and erosion can be made
through implementation of the Early Action Program, it will take enactment
of the legislative action proposal to fully meet water quality standards
on a statewide basis. The importance of implementing the recommended
solutions lies not only in attaining the state's water quality goals,
but also in forestalling or intercepting federal interventions in this
area by development of an effective state program that is acceptable
in Nevada.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION PROPOSAL
The recommended alternative for legislation is being developed in two
steps. The first step has been completed. This was a description of
the major provisions of the proposed legislation, which is a general
concept with only a few details. The second step, which is now in
progress, is to present the recommended alternative for legislation to
federal, state, regional and local agencies as well as user groups,
associations, impacted parties, and the general public. Reaction and
feedback from these meetings will be used to develop details to the
degree necessary for bill drafting.;
The recommended alternative as presented to agencies, user groups, etc.,
is diagrammed on the facing page and described below.
1. Upon the proposal of the Environmental Protection Services (EPS),
the State Environmental Commission designates broad geographic
areas requiring priority attention with respect to runoff and
erosion problems. Then', as a part of the county comprehensive
planning program, each county having jurisdiction in the designated
areas develops a conservation plan element for such areas. The
plan element should set forth the specific geographic areas where
land-disturbing activities are,of concern, the priorities among
the different types of land-disturbing activities needing earliest
attention, and recommended performance criteria for runoff and erosion
from land-disturbing activities. Counties may receive assistance
from EPS, conservation districts, and State Lands Division.
Completed conservation plan elements need the approval of the State
Environmental Commission.
2. Subsequent to the completion of county conservation plan elements,
any person engaging, or proposing to engage, in a land-disturbing
activity* of a certain magnitude develops a site-specific conservation
*The present intent is to define this term in the legislative bill in
such a manner that it will cover each type of land-disturbing activity.
5
-------
plan, setting forth measures to control runoff and erosion from a
water quality standpoint. Implementation of this requirement will
be phased, in terms of time and specific geographic area, according
to the priorities set forth in the county conservation plan ele-
ments. Land disturbers may receive assistance from conservation
districts (including the resources of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service), EPS, and numerous other agencies who render assistance.
Site-specific conservation plans go through a review and comment
procedure, and need the approval of the Conservation District and
EPS. If a land-disturbing activity is already subject to other
permit programs (e.g., building permits for construction) an approved
site-specific conservation plan is needed prior to the issuance of
such permit. (Because it is conceivable that unqualified power to
disapprove a site-specific conservation plan can be abused for the
political purpose of preventing the exercise of permit agencies'
authorities, the power to disapprove shall be limited to a deter-
mination as to whether adequate runoff and erosion control measures
are provided.) Appeal procedures are provided, as are provisions
for inspection, enforcement, penalties and program evaluation.
EARLY ACTION PROGRAM
In addition to the recommended alternative for legislative action, several
actions can be taken that will be directly supportive. These actions
include both items that should be accomplished prior to the legislative
action, as wejLl as some that must necessarily follow.
1. Prepare a manual of standards and specifications for runoff and
erosion control. The purpose of this manual is to provide to
everyone involved in land-disturbing activities a reference of
control measures which is tailored to Nevada. This would include
structural and non-structural practices which will effectively
prevent or abate runoff and erosion. Such a manual will be a key
adjunct to the program that is to be created with the proposed
legislation, with respect to the site-specific conservation plan
requirement thereof. The manual will serve a dual role. First,
the manual will serve as the criteria against which site-specific
conservation plans are approved or disapproved. Second, the manual
will serve to advise the persons engaged in land-disturbing activities
as to the contents of a site-specific conservation plan and as to
the type of expectations that the. plan-approving authority has of
the persons engaged in land-disturbing activities. Once assembled,
the manual is to be used with discretion, fully considering any
special circumstances of individual land-disturbing activities
(e.g., emergency situations, unique environmental setting, etc.).
The development and collation of such criteria have been done by
several agencies over the years. What is needed is to put these
criteria which have proven effective and reasonable in Nevada into
one document.
6
-------
The document should be assembled with informal public participation
by a task force comprised of members of the.agencies which have
had past experience in developing and/or compiling such criteria,
and which are to have principal roles to perform in the new program.
The motivation and the leadership in the work of the task force is
to be the responsibility of EPS. Upon completion of the task
force efforts, the product will be proposed to the Environmental
Commission and the Conservation Commission for their consideration,
formal public participation and adoption. In addition, each
conservation district will be presented the product of the task
force effort for its adoption. This total effort should be completed
by January 1978, to coincide with the anticipated effective date of
the legislative requirement for site-specific conservation plans.
The several individual 208 planning programs in Nevada will develop
and refine certain criteria that can be used with respect to the
abatement and control of runoff and erosion; these 208 planning
products are to be considered for augmenting the manual which is
to be prepared in its initial form by January of 1978.
2. Develop memoranda of understanding with certain federal agencies.
Not necessarily related to the proposed program to be created by
legislation is the need to develop memoranda of understanding with
the federal land management agencies as well as the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, HUD and the Economic Development Administration. If the
protection of water quality were a matter of greater purpose for
these agencies, the administration of their programs could yield
more complete control of runoff and erosion. The infusion of a
greater motivation toward water quality protection can be accom-
plished by establishing a partnership between EPS and these agencies.
The memoranda of understanding should provide for an initial mutual
review and agreement as to the adequacy of each agency's specifica-
tions and conditions with respect to runoff and erosion control
that it attaches to any support or sanction it gives to projects
having a land-disturbing nature. It is also intended that these
memoranda will provide a mechanism for periodic mutual review qf
each agency's annual priorities for such things as funding support
programs and public works projects. It is intended that such
memoranda will be developed in the same spirit of intergovernmental
and interagency coordination as espoused in Section 304(j) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
3. Perform a prototype exercise of the program as set forth in the
proposed legislation. EPS should take the lead in initiating a
prototype program along the lines of the proposed legislation.
This prototype program would involve EPS, one county, one conserva-
tion district, and one person engaged in a land-disturbing activity.
Each would participate on a voluntary basis. The purpose of con-
ducting such an exercise is three-fold: 1) to assist in developing
7
-------
specific considerations yet needed in the legislative proposal;
2) to uncover any "bugs" that may exist in the present concept of
the proposed program; and 3) to obtain some experience to assist in
immediate implementation of the program once enacted. This exer-
cise may be undertaken immediately but certainly ought to be con-
ducted and completed by no later than the end of November, 1976.
Obtain preferential loan rates for qualified developers and other
types of persons engaged in land-disturbing activities. A few
governmental assistance programs are being administered to provide
financial incentives for the abatement of runoff and erosion. In
Nevada, for various reasons, such governmental incentive is not
extensive. It is recommended that the principle of providing
financial incentives be extended to non-governmental institutions..
More specifically, a program should be established with Nevada
lending institutions on the order of a program established recently
by the Seattle Trust and Savings Bank. This bank is offering
loans at more advantageous rates and terms if the bank customer
takes positive steps to adopt energy conservation standards set
forth by various federal, state and local agencies, utilities ^nd
professional associations. A quite similar concept was being
developed under the efforts of this project for application to
runoff and erosion control; the Seattle bank's energy conservation
program can serve as a timely prototype. It is proposed that each
of Nevada's major lending institutions be approached by EPS to
ascertain whether market forces and individual bank management
philosophies are receptive to such a program. If a program can be
initiated, it can be coupled with two other recommendations proposed
above — that of preparing a manual of standards and specifications
for runoff and erosion control, and that of developing site-specific
conservation plans. Initiation of this recommendation can begin
immediately.
Organize and refine education programs to increase awareness of
runoff and erosion problems and solutions. In association with the
other agencies who are working with the subject of land disturbances
from an educational/assistance standpoint, EPS should construct a
short educational program on the problem of runoff and erosion and
approaches for its abatement. This effort should be conducted as
an integral and first part of a public involvement program of the
statewide 208 program, which is the responsibility of EPS. The
recommendation responds to the firm belief held by several of the
agencies and persons contacted throughout this project to the
effect that a great part of the solution can be obtained where the
concern for the problem and the approaches to its solution are
brought to the attention of the people who are in various degrees
responsible for the problem. The connection of this effort with
the 208 statewide public involvement endeavor is called f,or on the
8
-------
basis that both efforts attempt to identify and Involve the per-
tinent publics with respect to water quality management in general
and nonpoint source problems .in particular. This effort may begin
immediately, but should be well underway by later August.
6. Modify ongoing monitoring program. This recommendation is to
result in change within EPS, primarily. EPS should review and
modify as necessary and as within resource opportunities the design
of its ambient water quality monitoring program for improved measurement
of runoff and erosion problem areas. Such review and modification
should include considerations for additional parameters, additional
monitoring sites, and increased monitoring frequency. Similarly,
intensive monitoring surveys, when designed, should be given an
additional consideration for measuring the effects of runoff and
erosion problems. It should be noted that such specific consideration
of runoff and erosion contributions to water quality problems in
the monitoring program has already been undertaken this year; the
recommendation is to follow through on this start and to continue
this direction annually.
7. Work with the Division of State Lands in its program for designation
of areas of critical environmental concern. This recommendation is
to have EPS work informally and immediately with the Division of
State Lands with respect to the still-developing program of protecting
areas of critical environmental concern. The work to be done with
the Division of State Lands is to insure that water quality and
runoff and erosion control considerations are adequately represented
in the Division's general criteria for the designation of critical
environmental areas. It is to be noted that the program of critical
environmental areas is still in its formative stages; however,
though the full potential of this program cannot be gauged yet, it
is valuable to build into such program the importance of runoff,
erosion and water quality as elements of critical environmental
concern.
8. Develop memoranda of understanding with federal land management
agencies. Another adjunct to the program proposed for enactment
by the Legislature is to define the relationship of federal agencies
to the state program. It has been recently reaffirmed by the U.S.
Supreme Court that federal agencies must comply with only substan-
tive, not procedural, requirements of state programs. Once the
proposed legislation is enacted, it is recommended that voluntary
cooperation of and participation by the federal land management
agencies in the state program be obtained. The instruments defin-
ing the relationship of the federal agencies to their participation
in the state program should be memoranda of understanding. Basically,
the memoranda of understanding should acknowledge that the federal
land management agencies agree to participate in the state program
9
-------
as any other person engaged in a land-disturbing activity may be
required to do. This recommendation is to be carried out as soon
as the enactment of the program by the legislature is known. (If
agreement can not be reached with a federal land management agency
to cooperate in the state program, the state could develop and
adopt certain substantive water pollution control requirements. The
state could then request compliance with such requirements under
the authority of Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, and Presidential Executive Order 11752.)
9, Leave the activity sector of urbanization open for further attention
by the 208 planning agencies. After careful and extensive analysis
of the urbanization activity sector, it was concluded that the
land-disturbing aspects of urbanization are, for the large part,
functions of other activity sectors (e.g., building construction,
stream modifications). Consequently, recommendations for all such
land-disturbing aspects of urbanization are covered under other
recommendations of this section. The above is said with one
exception: that aspect pertaining to increased runoff which results
from the decrease in the ability of runoff water to percolate and
infiltrate. This aspect should be handled via the 208 planning
program inasmuch as the principal urban areas of the state are in
locally designated 208 areas.
SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Work on this project was initiated in June, 1975, with James C. Breitlow,
Nevada Department of Human Resources, Environmental Protection Services,
as project director. The project team has consisted of consultants from
four separate firms (Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc.; Vasey-Scott Engi-
neering Co.; Harper & Owes; and Organizational Consultants of the Northwest)
a deputy attorney general, and staff support from Environmental Protec-
tion Services.
In order to assure that the methodology and recommendations were being
developed on a sound basis, a project Sounding Board has been used
throughout the study. This Sounding Board has acted in an advisory
capacity, and has had significant Impact on the study. Board membership
has included the following:
Joe Dini, Jr. - State Assemblyman
Bob Stewart - Administrative Assistant and Press Secretary,
Governor's Office
Bruce Arkell - State Planning Coordinator, Governor's Office
John Maclntyre - Assistant County Manager, Washoe County
Ernie Gregory - Director, Environmental Protection Services
10
-------
The project is statewide in scope, and is being conducted in two phases.
The initial phase consists first of an evaluation of existing authorities
and programs, and the present institutional framework. This is followed
by the development of additional authority requirements, and modified
institutional framework for the control of erosion and runoff from land-
disturbing activities. The second phase will consist of the implementa-
tion of these programs. The illustration below is a project flow diagram for
Phase I, showing the series of steps which have led to the recommended
solutions. These steps are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.
PROJECT FLOW DIAGRAM - PHASE I
DEFINC
RUNOFF AND
EROSION
PROtLEM
DETERMINE
appropriate
CONTROL
uchhiqvcs
f
CONCEIVE
EVALUATION
SYSTEM
DEVELOP
questionnaires
IDENTIFY EXISTING
AGENCIES AND
AUTHORITIES
REFINE
EVALUATION
SYSTEM
EVALUATE
EXISTING
AGENCIES
DETERMINE
INSTITUTIONS
CHARACTERISTICS
EVALUATE
DEVELO." NEW
EXITING
CONTROL
authorities
authorities
AND
AND
PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
RECOMMEND
SOLUTIONS
AND
PRIORITIES
DETERMINE
RECOMMENDED
INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK
' PHASE '
' 0 1
1 PROGRAM 1
! IMPLEMEN- I
t TATION J
\
\
EARLY
V
IMPLEMENTATION
f
C
PRO IECT SOUNDING IOARD
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION
11
-------
RUNOFF AND EROSION PROBLEM
In structuring the program major emphasis was placed on the institutional
aspects of solving the runoff and erosion problem, rather than on a
detailed and precise scoping of the problem itself. Thus, the initial
task in the project, was to identify the runoff and erosion problem only
to the extent necessary to permit accomplishment of the remainder of the
program.
Accelerated erosion is a man-caused phenomenon created by land-disturbing
processes falling into one of the following general activity sectors:
o Agriculture
o Construction
o Forestry
o Military
o Mining
o Recreation
o Stream Modification
o Transportation
o Urbanization
The character and magnitude of the erosion and resulting water quality
problems vary significantly between activity sectors. In some instances
the problems are severe but localized (e.g. mining and urbanization);
in others the problems cover large areas of the state (e.g. grazing) but
are less dramatic in terms of sediment yields per acre. The cumulative
effect of runoff and erosion from all activity sectors is significant,
and resultant degradation of water quality is a major environmental problem.
Mechanisms causing erosion are basically similar, regardless of the
land-disturbing activity. Once environmental parameters such as
precipitation, soil and topography are considered, the elements man
influences are:
o Vegetation cover with respect to bare soil
o Compaction, which inhibits infiltration and increases surface
runoff
o Irrigation and similar water applications
o Disruption of soil particles
The presence or absence of these elements for each land-disturbing
activity is reasonably well established in existing literature. However,
insufficient data exists to determine the quantity of erosion caused
by these activities within Nevada. Their precise effect on water quality
is even less defined. Thus, only general priorities can be established
for erosion control. This general prioritization, however, is sufficient
to accomplish the institutional portion of the project.
12
-------
In close association with the acceleration of the erosion process by the
activities of nan is the function of runoff. Runoff from disturbed land
areas serves not only to accelerate erosion but also to pick up and trans-
port silt, sediment, nutrients, salts, and other pollutants to receiving
waters. Water quality impacts of land-disturbing activities must be viewed
not only from the narrow perspective of erosion and sedimentation but also
from the broader standpoint of runoff from disturbed land carrying other
pollutants that are associated with particular categories of land-disturbing
activities.
Meshing the available informs w-~r.. on the extent of different types of
activities within Nevada, their erosion potential, and the known areas
of water quality concern, it is possible to establish relative priorities
for developing runoff and erosion control programs for the various
activity sectors. They are grouped below into three categories, with no
attempt to rank activities within categories:
High Runoff and Erosion Activity - Agriculture - Grazing
Agriculture - Irrigation
Construction - Buildings
Construction - Roads
Recreation - Trails
Stream Modifications
Urbanization
Moderate Runoff and
Erosion Activity -
Forestry
Mining - Hard Rock
Mining - Open Pit
Transportation - Roads
Low Runoff and Erosion Activity -
Construction - Dams
Construction - Transmission
Military
Recreation - Boats
Recreation - Camps
Transportation - Airports
Transportation - Rail
APPROPRIATE CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The extent of erosion and the quality of runoff depends on several
influencing factors: 1) topography including ground slope; 2) runoff
quantities and rates; 3) climatic conditions including temperature, .
wind velocities, and rainfall quantities and intensities; 4) surface
characteristics including soil types, geology, vegetative ground cover,
surface coverings, and land use; and 5) stream channel characteristics.
Man's activities can modify or influence these factors, accelerating the
erosion process and adding pollutants to runoff.
13
-------
To control erosion and the quality of runoff associated with man-related
activities, it is necessary to control the impacts on the influencing
factors. In addition, eroded soils and other pollutants must be dis-
charged to surface waters in order for erosion to be considered a water
quality concern. Thus, erosion control associated with improving or
maintaining water quality can also be related to controlling the discharge
of eroded soils to surface waters. Control strategies can then be
divided into two major categories: those that are aimed at preventing
or minimizing the erosion process (source controls); and those that are
aimed at preventing or minimizing the discharge of eroded soils to
surface waters (discharge controls).
The measures which can be Implemented to control runoff and erosion
and/or the resultant pollutant discharges to surface waters fall into
two major types: physical and structural control measures; and manage-
ment control measures. The physical and structural controls include
reducing erosion rates by developing facilities which modify surface
runoff quantities, rates or locations. They also include modifying
surface characteristics, topography, or stream channel configuration to
reduce erosion. In addition, physical and structural controls can be
developed which treat runoff to remove eroded soils prior to discharge
to surface waters.
Management control measures are mainly aimed at modifying or controlling
activities which'impact or influence erosion rates. These activities
relate to both the disturbance of land and the use of water. The manage-
ment measures attempt to control the location, extent, timing and specific
practices of the activities so that they will have a minimal adverse
impact on those factors which influence the rate of erosion and discharge
of sediment to surface waters.
Based on the information developed for this project, several observations
or conclusions can be made with respect to control techniques.
1. There are structural and/or management techniques available to
adequately deal with essentially all facets of runoff and erosion,
and resultant water quality problems.
2. In many cases the available technical solutions are so costly as
to make them economically unattractive.
3. Vegetation, even in Nevada, is the cheapest, most effective
method of holding soil in place over long time periods. Once it
is lost, careful attention and significant expense will be needed
to re-establish it.
4. Physical or structural erosion control facilities are needed at
some point for most land-disturbing activities.
14
-------
For most accelerated erosion problems there are enough alternatives
available that detailed evaluation will be required to develop the
"best" solution to each problem.
Source controls generally represent the lowest cost method of con-
trolling runoff and erosion; management controls can be an effective
method of implementing source controls.
EXISTING AGENCIES AND AUTHORITIES
The institutional framework which is presently involved in control of
erosion and attendant pollution problems in Nevada is complex. It
includes agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels.
These agencies are involved through regulatory, financial, educational
or public works mechanisms or some combination of these mechanisms.
Their programs impact one or more of the activity sectors which contribute
to water quality problems in Nevada.
One of the key premises underlying this project is that the existing
institutional sets and control authorities are inadequate in terms of
solution of the water quality problem. A detailed understanding of
the existing situation is a prerequisite to developing recommendations
for new authorities or programs. It was necessary, therefore, to develop
as much information as possible on every agency presently or potentially
involved in control of erosion and attendant water quality problems.
The screening out of uninvolved agencies, and subsequent development of
detailed information on the involved agencies, was handled somewhat
differently for federal and state agencies, as opposed to regional and local
agencies.
An initial screening of all federal and state agencies active in Nevada
yielded the following agencies that are, or could be, involved in some
aspect of the control of runoff and erosion:
Federal - Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Land Management
Soil Conservation Service
Corps of Engineers
Forest Service
Federal Highway Administration
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
State - Environmental Protection Services
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Highways
Department of Agriculture
Division of Conservation Districts
Division of Forestry
Division of State Lands
Division of Water Resources
5.
6.
CP/, a:
15
-------
An in-depth, structured interview was conducted with each of these
agencies, using the interview process and questionnaires developed as
part of the evaluation system for this project. The information extracted
from the interview, together with all information garnered prior to the
interview, provides clear insight into the operation of each agency in
Nevada, dnd its role in the control of erosion and runoff from land-
disturbing activities. The method used to evaluate agency capability is
described in the following sections.
In determining the involvement of regional and local agencies in the
control of runoff and erosion, a somewhat different problem was faced
than with federal and state involvement. Whereas there are only 7
federal and 8 state agencies determined to be involved in erosion
control in Nevada, the number of regional and local agencies directly
involved is very large. These agencies include cities, counties, regional
governments, conservation districts, irrigation districts, and the
Cooperative Extension Service.
The sheer number of agencies involved
agency impossible within the time and
project. These agencies were grouped
and a geographically mixed sample was
interviewed were:
Cities -
made physical interview of each
budgetary constraints of this
into units having similar authorities
chosen for interview. Those
Elko
North Las Vegas
Reno
Yerington
Counties - Clark
Elko
Washoe
Regional - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Walker River Irrigation District
Carson Valley Conservation District
Cooperative Extension Service
To those agencies not interviewed, a paper-and-pencil questionnaire was
sent requesting information similar to that obtained by interview.
The information obtained from regional/local agencies showed a wide
variation with respect to awareness and action in the area of accelerated
erosion and attendant water quality problems. At one extreme is the
TRPA which is doing a detailed study with substantial emphasis on
control of runoff and erosion and which has enacted a very strict
grading ordinance. Conversely, the City of Yerington which is flat and
has little land-disturbing activity within its boundaries, views runoff
16
-------
and erosion as a very minor problem and is quite logically doing almost
nothing about it. Cities and counties generally have a broad array of
problems and demands placed upon a rather limited budget. Accordingly,
only in areas where cities or counties perceive erosion and attendant
water quality problems as a serious concern are they inclined to
actively pursue corrective programs.
EVALUATION SYSTEM
As used in this project, the term institution embodies three concepts:
o The governmental agencies operating within the State of Nevada
which have the capacity to effect some impact on the activities
of man which cause runoff and erosion, and attendant water quality
problems.
o Those activities of man which cause runoff and erosion. These
include both public and private sector activities.
o The interrelationships between regulators and regulated, in the
form of interventions aimed at controlling runoff and erosion.
An institutional evaluation must examine both the governmental agencies
involved, as well as their authorities and programs which provide
mechanisms for intervention in the accelerated erosion process. The
evaluation system, therefore, consists of two elements: a model for
the evaluation of agencies; and assessment criteria for the evaluation
of authorities and programs.
An evaluation model was developed specifically for use in the accomplish-
ment of organizational level investigations for the State of Nevada.
Implementation of this model provided this study the practicality and
consistency necessary in the evaluation process.
While the model concept provides a comprehensive structure for organiza-
tional evaluation, the effectiveness of actual investigations is extremely
dependent on the analytical ability and perseverance of the assigned
analyst. The model does not provide a substitute for the human
decision-making process; at best, it supports this function through the
enforcement of a disciplined approach. Further, the evaluator should
always anticipate "information gaps" in any organizational investigation.
By following a basic model framework and procedure, the opportunity for
collecting all available information and making a maximum number of
substantiated judgments will be increased.
This model is most effective when used in conjunction with on-site
investigations, because of the increased ability to gather information
17
-------
and make direct observations. However, it can also be applied indirectly
using information such as organizational profiles and available background
materials on various units of government.
The structure was designed to meet the specific requirements for
organizational evaluation required for this study. The model is built
around the three basic functions of an organization — planning,
performance and control — plus certain general measurements of organi-
zational capability specifically related to this project. The three
basic functions are further divided into evaluation categories as
follows:
Planning - Agency Contribution to Problem Solution
Planning Structure
Performance - Technical Performance
Information Generation
Staff Capabilities
Control - Organizational Analysis
Administrative Systems
The general measurements of organizational capability relating specifically
to the requirements of this project are:
Agency review and appeals procedures
Degree of community involvement and support
Degree of receptivity for revised/expanded role
The second step in the evaluation process is an assessment of the federal,
state, and regional/local authorities or programs extant in Nevada which
deal with the control of accelerated erosion and attendant water quality
problems. The process of developing criteria for assessment Involves an
analysis of the functions of government and identification of those
authorities and programs which might logically be employed in the con-
trol of runoff and erosion. Through a comprehensive review of existing
authorities and programs in each function a compendium of authorities
and programs dealing with the control of runoff and erosion in Nevada
can be prepared. This compendium does not, of course, examine the
adequacy or comprehensiveness of existing controls.
To deal with this issue requires a detailed analysis of the existing
authorities and programs. For analytic purposes it was necessary to
define the characteristics of an ideal authority or program aimed at
the control of erosion and water quality problems. The ideal authority
or program for control of runoff and erosion should:
18
-------
o recognize water quality;
o consider preventive or source control techniques;
o factor in social and economic considerations;
o provide rapid and simple procedures;
o provide variance (or alternative) opportunities in the application
of controls, but not open ended;
o provide for public participation;
o provide for periodic evaluation
Additionally, the total of all authorities and programs should:
o cover the entire state.
Based on these characteristics an analysis can be made of the authorities
and programs impacting each activity sector. This analysis follows a
three-step procedure, diagrammed below:
ANALYSIS OF AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS
ARE THEY
THERE?
0
P
ID EN
m
TIFY
1Y
ARE THEY
GOOD?
0
D
r
IDEN
DEFICI
TIFY
ENCIES
ARE THEY
ENOUGH?
i
5
IDEN
DEFICI
TIFY
ENCIES
c
DEVELOP NEW CONTROL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS
19
-------
QUESTIONNAIRES
Data required for institutional evaluation must be collected in a
consistent and comprehensive manner. This is best accomplished through
the use of questionnaires, where answers are obtained to specific questions,
thereby generating structured data and information. Because of the
differing nature of the agencies about which information was needed,
and the requirement that some agencies be contacted by mail while others
were interviewed, three separate questionnaires were developed.
The following parameters were utilized for the purpose of selecting
organizations to be interviewed:
o All state agencies involved with the establishment of Environmental
Policies and/or Programs.
o All state and federal agencies responsible for land and/or water
use control.
o A sample of local units of government geographically disbursed and
including:
. Counties
. Conservation Districts
. Irrigation Districts
To those local units of government not selected for interview, a paper-
and-pencil questionnaire was sent. This provided each principally-
involved agency operating within Nevada with an opportunity to supply
information which could be incorporated into the evaluation process. Out
of a total of 64 questionnaires sent out, 36 were returned for a response
rate of 56 percent. In most cases, no attempt was made to follow-up
with those agencies which did not respond. An exception was several
key conservation districts where personal contact was made in lieu of the
conservation district completing the questionnaire.
AGENCY CAPABILITIES
Evaluation of the agencies involved in control of runoff and erosion in
Nevada was conducted in accordance with the methodology established by
the evaluation model. The primary data source on the agencies of Interest
was the interview process which was structured to obtain information on
specific topics. Aggregation of this data in various ways permits an
assessment of the current or prospective capability of each agency to
perform certain functions.
20
-------
The functions to be considered for evaluation purposes were derived
from the evaluation model, and included the following:
o Capability to plan within the organization
o Capability to implement within the organization
o Capability to control within the organization
o Functional assessment - end product planning
o Functional support assessment - planning/technical assistance
o Functional support assessment - financial assistance
o Functional assessment - regulatory
o Functional assessment - monitoring and assessment
o Sensitvity to erosion as a problem in Nevada
o Willingness to accept a greater role in erosion control
o Community involvement
o Capability to accept an expanded fole in erosion control
As part of the post-interview process an analysis form was prepared for
each agency, assigning a numeric value to each of the above functions.
The ratings were subsequently reviewed with the interview team, and a
consensus reached on each assigned-value. This process assured consistency
of ratings among all of the agencies interviewed. The completed set of
analysis forms provides numeric values for the functional capabilities
of each of the agencies selected for interview.
In accordance with the procedural steps developed as part of the evaluation
model, the functional values were then aggregated into six components:
o general organizational functioning
o functional support
o sensitivity to erosion problems
o willingness to accept a greater role in control of runoff and
erosion
o community involvement
o overall assessment of management's ability to accept an expanded
role.
The values developed for these six components form the foundation for
developing the agencies involvement in the alternatives which were con-
sidered for solution of the runoff and erosion problems.
AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS
The second aspect of the evaluation process is an evaluation of the
authorities or programs extant in Nevada which deal with the control of
runoff and. erosion, and attendant water quality problems. Present programs
range broadly in scope, magnitude and effectiveness, and include regula-
tion, financial assistance, education and public works. Additionally,
some of the programs deal with all activity sectors, while others deal
21
-------
with only one or two. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the
authorities and programs of each agency involved in runoff and erosion
control in Nevada on the basis of their impact on each activity sector.
To accomplish an evaluation of authorities, the following specific
tasks were undertaken:
o A literature review of existing state statutes was conducted to
identify those statutes which, in the most global sense, pertain
to the control of erosion from land-disturbing activities.
o Enabling legislation as it pertains to substate jurisdictional
issues was reviewed.
o Authorities and programs of the involved institutions were reviewed
and discussed as part of the interview process.
o Specific criteria were developed against which to assess the
authorities and programs, as dicusssed in the evaluation system
section.
This process identified each existing authority and program, and their
relationship to each activity sector. Through the use of a matrix developed
for each activity sector it is possible to display all identified authorities
and programs which relate to that activity sector. Plotted along one
side are the functions of government; along the other are the governmental
organizations involved in some aspect of erosion control in Nevada. At
appropriate intersections on the matrix, where an agency has a program or
authority which impacts that activity sector, a symbol shows the existence
of that program or authority.
Development of a complete set of charts, one for each activity sector,
provides a compendium of authorities and programs dealing with runoff and
erosion control in Nevada.
The final step in the process of evaluating existing authorities and
programs is to determine the apparent deficiencies in the existing
structure. This analysis of deficiencies is necessarily done individually
for each activity sector.
Using the process discussed in the evaluation system section, three aspects
of existing authorities and programs are analyzed:
o Are they there?
o Are they good?
o Are they enough?
22
-------
Through this procedure it is possible to develop an in-depth understanding
of existing authorities and programs, then to derive the deficiencies or
gaps in existing authorities and programs. The procedure was followed
for each of the activity sectors, and resulted in a set of charts show-
ing the existing authorities and programs by governmental function,
together with the apparent deficiencies for each functional category.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
The collection and analysis of data on runoff and erosion in Nevada,
and on the existing institutional structure dealing with the runoff
and erosion problem provides four basic pieces of information:
1. An identification of the non-point waste problems, with a general
classification of the contribution made by each activity sector to
runoff and erosion in Nevada.
2. A determination of control techniques which have been developed
for the control of accelerated erosion which are appropriate for
use in the State of Nevada.
3. An understanding of the capabilities of the agencies presently or
potentially involved in the control of runoff and erosion, together
with an assessment of their ability to assume an expanded role.
4. A compendium of existing authorities and programs dealing with the
control of runoff and erosion in Nevada, and an identification of
the apparent deficiencies.
Using all of the above information, plus the criteria establisned for
defining an ideal authority, five alternative solutions were developed.
The alternatives, which provide a wide range of general approaches to
solving the accelerated erosion problems, are briefly summarized as
follows:
Alternative 1 - Environmental Protection Services - Standards & Permits
The State Environmental Commission and Environmental Protection
Services (EPS) would establish a petmit program to control non-
point sources. Specification standards for land-disturbing activ-
ities would be prepared by Environmental Protection Services with'
the help of the conservation districts, the Soil Conservation
Service, and other appropriate agencies. Water quality monitoring
and enforcement of standards would remain the responsibility of
EPS.
23
-------
Alternative 2 - Individual Activity Plans
Under this alternative a separate plan would be created for each of
the various activity sectors with responsibility for the plan
assumed by the state agency most closely related to that activity
sector. The activity sectors considered significant for this
purpose are: agriculture-grazing, agriculture-irrigation, construction-
buildings, construction-roads, recreation trails, stream modifications,
urbanization, forestry, mining, and transportation-roads.
Alternative 3 - County Conservation Plans
Each county would prepare a master plan which includes a conserva-
tion plan element with water quality considerations. Planning
guidelines for the county master plans would be established by
State Lands with assistance from Environmental Protection Services
and the Soil Conservation Service. These same agencies would
provide assistance to the counties as requested in plan prepara-
tion. The plans would be approved by the County Planning Commis-
sion, the counties themselves and the State Environmental Commission.
Alternative 4 - Site-Specific Conservation Plans
Under this alternative no land-disturbing activities would be
permitted in certain specified areas without a conservation plan
which included water quality considerations. The land-disturber
would be responsible for preparation of the plan. If he requested,
conservation districts, Soil Conservation Service, Environmental
Protection Services, and others, would provide assistance in the
plan preparation. After review and comment, the plan would be
approved by the conservation district and the State Conservation
Commission as well as EPS. If the activity were already covered by
a permit program,.such as subdivision requirements or building
permits, approval of the conservation plan would become a pre-
requisite for permit issuance.
Alternative 5 - Environmental Economic Impact Statements
Under this alternative an environmental and economic Impact state-
ment would be required for all proposed actions having significant
•impact on the environment. Proposed actions would include projects
of public agencies, projects receiving financial assistance from
public agencies, and projects involving issuance of permits, entitle-
ments, etc., from public agencies. The primary responsibility for
the environmental impact statement would be by the involved public
agency. The State Planning Coordinator would be responsible for
issuance of guidelines and providing overall coordination.
24
-------
Each of these alternatives was analyzed in detail to assess its effectiveness,
cost, and acceptability. Using the project Sounding to assist in the eval-
uation, the recommended alternative, which is a combination of Alternatives 3
and 4, was developed. This recommended alternative is discussed in
detail in the "Recommended Solutions" section as the legislative action
proposal.
25
-------
Recommendations
-------
LEGISLATIVE ACTION PROPOSAL
The recommended alternative for legislation is being developed in two
steps. The first step has been completed. This was a description of
the major provisions of the proposed legislation, which is a general
concept with only a few details. The second step, which is now in
progress, is to present the recommended alternative for legislation to
federal, state, regional and local agencies as well as user groups,
associations, impacted parties, and the general public. Reaction and
feedback from these meetings will be used to develop details to the
degree necessary for bill drafting.
The recommended alternative as presented to agencies, user groups, etc.,
is diagrammed on p&g& 29 and explained below.
1. Upon the proposal of the Environmental Protection Services (EPS),
the State Environmental Commission designates broad geographic
areas requiring priority attention with respect to runoff and
erosion problems. Then, as a part of the county comprehensive
planning program, each county having jurisdiction in the designated
areas develops a conservation plan element for such areas. The
plan element should set forth the specific geographic areas where
land-disturbing activities are of concern, the priorities among
the different types of land-disturbing activities needing earliest
attention and recommended performance criteria for runoff and erosion
from land-disturbing activities. Counties may receive assistance
from EPS, conservation districts, and State Lands Division.
Completed conservation plan elements need the approval of the State
Environmental Commission.
2. Subsequent to the completion of county conservation plan elements,
any person engaging, or proposing to engage, in a land-disturbing
activity* of a certain magnitude develops a site-specific conservation
plan setting forth measures to control runoff and erosion from a
water quality standpoint. Implementation of this requirement will
be phased, in terms of time and specific geographic area, according
to the priorities set forth in the county conservation plan ele-
ments. Land disturbers may receive assistance from conservation
districts (including the resources of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service) EPS, and numerous other agencies who render assistance.
Site-specific conservation plans go through a review and comment
procedure, and need the approval of the Conservation District and
EPS. If a land-disturbing activity is already Subject to other
permit programs (e.g., building permits for construction) an approved
site-specific conservation plan is needed prior to the issuance of
such permit. (Because it is conceivable that unqualified power to
disapprove a site-specific conservation plan can be abused for the
*The present intent is to define this term in the legislative bill in
such a manner that it will cover each type of land-disturbing activity.
27
-------
political purpose of preventing the exercise of permit agencies'
authorities, the power to disapprove shall be limited to a deter-
mination as to whether adequate runoff and erosion control measures
are provided.) Appeal procedures are provided, as are provisions
for inspection, enforcement, penalties and program evaluation.
EARLY ACTION PROGRAM
In addition to the recommended alternative for legislative action, several
actions can be taken that will be directly supportive. These actions
include both items that should be accomplished prior to the legislative
action, as well as some -that must necessarily follow.
1. Prepare a manual of standards and specifications for runoff and
erosion control. The purpose of this manual is to provide to
everyone involved in land—disturbing activities a reference of
control measures which is tailored to Nevada. This would include
structural and non—structural practices which will effectively
prevent or abate runoff and erosion. Such a manual will be a key
adjunct to the program that is to be created with the proposed
legislation, with respect to the site-specific conservation plan
requirement thereof. The manual will serve a dual role. First,
the manual will serve as the criteria against which site—specific
conservation plans are approved or disapproved. Second, the manual
will serve to advise the persons engaged in land-disturbing activities
as to the contents of a site-specific conservation plan and as to
the type of expectations that the plan-approving authority has of
the persons engaged in land—disturbing activities, bnce assembled,
the manual is to be used with discretion, fully considering any
special circumstances of individual land-disturbing activities
(e.g., emergency situations, unique environmental setting, etc.).
The development and collation of such criteria have been done by
several agencies over the years. What is needed is to put these
criteria- which have proven effective and reasonable in Nevada into
one document.
The document should be assembled with informal public participation
by a task force comprised of members of the agencies which have
had past experience in developing and/or compiling such criteria,
and which are to have principal roles to perform in the new program.
The motivation and the leadership in the work of the task force is
to be the responsibility of EPS. Upon completion of the task
force efforts, the product will be proposed to the Environmental
Commission and the Conservation Commission for their consideration,
formal public participation and adoption. In addition, each
conservation district will be presented the product of the task
force effort for its adoption. This total effort should be completed
by January 1978, to coincide with the anticipated effective date of
the legislative requirement for site-specific conservation plans.
28
-------
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOR RUNOFF AND EROSION CONTROL
Prepares
Sue-Specific
Conservation
Plan
For
Correction
Person Engaged
In Land
Disturbing
Project
Notice
Of
Violation
Project In
Compli-
Project
Revises
Site-Specific
Conservation
Plan
For
Correction
Yes
No
Monitor
For
Compliance
Conservation
District
For
Approval
No
i Proposes Broad
Geographic
. Areas
Monitor
For
Compliance
Envi ronmenul
Protection
Services
Administra-
tive Order
Issued
Upheld
For
Appeal,
Designates
Broad
Geographic
Areas
For N
Appeal
No
For
Approval
Environmental
Comm ission
[Upheld
Revises
Comprehensive
Plan Conservj-
tion Element
Count-
Prepares
Comprehensive
Plan Conserva-
tion Element
T~
Permii-lsMiinj;
Agencies
(Counties. Cita'v
Fish & Game Dept..
Foresir% DivMoni
r_j_,
\-mJ permit !
I Issued |
/ Consideration \
Monitor »
For J
Compliance I
I Enforcement i
* l Per Each J_
{ Agency's i
i Prodecures I
Application
N For Permit /
Applicable If Project Is
Subieci Also Tu A
Permit Requirement -
-------
The several individual 208 planning programs in Nevada will develop
and refine certain criteria that can be used with respect to the
abatement and control of runoff and erosion; these 208 planning
products are to be considered for augmenting the mgmipl which is
to be prepared in its initial form by January of 1978.
Develop memoranda of understanding with certain federal agencies.
Not necessarily related to the proposed program to be created by
legislation is the need to develop memoranda of understanding with
the federal land management agencies as well as the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, HUD and the Economic Development Administration. If the
protection of water quality were a matter of greater purpose for
these agencies, the administration of their programs could yield
more complete control of runoff and erosion. The infusion of a
greater motivation toward water quality protection can be accom-
plished by establishing a partnership between EPS and these agencies;,.
The memoranda of understanding should provide for an initial mutual
review and agreement as to the adequacy of each agency's specifica-
tions and conditions with respect to runoff and erosion control
that it attaches to any support or sanction it gives to projects
having a land-disturbing nature. It is also intended that these
memoranda will provide a mechanism for periodic mutual review of
each agency's annual priorities for such things as funding support
programs and public works projects. It is intended that such
memoranda will be developed iti the same spirit of intergovernmental
and interagency coordination as espoused ift Section 304(j) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Perform a prototype exercise of the program as set forth in the
proposed legislation. EPS should take the lead in initiating a
prototype program along the lines of the proposed legislation*
This prototype program would involve EPS, one county, one conserva-
tion district, and one person engaged in a land-disturbing activity.
Each would participate on a Voluntary basis. The purpose of con-
ducting such an exercise is three-fold: 1) to assist in*developing
specific considerations yet needed in the legislative proposal;
2) to uncover any "bugs'1 that may exist in the present concept of
the proposed program; and 3) to obtain some experience to assist in
immediate implementation of the program once exacted. This exer-
cise may be undertaken immediately but certainly ought to be con-
ducted and completed by no later than the end of November, 1976.
Obf*™ ^referential loan rates for qualified developers and other
types of persons engaged in land-disturbing activities. A few,
governmental assistance programs are being administered to provide
financial incentives for the abatement of runoff and erosion. In
Nevada, for various reasons, staeh governmental Incentive is not
31
-------
extensive. It is recommended that the principle of providing
financial incentives be extended to non-governmental institutions.
More specifically, a program should be established with Nevada
lending institutions on the order of a program established recently
by the Seattle Trust and Savings Bank. This bank is offering
loans at more advantageous rates and terms if the bank customer
takes positive steps to adopt energy conservation standards set
forth by various federal, state and local agencies, utilities and
professional associations. A quite similar concept was being
developed under the efforts of this project for application to
runoff and erosion control; the Seattle bank's energy conservation
program can serve as a timely prototype. It is proposed that each
of Nevada's major lending institutions be approached by EPS to
ascertain whether market forces and individual bank management
philosophies are receptive to such a program. If a program can be
initiated, it can be coupled with two other recommendations proposed
above — that of preparing a manual of standards and specifications
for runoff and erosion control, and that of developing site-specific
conservation plans. Initiation of this recommendation can begin
immediately.
5. Organize and refine education programs to increase awareness of
runoff and erosion problems and solutions. In association with the
other agencies who are working with the subject of land disturbances
from an educational/assistance standpoint, EPS should construct a
short educational program on the problem of runoff and erosion and
approaches for its abatement. This effort should be conducted as
an integral and first part of a public involvement program of the
statewide 208 program, which is the responsibility of EPS. The
recommendation responds to the firm belief held by several of the
agencies and persons contacted throughout this project to the
effect that a great part of the solution can be obtained where the
concern for the problem and the approaches to its solution are
brought to the attention of the people who are in various degrees
responsible for the problem. The connection of this effort with
the 208 statewide public involvement endeavor is called for on the
basis that both efforts attempt to identify and involve the per-
tinent publics with respect to water quality management in general
and nonpoint source problems in particular. This effort may begin
immediately, but should be well underway by later August.
6. Modify ongoing monitoring program. This recommendation is to
result in change within EPS, primarily. EPS should review and
modify as necessary and as within resource opportunities the design
of its ambient water quality monitoring program for improved measurement
of runoff and erosion problem areas. Such review and modification
should include considerations for additional parameters, additional
monitoring sites, and increased monitoring frequency. Similarly,
intensive monitoring surveys, when designed, should be given an
32
-------
additional consideration for measuring the effects of runoff and
erosion problems. It should be noted that such specific consideration
of runoff and erosion contributions to water quality problems in
the monitoring program has already been undertaken this year; the
recommendation is to follow through on this start and to continue
this direction annually.
Work with the Division of State Lands in its program for designation
of areas of critical environmental concern. This recommendation is
to have EPS work informally and immediately with the Division of
State Lands with respect to the still-developing program of protecting
areas of critical environmental concern. The work to be done with
the Division of State Lands is to insure that water quality and
runoff and erosion control considerations are adequately represented
in the Division's general criteria for the designation of critical
environmental areas. It is to be noted that the program of critical
environmental areas is still in its formative stages; however,
though the full potential of this program cannot be gauged yet, it
is valuable to build into such program the importance of runoff,
erosion and water quality as elements of critical environmental
concern.
Develop memoranda of understanding with federal land management
agencies. Another adjunct to the program proposed for enactment
by the Legislature is to define the relationship of federal agencies
to the state program. It has been recently reaffirmed by the U.S.
Supreme Court that federal agencies must comply with only substan-
tive, not procedural, requirements of state programs. Once the
proposed legislation is enacted, it is recommended that voluntary
cooperation of and participation by the federal land management
agencies in the state program be obtained. The instruments defin-
ing the relationship of the federal agencies to their participation
in the state program should be memoranda of understanding. Basically,
the memoranda of understanding should acknowledge that the federal
land management agencies agree to participate in the state program
as any other person engaged in a land-disturbing activity may be
required to do. This recommendation is to be carried out as soon
as the enactment of the program by the legislature is known. (If
agreement can not be reached with a federal land management agency
to cooperate in the state program, the state could develop and
adopt certain substantive water pollution control requirements. The
state could then request compliance with such requirements under
the authority of Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, and Presidential Executive Order 11752.)
33
-------
9. Leave the activity sector of urbanization open for further attention
by the 208 planning agencies. After careful and extensive analysis
of the urbanization activity sector, it was concluded that the
land-disturbing aspects of urbanization are, for the large part,
functions of other activity sectors (e.g., building construction,
stream modifications). Consequently, recommendations for all such
land-disturbing aspects of urbanization are covered under other
recommendations of this section. The above is said with one
exception: that aspect pertaining to increased runoff which results
from the decrease in the ability of runoff water to percolate and
infiltrate. This aspect should be handled via the 208 planning
program inasmuch as the principal urban areas of the state are in
locally designated 208 areas.
34
-------
Problem
Identification
-------
BACKGROUND
EROSION
Several different classes of erosion are recognized to exist.
Wind erosion refers to the transport of loose surface soils by air move-
ment. It is believed to affect water quality principally by dislodging,
then scattering light soil particles which are then easily picked up by
precipitation runoff.
Rainfall causes erosion in several stages:
o Sheet erosion is the removal of relatively uniform soil layers
through the splash of raindrops and transport of the loosened
soil by overland flow,
o Rill erosion results from overland flow concentrating to cut small
channels.
o Gully erosion occurs as the small channels deepen due to the con-
centration of prolonged flow of large storms and the repetition of
successive storm flows following the same channels.
Stream banks may be eroded by flowing water scouring soils from the banks
and bed. For purposes of erosion control, three classifications of
stream channels are recognized:
o Sensitive channels include all perennial streams with unstable
banks and beds, plus intermittent streams with no riparian vegeta-
tion in dirt channels,
o Resistive channels have considerable riparian vegetation and flow
over flat slopes.
o Stable channels have solid rock beds and banks, or are intermittent
with well established riparian vegetation.
Mass soil movements are the downslope displacement of a portion of the
land surface. These include landslides, mudflows, and downward creep.
Erosion varies with different soils, but several common parameters exist:
o Bare soil exposes the particles to dislocation by wind and water
action.
o Removal of vegetation eliminates the roots system which holds soil
particles in place,
o Compaction, either artificial or by repeated traffic, reduces
infiltration and increases surface runoff,
o Activity or traffic grinds soil particles to fine dust, rendering
them susceptible to displacement by' wind or water,
o Steep slopes increase runoff quantities and relocation, hence
scouring action rises,
o Application of water, as with irrigation, can result in runoff
containing soil particles.
35
-------
CLIMATE
Nevada is the most arid of the United States. Rainfall averages less than
10 inches annually. Only in small portions of Nevada does the annual
rainfall approach even 20 inches. These are mostly the upper elevations
of the higher mountains. Much of the state lies in the Sierra Nevada
rain shadow which reduces precipitation to annual rates of 3 to 6 inches.
Generally, precipitation is seasonal throughout the state, most of it
appearing as snow. Most small streams dry up during part of the year,
while some carry exceptionally high slug flows at periodic intervals.
Flash floods often appear in washes or gullies with little warning and
dissipate quickly, causing severe erosion at unprotected facilities.
Nevada is not a state noted for high sustained winds. However, even
light winds may cause significant erosion because of the arid climate.
High gusts may still occur though, especially in canyons and mountain
passes. Certain localities, such as Washoe Valley, are particularly
noted for this phenomenon. Win^l-caused erosion is a significant problem,
but does not directly affect water quality except where it occurs in the
immediate vicinity of a large water surface, such as a major lake.
Volcanic soils cover 22 percent of Nevada while slopes exceed 15 percent
grade on about a third of the state area. Earthquakes are a possibility
throughout Nevada, especially in the western half. Studies conducted
in Oregon of 47 mass soil movements found only 5 in areas undisturbed
by man. Volcanic soils covered only 37 percent of the Oregon study area
yet 44 (94%) of the movements occurred therein. South or southwest slopes
appeared more stable than others, perhaps because the soils were drier
and shallower. Slopes steeper than 45 percent accounted for 39 (83%)
of the movements. Thus, Nevada has considerable potential for mass soil
movements.
HISTORICAL
During the hundred-odd years of Nevada's development, considerable arti-
vity creating erosion problems has occurred at various sites. Many of
these are still detectable today. The most prominant of these activities
have been:
o Lumber removal for mine and railroad construction
o Mining disruption and tailing remains
o Overgrazing of cattle and sheep
Large-scale lumbering is over. Extensive mining, such as the region
surrounding Virginia City, will not appear again. Overgrazing continues
in some areas, though with a new aspect. Wild horses have been protected
36
-------
for the past two years and herds have increased in some valleys by 15 to
30 percent. Where grazing for cattle or sheep was already established,
overgrazing is now a problem.
It is almost impossible to place a quantity on the past effects of these
activities today. Some recovery has been achieved, either by reforesta-
tion or range management, and in other cases conditions have stabilized.
Yet much of the disruption remains, with considerable variation in
degree from one location to another.
PRESENT SITUATION
Natural erosion processes are accelerated by many of the activities of
man. For the purpose of this study, the following land disturbing
activity categories have been identified:
o Agriculture
o Forestry
o Construction
o Mining
o Recreation
o Stream Modifications
o Military Use
o Urbanization
o Transportation
In each of these activities, accelerated erosion and runoff is caused by
one or more of the following factors:
o Alterations of land characteristics
o Application of water
o Alteration of hydrologlc regime
In close association with the acceleration of the erosion process by the
activities of man is the function of runoff. Runoff from disturbed land
areas serves not only to accelerate erosion but also to pick up and
transport silt, sediment, nutrients, salts and other pollutants to receiving
waters. Water quality impacts of land-disturbing activities must be
viewed not only from the narrow perspective of erosion and sedimentation
but also from the broader standpoint of runoff from*disturbed land
carrying other pollutants that are associated with particular categories
of land-disturbing activities.
37
-------
LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
AGRICULTURE
Irrigated Farming
Due to the arid climate, essentially all crops raised in Nevada must be
irrigated to attain significant yields. Livestock feed is the principal
crop. For farming, top soil is loosened and much of it kept bare so
the crop has optimum growing conditions. It is thus easily eroded if
precautions are not taken.
Irrigation distributes water to the soil by one of several methods:
o Drip irrigation applies water from a pipe directly to the root
system of the plant. It is most commonly used for permanent crops
such as orchards,
o Sprinklers use a pump to spray water from a nozzle. Portable or
fixed systems may be employed,
o Flooding simply allows water to flow from a canal across a field
through rills or the plow furrows.
The most noticeable effect irrigation has on water quality is high con-
centration of suspended soil particles in the return flow. However,
attendant pesticides and fertilizers may also detract from the quality.
Flood irrigation is the method most commonly used in Nevada since it
requires the least capital investment. Yet it makes the least efficient
use of the water, while generating return flows of up to 25 percent or
more of the total quantity withdrawn. These return flows have a signi-
ficant negative impact on water quality.
A study conducted in eastern Washington, an area essentially the same as
Nevada, found suspended solids in the return flow can range from about
80 to 800 mg/1, with Jackson turbidity units of 50 to 200. Suspended
soil particles will be found in runoff from most farms but will be most
prevalent from areas with slopes exceeding 5 percent. In the Yellowstone
Basin, field measurements indicate that the total dissolved solids
concentration in surface return flows is about 1.6 times that in the
diverted irrigation water.
Grazing
Livestock is the principal agricultural enterprise in Nevada. Private
land holdings center on water rights which determine the amount of stock
the private party can raise. However, most land remains under federal
control with grazing rights leased by BLM to private parties. Grazing
rights are sold in terms of Animal Unit Months (AUM), defined as feed
for one cow or five sheep during one month.
38
-------
In arid regions such as Nevada, overgrazing can be a serious problem.
Removal of too much vegetation will accelerate erosion. Much of the
soil loss is to wind but when rain falls or snow melts, loose soil is
carried away by the runoff.
Livestock tend to create trails which expose bare soil to the elements.
Repeated travel compacts these trails reducing infiltration and resulting
in higher runoff rates. Over a period of time, the trail surface is
ground to dust and erosion takes place either by wind or water runoff.
This trampling effect is heightened when it occurs on stream banks.
A North Carolina study found suspended solids were 108 mg/1 from a
pasture after 9 years of grazing versus 30 mg/1 from a control field.
In Wisconsin, a similar watershed study found no significant soil loss
from non-grazed fields but 0.14 tons/acre/year lost from grazed pasturage.
Both studies were conducted in climates markedly different from Nevada
but they suggest something of the erosion potential associated with
grazing.
Feed lots have been identified as a potential source of BOD during
periods of precipitation runoff. Sediment quantities have not been
identified, however. During the winter months almost all livestock in
Nevada is confined to some form of a feed lot. Continual stock management
in such confined space can be expected to generate considerable mud or
dust, to be carried away by spring runoff.
FORESTRY
Very little land in Nevada is suitable for commercial forests. During
the development of the railroads and mines of the 19th century, much of
the usable lumber of the region was cut. Most of this land has since
been reforested. However, the commercial quantity is so small that
harvests occur only intermittently.
Erosion due to runoff is the most significant source of pollution from
forests. Of the five forest management phases, harvest and transporting
the logs are the two most critical in terms of erosion. Two harvest
methods are recognized in the west:
o Selection of specific trees or tree clusters is adopted for
tolerant species under severe competition for moisture, nutrients,
and light.
o Clearcut removes all trees in a given area. It is economical and
•stablishes an even-aged stand of trees which are usually fast
growing.
39
-------
Once trees are cut, they must be transported to a yarding area for
loading onto trucks and shipment. Several transportation methods are
normally employed:
o Skid trails are made by dragging logs with tractors to the yarding
areas.
o Roads are necessary for trucks to remove the logs from the yarding
area and may be needed to channel logs from the point of cutting
into the yarding area,
o Cables, such as the high lead or skyline system, may be employed to
collect logs into the yarding area,
o Balloons or helic&pters may be used to collect logs in extremely
steep terrain.
Selection of harvest and transportation methods involves several trade-
offs . Clear cutting may cause more erosion than any other harvest
technique using the same transportation method, yet it is the only
technique which allows cable and aerial systems to be employed. At this
time sufficient data relative to Nevada is not adequate to make a
distinction between these tradeoff combinations in terms of erosion.
Measurement in other states have found over 3 times the sediment from
logged areas as from an unlogged control area, even where no logging
roads existed. Further study of a 61-acre logged parcel found about
15.6 acres of logging roads with sediment about 85 times that of a
similar control area. These roads all met standards established by
the U. S. Forest Service. Identified sources of forest sediment
include: the general harvest area, skid trails, yarding areas, burned
over land, forest debris, landslides, and disturbed stream banks.
Quantity of sediment depends on several factors:
o Amount and intensity of rainfall
o Susceptibility of ground cover and soils to erosion
o Quantity and placement of debris
CONSTRUCTION
Generally speaking, construction work falls into four phases:
o Clearing and grubbing
o Rough grading
o Facility construction
o Site restoration
Clearing and grubbing together with rough grading create extreme erosion
conditions for two reasons:
40
-------
o Exposure of large areas of bare sail .which can then be removed by
wind and water
o Compaction of soil which reduces infiltration, thus increasing the
percentage of rainfall runoff
These are the two principal causes of erosion in most construction activi-
ties. Certain types of construction projects may result in further
sediment-producing actions due to demolition or physical disruption of a
stream bed. Construction techniques which may be expected to create
sediment are mentioned below under varoius types of construction pro-
jects.
Transmission - Pipelines for oil and gas in addition to power lines are
included.
o Site clearing, which may be repeated from time to time while the
facility is in use
o Access roads which will be used for future maintenance
o Campsites for temporary housing of construction crews
o Cofferdams and stream diversions necessary to cross water bodies
Roads - These may also include railways and parking lots.
o Clearing and grubbing to remove all organic matter
o Grading extensive areas with large compacted cuts and fills.
May also require borrow pits and/or spoil diiBposal
o Debris burning with resulting solid waste
o Stream modifications, either temporary or permanent, which may
change velocities
o Bridge or culverts at all waterways, resulting in some disruption
to stream bed and probably dewatering
o Drainage ditches and changes in soil percolation
Dams - Temporary construction devices have similar characteristics to
permanent installatios.
o Extensive stream disruption for a long time period
o Excavation and disposal of large soil quantities
o Dewatering through pumps producing highly turbid wastewater
o Roads for very heavy traffic with all disruptions thereto
Buildings - Extensive, multiple structure developments down to single
units must be considered.
o Demolition which may be extensive
o Site clearing and grubbing
o Grading requirements vary but are always present
o Foundation excavation and possibly dewatering
o Restoration may be long delayed
41
-------
Due to the wide diversity of construction projects and variations site
characteristics, sedimentation rates or quantities are difficult to
establish. One EPA source suggests that developing urban areas release
from 1,000 to 100,000 tons of sediment per year for each square mile.
MINING
Early development of Nevada was due almost solely to mining interests.
The state still has extensive deposits of a variety of minerals, many
actively being exploited. Others are known to exist only in lower
grades than can be economically recovered with existing technology.
Two principal waste products are generated by mining:
o Mine spoil results from open pit excavations for such minerals as
copper
o Tailings remain after processing ore from hard rock or open pit
operations. Portions of this material are often the consistency
of dust.
Both of the above waste products are highly erodible and are produced
in vast quantities when related to the actual amount of ore extracted.
They are generally inert and perhaps toxic, so vegetation cover Is
nonexistent. There may also be a leachate from the mine wastes which
causes water quality concerns.
Open pit and contour mining operations create large areas of disturbed
land which is difficult to restore to original condition. Erosion and
sediment problems are compounded when the operations occur in mountainous
areas, as compared with flat land.
Once extracted, ore must be concentrated before it can be economically
transported any distance. Most concentrating techniques are aqueous,
with the resulting wastewater containing large quantities of solids.
Reuse of the water is common practice, especially in arid regions, but
at some point the water can no longer be economically reclaimed. It
must then be disposed of. In Nevada, it is generally ponded for evapor-
ation or percolation.
Concentrated ore will require some form of transportation to reach a
market. Usually, either a highway or railroad is employed, but pipe-
lines are occasionally used. The construction and operation of these
transportation systems has some effect on runoff and erosion.
Quarry operations also produce sediment. Two basic types of operations
exist:
o Rock quarries usually employ drilling, blasting, and crushing to
create usable stone. The resulting dust is highly erodible.
o Sand and gravel extraction is usually from a sedimentary deposit
in or near a stream bed. Even if the material is not washed, the
bed is often disturbed with resulting turbidity.
42
-------
Another mining practice which may contribute to erosion is assessment
work required under the mining claim l.aw. This activity, which is required
to legally maintain a claim, frequently consists of grading or bulldozing
which disrupts the topography and vegetative cover.
RECREATION
The recreational activities which cause erosion are those requiring
direct use of the land, such as off-road vehicles. Concern is directed
at facilities which specifically alter the land characteristics.
Trail and unimproved roads would seem to be the principal source of
erosion. Activities requiring various types of trails and roads are
listed below in an approximate order relating to erosion:
o Motorcycle and off—road vehicles
o Horseback riding
o Skiing
o Hiking
o Hunting and fishing
Erosion concerns for trails are similar to roads; exposure of bare soil,
compaction, and grinding action of repeated travel. Steepness of grade
is a major factor. Mechanical breaking up of soil particles by motor
vehicles, and to a lesser extent by hooves and feet, increases the
erosion potential. Erosion becomes acute where trails are intentionally
aligned straight down slopes, as with motorcycle hill climb routes. Ski
trails appear to be less of a problem since compaction is minimal and
vegetation is not totally removed. However, where ski slopes are chained
to remove vegetation, erosion may be significant.
Campgrounds are a second scene of erosion. However, since campsites are
relatively flat and small, erosion potential is local. Ideally vegeta-
tion, including grass, is retained at these sites. But repeated use
will usually eliminate much of the ground cover and compact the soil.
In an arid environment, a long time is necessary for vegetation to
regenerate once it is removed, whatever the reason.
Power boats in waterways can create J#1*# wm erode banks through
wave action. Banks may also ire dsfaa'g^ by launching boats of any type
at undeveloped sites.
STREAM MODIFICATIONS
Channel straightening is often associated with many developments;
irrigation, residential, and transportation. It is most frequently a
flood control technique intended to improve drainage. Basically it
increases stream velocity, through raising the slope of the channel.
43
-------
Higher velocities accelerate erosion, unless protective measures are
taken.
Restrictions, such as culverts and bridges, also raise stream velocities.
In many cases, turbulence is introduced, increasing erosion potential.
In some locations in Nevada, stream channels are periodically deepened
in order to maintain flows in a controlled channel. Significant amounts
of sediment are dislodged in this process, with a resulting large but
temporary increase in suspended solids.
MILITARY USE
About 3.8 million acres, or 5-1/2 percent of the state, is controlled by
the Department of Defense and the Energy Research & Development Agency,
which succeeded the Atomic Energy Commission. Much of this land is used
for bombing ranges and weapons testing. The soil disruption is signi-
ficant but very localized. Large quantities enter the air as dust.
However, these ranges are located in sinks so there is no runoff or
resulting water quality problem. The nuclear test site has no perennial
streams and little rainfall so runoff is small
URBANIZATION
It is well known that runoff rates have increased with the density of
urban development. An increase in impervious surfaces due to streets,
buildings, and parking lots forces precipitation into runoff, since it
can no longer infiltrate into the soil. Large contiguous areas with
impervious surface have a greater effect than smaller scattered sites
with the same total amount of impervious surface. Runoff from these
impervious services normally contains significant quantities of sediments
and pollutants.
A second aspect of increased urban flows is the "improved" stream channels.
The natural hydraulic regime is considerably altered by straightened
and paved channels, such as pipes. Velocities are thus increased,
intensifying the impact of runoff from storms by increasing downstream
flows. Modern development trends attempt to maintain the natural
hydraulic regime to avoid increasing the flooding problems downstream.
However, once the natural hydraulic regime is destroyed by urbanization,
it is difficult to reestablish.
Erosion and sedimentation changes from urbanization are not well docu-
mented. A study at Bel Pre Creek, Maryland, found that a 15 percent
Increase in urban land development increased runoff by 30 percent and
sediment by 14 percent. Another report, by EPA, suggests a stabilized
urban drainage basin produces about 200 to 500 tons of sediment per year
for each square mile.
44
-------
TRANSPORTATION
Roads occupy the major portion of all surface area devoted to transpor-
tation. The proportion of paved to unpaved roads is less clear, but in
rural regions like Nevada, the unpaved portion can be expected to
greatly exceed the paved portion. Paved road surfaces resist erosion,
but increase precipitation runoff. Ditches are normally located along
both sides of the surface to carry away the runoff. These are often
dirt, even along paved roads, and vegetation to resist erosion is scarce
in Nevada road ditches. Cut and fill slopes exist on most roads. These
may have some attempt at landscaping on modern roads and in developed
areas, but many are essentially bare of vegetation. Thus the potential
for erosion even along paved roads is high.
Unpaved road surfaces are erodible almost by definition. Many have no
surface material other than dirt. Vehicle traffic will break up the
material into easily erodible particles. These roads often have steeper
grades than paved roads which compounds the problem.
Many unpaved roads in Nevada use fords instead of bridges to cross
streams. This creates a continual source of sediment right in the water
course. Additionally, unpaved roads are frequently built adjacent to
streams because this location requires a minimum of grade preparation.
This practice sometimes results in mass soil movements into stream
channels.
Nevada's highway maintenance practices may tend to increase erosion.
Slopes and ditches are manicured at tegular intervals with a grader
blade This is done to remove wind eroded materials, but also removes
whatever vegetation may exist and eliminates the small semi-stabilized
channels established by runoff. The total effect on erosion is not
known, but it is a case when working one erosion problem causes another.
Another maintenance practice which may impact water quality is the
winter sanding and salting done by the State and County Highway Departments.
By their nature, these operations are conducted on steep slopes in areas
of significant winter precipitation.
Railroad track is usually bedded in gravel, thus resisting erosion along
the bed However, a clear area on both sides of the track is denuded of
vegetation and dirt ditches are provided for drainage. Extensive cuts
are often needed to maintain acceptable grades. These slopes are only,
slightly less than critical and usually cleared of vegetation. Erosion
potential is thus quite high. Fill slopes seem less likely to erode due
to the limited area for collecting runoff.
Airports are constructed as flat as possible. Soils are usually compacted,
even for unpaved fields, by plane traffic, if nothing else. Vegetation
is not discouraged, since it reduces dust. However, without irrigation,
vegetation is not extensive in Nevada. Wind erosion by prop wash tends
to be high Runoff may cause some erosion but it is likely most soil
particles so collected were originally discharged by prop wash.
43
-------
MAGNITUDE
LAND AREAS
Land area in Nevada totals about 70,700,000 acres, of which only about
8,500,000 acres are in private ownership. Several categories of land
use exist, some of which are multiple.
Irrigation, mostly in private ownership, comprises about 917,000 acres
and is closely associated with stream valleys. Most of it is devoted to
raising winter feed for livestock. Water control structures have been
installed for about 20 percent of the acreage. These include facilities
such as lined ditches, pipe, gates and valves.
Grazing range includes over 56,600,000 acres, located throughout most of
the state. About 48,400,000 acres are under the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment administration; the rest o^ the ownership is mixed. Quality of
forage varies enormously. Some of this land is as good public grazing
as exists in the United States, while other areas are nearly barren salt
flats.
Forests are almost completely controlled by the U.S. Forest Service with
about 5,100,000 total acres. Less than 1,000,000 acres can be con-
sidered even remotely as commercial timber; however, almost all is used
for grazing. Some public land, under the Bureau of Land Management,
also has value as forests. Generally, forests exist only at higher
mountain elevations in fairly distinct parts of the state.
Parks and Wildlife areas occupy approximately 2,900,000 acres. Some of
the areas designated as nature preserves are sinks and waste land which
have no other existing use. These include national wildlife refuges as
well as State Parks and wildlife areas.
Military uses, principally bombing ranges and nuclear testing, encompass
about 3,800,00 acres. These are in fairly remote dry locations.
Urban or otherwise developed acreage totals about 270,000. Population
centers are usually clustered about water sources along the stream
valleys.
Miscellaneous uses total about 1,700,000 acres. Most of this is owned
by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Indian reservations, but small
parcels are held by other federal agencies. Also included in this
category is land devoted to transportation and mining. The land area
used by transportation, especially roads, cannot be easily established.
Existing mining activity can be defined but considerable areas have been
disturbed through the years by prospecting or are abandoned mines. Only
the sites with significant finds were ever recorded.
46
-------
Locations and the total area of worthless diggings is impossible to
define or identify except by a surface survey.
WESTWIDE STUDY
Among the subjects examined in the "Westwide Study Report on Critical
Water Problems Facing the Eleven Western States" was erosion and sedi-
mentation. The accompanying map, created by this study, shows that,
erosion and sedimentation from both natural and manmade causes occur
extensively throughout the West. Erosion at greater than 0.5 acre-feet
of soil per square mile per year, the point at which serious problem
erosion begins, occurs on 155,000 square miles or almost 15 percent of
the area of the 11 Western States.
From this map it is apparent that the potential for erosion and sedimen-
tation in terms of acre feet per square mile per year is less for Nevada
than any western state except Oregon. A simple bulk measurement, how-
ever, is not always sufficient to define the severity of erosion and
sedimentation problems. What sediment concentration is present in the
local surface waters may be of far greater significance. A small volume
of sediment in a stream of small flow may create a sufficient concen-
tration to render the water unsuitable for certain desirable uses. The
Westwide Study does not develop sufficient data to evaluate the concen-
tration question.
Several points are made in the Study which are significant to Nevada:
o Erosion is affecting the public and private land resource base
through excessive agricultural soil losses resulting in lower
productivity, higher production costs, and social costs.
o Sediment, the product of erosion, causes damage in streams, rivers,
lakes, and wherever it is deposited. It accumulates in reservoirs,
increases treatment costs of municipal and industrial water supplies,
clogs navigable streams and irrigation and drainage improvements,
smothers growing plants and harvestable crops, increases mainten-
ance costs of utility and transportation facilities, decreases the
recreational value of water, and adversely affects the fishing
resources.
o The erosion-sedimentation process also is a major contributor to
salt loading in western streams.
o Sedimentation and erosion problems occur in range, grassland,
forest, cropland, and urban areas in some form in all of the Western
States, but they are greatly accelerated where man's activity has
modified the vegetative cover.
47
-------
WASHINGTON
MONTANA
OREGON
IDAHO
NEVADA
&
CALIFORNIA
UTAH
9
it
WYOMING
SEDIMENT YIELD RATES
_j> >0.5 oc »t. yt
C *0.5 oc. h mi2 yr
ARIZONA
NE» *£ *ico\
AREAS OF HIGH SEDIMENT YIELD - WESTWIDE STUDY AREA
48
-------
NEVADA WATER QUALITY INVENTORY REPORT
The First Annual Report concluded that the 1983 goal of PL92-500 for
water quality which provides life support and recreation support ngeds
cannot be realistically achieved within Nevada by the presently defined
effluent limitations. One reason is pollution from difuse nonpoint
sources. Another and more significant reason is the contribution from
numerous small point sources (now classified by EPA as nonpoint sources)
like runoff from urban areas, irrigated and livestock agriculture.
Effluent limitations for such sources have not been developed and may
not be economically practicable in any event.
Many pollution sources caused by man are listed in die First Annual
Report but no quantities are provided. However, two generalizations
were estimated:
o Turbidity readings in urban runoff are about 20 to 30 times the
background river levels,
o Irrigation application varies from 12 to 18 inches per month fl«rrf«g
July and August while precipitation may range from three to ten
inches per year. Thus irrigation may have three to seven times the
influence on runoff and sedimentation as is provided by precipita-
tion.
Almost no nonpoint pollution sources are listed for the Colorado River
Basin, which the Westwide Study estimated produced the greatest volumes
of sediment in Nevada. Without additional data this disparity cannot be
resolved. The Humbolt Basin has only a few sources listed while most
locations indicated are in the Truckee, Carson, and Walker Basins. Thus
these locations seem to correlate with population density. A more
thorough investigation which considers quantities of sediment and stream
concentrations might produce significantly different conclusions, how-
ever.
EPA STORET SYSTEM
The Environmental Protection Agency has created this system to provide
accessible storage for surface water quality data in most areas of the
United States. A summary for all stations in Northern Nevada was re-
trieved to analyze what information was available that might relate to
erosion. Suspended solids is the parameter which seems most directly
correlated with erosion. Unfortunately, very few of the STORET data
collection stations in Nevada sampled suspended solids.
Turbidity was selected as the available parameter most directly related
to erosion. It is basically a function of the ability of light to pass
through water. Several methods of measurement ace practiced, but Jack-
son Turbidity Units are the most widely accepted. Readings from 0 to
over 1,000 can be obtained. Any value judgment concerning "good" or
"bad" turbidity readings is necessarily a natter of opinion. However,
some general guides can be' provided:
49
-------
winnemucca'
RENO
FALLON
| EUREKA
AUSTIN
LAKE TAHOE
Carson
HAWTHORNE
^TONOPAH
EPA-STORET
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE POINTS
LAS VEGAS
-------
EPA-STORET WATER QUALITY DATA
Loc. # # Samples Mean Max. Min. Beg. End
Lake Tahoe
25
2
0.155
0.20
0.11
73/05/02
73/08/08
30
2
0.20
0.28
0.12
73/05/09
73/08/08
50
40
3.564
100
0.06
69/10/01
75/06/11
Truckee River
64
6
5.833
15.0
0.00
72/08/02
72/10/11
69
63
2.960
10.0
0.14
69/02/11
74/06/06
66
6
10.0
20.0
0.00
72/08/02
72/10/11
68
6
5.20
11.0
3.50
73/11/01
74/06/06
70
64
5.07
23.0
0.17
69/02/18
74/06/06
73
63
4.155
14.0
0.17
69/02/18
74/06/06
77
6
20.67
35.0
5.0
72/08/02
72/10/11
Carson River
3
2
5.70
7.0
4.40
73/06/27
74/05/15
11
1
3.10
3.10
3.10
73/10/24
73/10/24
24
71
6.979
46.0
0.78
69/01/15
75/07/16
32
8
10.175
16.0
3.40
73/10/26
75/07/16
34
70
12.341
80.0
1.20
69/01/13
75/07/10
56
3
25.333
60.0
3.0
75/0U02
75/09/04
59
8
9.100
19.5
1.10
69/05/08
75/07/17
62
8
9.263
14.0
5.5
69/05/08
75/07/17
Walker River
2
3
8.733
20.0
2.70
67.12.28
73/07/27
5
1
8.40
8.40
8.40
74/08/13
74/08/13
27
7
24.24
85.0
7.50
74/08/15
75/07/10
34
70
12.3*1
80.0
1.20
69/01/13
75/07/10
Humbolt River
82
5
14.4
22.0
10.0
70/04/01
75/02/26
81
5
11.8
15.0
8.0
70/04/01
75/02/26
80
1
38.0
38.0
38.0
75/02/26
75/02/26
84
5
25.5
54.0.
14.5
70/04/01
75/02/26
83
5
32.2
84.0
15.0
70/04/01
75/02/26
79
5
14.1
23.0
11.0
70/04/01
75/02/26
-------
o Less than 10 JTUs in a stream is not readily visible to an observer
and may be considered acceptable for almost any use.
o Above 50 JTXJs water will be murky and is usually thought to indi-
cate a problem to some degree,
o EPS standards consider greater than 10 JTU is a problem for cold
water fisheries; for warm water fisheries greater than 50 JTU is
a problem.
About 75 stations along the Truckee, Carson, and Walker Rivers had
sampled turbidity to some degree. However, only seven stations existed
along the Humbolt River. Representative sampling points for these
rivers are indicated on the accompanying map. Turbidity data from these
stations was then tabulated from the source to'the terminus for each
river.
Several cautions must be observed in considering these tables.
o Dates of sampling vary considerably. Some information was col-
lected in 1967 and in every year since. Thus no table presents a
true picture of actual streak conditions at a specific point in
time.
o Number of samples vary from point to point.
o Samples were randomly collected yet turbidity is highly affected by
seasonal flow variations. Rainfall runoff may seriously alter
readings but no correlation to precipitation is available,
o Turbidity is only generally related to erosion. While 100 JTUs is
clearly indicative of a more severe erosion problem than a reading
of 10, the relationship is not direct. When values are only marg-
inally different, say 20 JTUs versus 15 JTUs, it is not clear which
value indicates the worst erosion problem. Turbidity depends on
particle size, chemistry, and shape, in addition to simply aggre-
gate bulk of the sample particles.
Some conclusions from the table on the facing page agree with expectations.
Turbidity does generally rise as the stream proceeds to terminus. Water
downstream of reservoirs, such as Rye Patch, is clearer than upstream.
The highest recorded readings on each river are:
Truckee 35
Carson 80
Walker 85
Humboldt 84
These values are easily large enough to cause concern. But this data
alone is insufficient to indicate any meaningful conclusions concerning
erosion magniture. A regular sampling program which correlates with
rainfall conducted over several years would be needed to conclusively
demonstrate the presence or absence of sites with serious erosion.
To better assess the actual water quality in the rivers for which data
is available the STORET System was tapped for data on total disolved
solids (TDS), pH, and phosphates (PO4). These data, together with the
data on Turb'idity are plotted on the following pages. When compared
against state standards for the various parameters significant violations
are apparent at various points on each of the rivers.
52
-------
96.0
80.0
64 0
48.0
32.0
16.0
0.0
12.0
I
1
!
1
i
I
1
i | 1
.
I ./ 1.
1
/
/
nmnmmnm
_
¦'
¦ .
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
I
...Ot
¦ Ml
•
'
J;:'.. ./•.!
¦
i
1
1
i
890.0
750.0
610.0
470.0
330.0
190.0
f
2
•c
2
50.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
|llL -mm.
0.0
1
1
i
!
! i
i j i '¦
! i
i :
I i J
! ./
1
1
!
i
1
CD _j
2
a>
M
o >
u 0
2®
Storei Sampling Stations
*
o
id
CE _J C
H S
y o I
5® -J
Storet Sampling Stations
"5
I
Storet Station
310002
310003
310004
310005
310000 * Farad
310001 Idlewild
McCarran Blvd.
Lagomarsino
Clark Station
Ceresola
— -State Standard
iihihi -Maximum Observed Value
mamm -Mean Observed Value
4 -Point Discharges
Truckee River
53
-------
96.0
80.0
* £
s 2
£'«
_ c
s I
uj 2
"••¦I
[
I
•— '
'
"
-r- . ¦ " —
'
¦¦
— ¦ - —
West Fork
East Fork
Main Stem
*
t-,
<3
O
J!
8
Storet Sampling Stations
StoretStation
310008
310010
310011
310012
310013
310014
310021
310015
310022
310016
Location
Hwy. 88, CA.
State Lint
395 So. of Gardnervill«
Muller
Genoa Ln.
Cradlebaugh
Pinion Hills
New £mpire
Dayton
Weeks
— — —State Standard
uitaii—Maximum Observed Value
¦¦¦¦— Mean Observed Value
A -Point Discharges
Carson River
54
-------
890.0
750.0
610.0
S
470.0
330.0
190.0
50.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
¦¦¦: ¦ ; ' : <
/
/
£
/
/
V
0
u.
1
5
o
LL
s
UJ
Main Stem
/
/
/
.»
¦
—- 1 " . ' " —~\::T
—'X;
.
'
:
.......
'
-
¦
i
r
:
•
•
*
\
;
\
\
/
/
/
West Fork
East Fork
Main Stem
/ \
/ ! *
/ \
..
/
:
§
i
§
f
•
•
0.
»
|
I
1 /
^
rj^-
. J
" U—
\
r^r—
"Si
5
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
r
z
&
If)
R
Storet Sampling Stations
Storet Station
Location
310008
Hwy. 88, CA.
310010
State Line
310011
395 So. of Gardnerville
310012
Muller
310013
Genoa Ln.
310014
Cradlebaugh
310021
Pinion Hills
310015
New Empire
310022
Dayton
310016
Weeks
-State Standard
•¦¦¦•in -Maximum Observed Value
¦w -Mean Observed Value
A -Point Discharges
Carson River
55
-------
\1
X
i *«-»..
1
!
i
'
/
sj
U.I
«*! Main,Stem
LU' _
west; rorK %
/
'
1
¦
/
;
f
.
\
1
K
I -
i
f
\
—¦—sH
West (Fork
?
!
MainiStem
3
UJ
j
I
¦
1
i
l 1
————— a
s
a
V
>
I
<
I
3
<
s
I
<
890.0
750.0
610.0
470.0
330.0
190.0
50.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
2
6.0
4.0
2.0
00
\ I
\
\ Main-Stem
\
\
1
I
WsstiFork
JC
3
u.
1
\
\
\
/
/
.
¦
/
S
o
/
/
A
y
jr '
y
k.
'
j
Main
;
»
•
•
Stem £
i
!/
i /
!
I v
East Fork
•••••••MM.,,,,
/
Wes
ork
A
i
s
O
S
|
<
f
aj
>
51
1
<
Storet Sampling Stations
Storet Sampling Stations
Storet Station
310024
310025
310026
310029
310031
310030
Location
Topaz Lake
Wellington
Above Confluence
Above Confluence
Above Yerington
JJ Ranch'
bcate Standard
mimii—Maximum Observed Value
¦¦¦w-Mean Observed Value
A -Point Discharges
Walker River
56
-------
Known point discharges are shown on the plots, and do not appear to be
the cause of many of the violations of state standards. On the Walker
River between stations 310025 and 310026, for example, there are no
point discharges, yet water quality degrades substantially in that reach
of river. There are the known feed lots operating along that section.of
the Walker River which probably are major contributors to the problem.
Although the exact activities causing the water quality violations pan
not be identified from this data, it can be reasonably concluded that
non-point sources are major contributors of pollutants.
FEDERAL AGENCY EROSION CONCERNS
At the outset of the project letters were sent to each Federal Govern-
ment Agency with some responsibility or activity in Nevada which might
relate to the problem of erosion and runoff from land disturbing ac-
tivities. Certain items of information were requested, including
erosion problems and locations encountered by that Agency in Nevada.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD's involvement in erosion control work is largely limited to develop-
ment of subdivisions, multifamily and other types of housing projects in
which, as a result of grading operations, it is necessary to treat
exposed areas and slopes against erosion. Host such activities occur in
the Reno area where soil stabilization is needed to protect against
slope failure, and in the Las Vegas area where wind erosion is a serious
problem.
National Park Service
Accelerated slope wash in vicinity of springs on east flanks of Grape-
vine Mountains as a result'of trespass cattle through overgrazing of
vegetation, trampling of vegetation, and trailing.
Soil Conservation Service
All lands in the state are subject to various degrees of erosion, either
water or wind. It would be impossible to list all of the locations
where erosion is a moderate to severe problem. Enclosed is a work map
that has not been published, but we consider it the best available
source of data for the total state. It is a more detailed map than
those that are included in the reference sources listed in the lower
left hand corner of the Work Map. For example, following Page 157 of
Appendix VI for the Lower Colorado Basin there is a Sediment Yield Map.
Copies of these Type I River Basin reports should be available in the
State Library or State Engineer's Offices.
57
-------
There are various types of erosion problems. Some examples are as
follows: Pine Valley, a tributary of the Humboldt River, has a very
serious channel degradation problem. At the lower end of the Valley
channels are 25-30 feet deep, and in some places over 100 feet in width.
In the upper watershed and on the side tributaries, there are active
gully heads. A number are cutting back into wet meadows. Water tables
are being lowered. This results eventually in total destruction of wet
meadows.
In the Tahoe Basin new highways, new housing areas, ski runs and other
disturbed areas produce critical sediment source areas which end up
polluting the pristine waters of the lake.
On the Little Humboldt River in Humboldt County, there are active sand
dunes. These sand dunes continue to encroach on the river channel.
This, in turn, results in flooding of a sizeable area in crop production.
The Carson River in Douglas County is also degrading. However, the
greatest concern to local residents is the stream bank erosion that is
occurring. Some effort has been made to rip-rap critical areas, but
more work will be needed to solve the problem.
Department of the Navy
The NBM Branch of this Coimnand is concerned primarily with two activ-
ities in Nevada - the Naval Ammunition Depot at Hawthorne and the Naval
Air Station at Fallon. Erosion problems include washouts resulting from
overirrigation on some outleased areas and possibly some wind erosion.
Energy Research and Development Administration
Except for a few small springs, there are no perennial surface waters on
the Nevada Test Site, thus we have never considered it necessary to give
specific consideration to mitigation of water pollution from surface
erosion there.
Bureau of Reclamation
Flashflooding - all Reclamation lands
Offroad vehicles - all Reclamation lands
Wind - all Reclamation lands not under water
Corps of Engineers
Specific Corps studies underway in Nevada include (1) the authorized
Humboldt River and Tributaries project, which is in the advanced plan-
ning stage; (2) the authorized Gleason Creek Dam project, on which we
are also performing advance planning studies; and (3) the Truckee River
and Tributaries Investigation, under which we are conducting a channel
modification study of the Truckee Meadows area. The Humboldt River is
58
-------
a meandering river constantly eroding its banks, especially during high
flows. Water resources development being considered for the Humboldt
River basin would provide for increased irrigation water and recreation
use in addition to the flood control function which would reduce flood
peaks and their associated erosive forces. Although no additional
facilities on Humboldt River, Truckee River, or Gleason Creek are being
studied strictly for erosion control, some flood control alternatives
being considered would attenuate peak flood flows and thereby reduce
erosion that usually accompanies such events.
United States Geological Survey
Because erosion is a natural phenomenon, it occurs regularly everywhere
throughout Nevada. The rates of natural erosion vary greatly from place
to place. Some of the products and results of natural erosion are bene-
ficial and some cause problems to man and his environment. However,
very few data are available to categorize or evaluate natural erosion in
Nevada.
Some specific erosion problems recognized in Nevada are as follows:
(a) Urbanization at Lake Tahoe accelerates erosion and therefore
increases sediment yields to the lake. The probable acceler-
ation of erosion by urbanization allegedly causes increased
nutrient loads to be delivered to the lake which assumedly
accelerate lake eutrophication. Increased sediment transport
also modifies the streambed environment and associated biota,
causes increased turbidity both in the streams and the lake,
and can clog drainage structures.
(b) The falling base levels of Pyramid and Walker Lakes caused by
lowering lake levels during historic times have caused dra-
matic channel erosion along the lower reaches of the Truckee
and Walker Rivers. This erosion affects the streambed bio-
logic environment causing decreased fish migration for spawn-
ing, increases turbidity in the lakes, and in some cases
causes loss of valuable farm land by streambank erosion.
(c) Numerous examples of erosion of agricultural land probably
exist throughout the state^-£hat £gfj£r *&. Useast partly caused by
improper irrigation practices. The erosion results in the
loss of valuable topsoil and causes deleterious results to the
natural watercourses that receive the eroded sediment.
(d) Non-revegetated or poorly revegetated mine dumps furnish
eroded material to streams that receive storm runoff. The
streams are then physically and probably chemically degraded
by the material in transit. Many mine dumps probably fit this
category throughout the state.
59
-------
(e) Increasing streamflow in Las Vegas Wash during the last
several decades has probably been a major cause of the dra-
matic erosion along the lower reaches of the Wash. This
channel erosion undoubtedly affects the stream biota and also
causes an abnormally heavy discharge of sediment into Lake
Mead with probable deleterious effects on the lake water and
environment near the mouth of the wash. Any significant
increases in streamflow resulting from accelerated wastewater
discharge dr other sources will cause similar problems in
almost any area.
(f) Accelerated erosion related to urbanization in the Reno,
Carson City, and Las Vegas areas probably furnishes above
normal sediment loads to streams that receive storm runoff
water from these urban areas. The bad effects on the receiv-
ing waters are similar to those listed above under other
erosion problems.
(g) Landslides caused or accelerated by man's activities can cause
major erosion problems in specific areas. A good example of
the nature of this type of problem is described in the recent
USGS open-file report on the Leviathan mine landslide in the
upper Carson River basin of California.
(h) Mining and dredging of stream channels or areas that drain
immediately to stream channels generally causes abnormally
great sediment transport by the streams with many of the
resulting deleterious effects described above under other
problems. Several recent examples of this type of activity
probably exist in Nevada.
(i) Natural erosion is a problem in many areas of the state. It
is particularly troublesome when it is of the severe and
intense variety caused by flash floods. It then affects
receiving waters in the ways described above, plus the sed-
iment transport and deposition can be a severe physical hazard
to persons or property in its path.
(j) Artificial channel changes of natural streams usually cause
erosion of the channels with inherent problems to streamflow
and receiving waters similar to many of those listed above.
Several examples of this type problem occur within the state.
(k) Probably numerous other less common examples of erosion and
problems occur throughout the state. They probably are caused
by both natural and man-related activities. Any of man's
activities that alter the natural drainage or runoff regime
can be expected to increase erosion and its related problems.
60
-------
Bureau of Land Management
Many problems and locations have been identified through the cooperative
efforts of the general public and local, State, and Federal governmental
agencies and/or groups. However, some problems have been identified by
the inventory and analysis program. Generally, most problems are being
caused by livestock forage over-utilization, natural or geologic gully
erosion, mineral exploration, off-road vehicular use, private land uses
(urban development), and mineral extraction. Specific locations and
detailed information on problem areas may be gathered by contacting the
respective District Offices.
COUNTY EROSION CONCERNS
To better understand the feelings and problems at the county level, a
letter was sent to the County Engineer in each county. This letter
asked several questions concerning the extent that water quality prob-
lems associated with erosion and land disturbing activities are a prob-
lem in that county, the types of activities which were of greatest
concern as causers of accelerated erosion, what actions were being .taken
to alleviate problems and what type of additional assistance or author-
ity was needed at the county level to combat existing problems.
This letter was followed by a telephone Interview to expedite receipt of
the desired information and provide an opportunity to discuss the
problems.
The responses varied widely with the two most populated counties, indi-
cating that erosion problems in at le,ast portions of their areas are of
major concern. The other counties expressed minor or no concern over
erosion or land disturbing activities in their areas. Several engineers
indicated that they had no ;Ldea of the magnitude of the problem in their
county, but as far as they knew, there was no problem. This probably
represents both a lack of problem definition and the fact that most
counties have not had to address these problems in the past. It appears
that the local awareness of the problems is related to the population of
the county. This probably represents the impact of urbanization and
construction in the more populated counties.
The primary concerns expressed by the county engineers were with the
land disturbing activities of urbanization, construction, transportation
and recreation. Water quality problems caused by mining, grazing, irri-
gation and forestry were felt to be of minor or no concern by every
county official contacted. Virtually, every county expressed concern
about the problem of flash floods. Several county engineers indicated
that wind erosion was also a significant problem.
61
-------
Ongoing programs to alleviate problems at the county level included
maintenance work by county road crews, cooperation and technical liaison
with the Soil Conservation Service and local Soil Conservation Districts
and participation in local 208 planning efforts.
To be more effective in combating existing problems, several counties
cited a need for additional manpower, additional funding or technical
assistance. Several county engineers also suggested a better definition
of what constitutes problems, and the need for guidelines or standards
to measure them. None of the counties felt that they needed additional
authority to handle the existing problems.
The county engineer survey showed an increasing awareness, at the local
level, of the problems caused by accelerated erosion. Probably the most
comprehensive efforts of erosion control are being made in the Lake
Tahoe Basin, where the grading ordinance of the T.R.P.A. has the strict-
est controls in Nevada. Washoe bounty places restrictions on subdivi-
sion ordinance to obtain better control of this problem. These regional
and local government actions show concern for the problems of erosion
and attendant water pollution even though the magnitude of the problem
has not been quantified.
LOCAL EROSION CONCERNS
During November and December of 1975, the State Land Use Planning Agency
held a series of public workshops designed to obtain public input on
various aspects of land use activity. Included as part of their work-
shop program was a questionnaire containing three questions on erosion
and runoff from land disturbing activities. The questionnaire with
summarized responses is on the following page.
Among the conclusions that can be drawn is that more than half of the
respondents indicated an opinion that various kinds of 1 and uses cause
erosion and water pollution. This opinion is most held by the urban
respondents (97%) and less by the non-urban (46Z). Statewide, urbani-
zation, construction and agriculture (grazing and other) were deemed to
be prime causes. This same attribution was made by the urban respon-
dents, but among the non-urban respondents the only significant plur-
ality formed around argiculture.
All tabulations resulted in clear majorities believing land use planning
is a good approach in protecting water quality from the effects of
erosion. Even clearer majorities believe that existing agencies and
laws are not doing enough to control man's uses of land that cause
erosion and that additional governmental effort is needed. Again,
planning was the most preferred type of program in all tabulations,
followed by preferences for technical assistance programs (except among
urban respondents, who attached about equal preference to regulatory
programs). In all tabulations, local and state governments were the
most favorefd for involvement in control programs.
62
-------
Special Environmental Questions
Number of Respondents
Urban Non-Urban Statewide
60 233 293
1. Erosion and resulting water pollution from man's use of land
near my community are caused primarily by:
Recreation
122
122
122
Transportation
202
62
82
Urbanization
722
112
232
Construction
482
142
172
Mining
32
142
122
Grazing
172
102
112
Other Agriculture
182
102
122
None
32
54%
442
2. Is land use planning a good approach in protecting water quality
from the effects of erosion?
Yes 902 68% 722
No 72 212 182
No Opinion 32 92 82
3. If you don't think that existing agencies and laws are doing
enough to control man's uses of land that cause erosion, what
types of governmental programs would you recommend?
Level of Government
None 32 142 122
Federal 282 62 102
State 572 282 342
Regional 432 142 202
Local 552 622 602
Type of Program
Planning 622 482 512
Regulatory 552 212 282
Financial Assist 382 25% 28%
Technical Assist 522 372 402
63
-------
PRIORITIES
In order to establish control priorities, some system of values is
necessary. To define the extent of accelerated erosion and attendant
pollution it would be desirable to know how many pounds of sediment were
produced from an average acre for each land use activity and the resul-
ting impact on water quality. Some data exists which allows estimates
to be formulated for a few uses.
Irrigation return flows in terms of annual acre-feet can be established
i."
Return
183,000
499,000
823,000
136,000
47,000
111.000
the State
Engineers
"Alternate Plans
for Water Resoi
Area
Total Use
Withdrawal
Consumption
I
333,000
316,000
133,000
II
1,946,000
887,000
388,000
III
1,454,000
1,432,000
609,000
IV
377,000
339,000
203,000
V
289,000
147,000
100,000
VI
240.000
239.000
128.000
Total
4,639,000
3,360,000
1,561,000
1,799,000
Total use includes public drinking, industrial, rural and electric
power. The bulk of the supply is drawn from streams, but well and
spring sources are included. Irrigation can thus be seen as the largest
water user. Suspended solids in irrigation return flows were previously
shown to range from 80 to 800 mg/1. This would indicate an annual ranae
of sediment from 196,000 to 1,956,000 tons per year.
Unfortunately, insufficient data exists to establish similar values for
other land use activities. Sediment from other activities would depend
principally on rainfall. Available data for sediment rates was obtained
in locations like North Carolina, Maryland or Wisconsin. While useful
from an illustrative viewpoint, it does not seem sufficiently valid for
Nevada to establish meaningful comparisons with irrigation sediment.
Considerable work has been done by the Soil Conservation Service but
collLtiorS0«a^CTrf«t!hl'J' r ?e\not water A future data
collection program to establish relative sediment and water quality
values for Nevada is desirable. At present, priorities can only be
assigned on an intuitive basis. y
In a general way the matrix on the following page provides a relative view
of the potential severity of erosion within activity groups, The actual
extent of accelerated erosion and attendant nollufln™ a *
the extent, nature and location of each " tS *" °°
Some activities are easily suited to management
tial erosion. Facilities design, forest practie*® reduce poten-
all amenable to operating techniques which *rm , contruction are
ally reaching streams. Since some form of < ,8edinent8 actu"
before these activities can be undertaken Ij J already required
sediment reduction practices would be relatively i^3^011 °f erosion and
64
-------
Activity in Water
Bared Soil
Compaction
Debris/Burning
Dewatering
Disruption
Drainage Change
Grinding
Slope Change
Vegetation Removal
Water Added
Wind (Artificial)
Agriculture: grazing
Irrigation
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
Forestry
X X
X X
X
Construction: building
dans
roads
transmission
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X X
X
Recreation: boats
camps
trails
X
X X
X X
X
XX
X
X
Stream Modifications
X
X X
Military
X
%
t"' .
Mining: hard rock
open pit
X XX
XXX
X
X X
X X
XXX
X
Urbanization
X X
XXX
X
Transportation: airports
railroads
roads
X
X X
x-
X X
XXX
X
X
X
65
-------
It would seem logical to devote 1immediate corrective efforts to the most
managable activities with the greatest impact on water quality. These
would seem to be activities in concentrated areas which are accessible
and discharge water on a regular basis. Irrigation appears to be the
most significant activity in terms of erosion and water quality.
Another group are those existing facilities which are in close proximity
to water courses. Urban development and transportation systems fall in
this category.
Remaining land use areas should not be considered for erosion control as
an aspect of water quality until data exists to assign quantitative
prioities. Exceptions may exist for a few specific problem areas caus-
ing state-wide concern, but none can be identified at present.
From the above concepts, a map^ can be sketched showing "Areas of Con-
cern" for water quality in Nevada with respect to erosion. The key
elements of this map are:
o Perennial streams
o Runoff areas exceeding 5 inches per year
o Sediment yield areas exceeding 0.2 acre-feet per year
o Irrigated area
o Urban areas
The geographic areas described by this map would seem to be those which
should receive initial attention.
Meshing the available information on magnitude of identified activities
within Nevada, their erosion potential, and the areas of concern, it is
possible to establish relative priorities for developing erosion'control
programs for the various activity sectors. They are grouped below into
three categories, with no attempt to rank activities within categories:
High Erosion Activity
Agriculture - Grazing
Agriculture - Irrigation
Construction - Buildings
Construction - Roads
Recreation - Trails
Stream Modifications
Urbanization
Moderate Erosion Activity
Forestry
Mining - Hard Rock
Mining - Open Pit
Transportation - Roads
66
-------
WINNEMUCC
RENO
EUREKA
AUSTIN
LAK£|7n«HOE Carson
mm
pwr
I
HAWTHORNE
^TONOPAH
LAS VEGAS
RUNOFF > 5 IN. PER YR.
IRRIGATED AREAS
HYDROGRAPHIC REGIONS
SEDIMENT YIELDS > 0.2 AC/FT PER SQ, MILES PER YR.
NEVADA ACCELERATED EROSION CONTROL
AREAS OF CONCERN
25
L
75mi.
-------
Low Erosion Activity
Construction - Dams
Construction - Transmission
Military
Recreation - Boats
Recreation - Camps
Transportation - Airports
Transportation - Rail
The evaluation of institutions utilizes this categorization of activity
sectors.
69
-------
Control
Techniques
-------
The discussion of control techniques for runoff and erosion has been
divided into four sections. These sections discuss Control Strategies,
Implementing Strategies, Effectiveness, and Resource Requirements.
Although many of the techniques have been utilized in Nevada, the infor-
mation presented is based on the literature. Some controls will
undoubtedly prove more effective in Nevada than will others.
CONTROL STRATEGIES
BASIC PRINCIPLES
The extent of erosion and the quality of runoff depends on several
influencing factors. These factors consist of: 1) topography, including
ground slope; 2) runoff quantities and rates; 3) climatic conconditions,
including temperature, wind rates, and rainfall quantities and intensities;
4) surface characteristics, including soil types, geology, vegetative
ground cover, surface coverings, and land use; and 5) stream channel
characteristics. Man's activities can modify or influence these
factors, accelerating the erosion process and adding pollutants to
runoff.
To control erosion and the quality of runoff associated with man-related
activities, it is necessary to control the impacts on the influencing
factors. In addition, eroded soils and other pollutants must be
discharged to surface waters in order for erosion to be considered a
water quality concern. Thus, erosion control associated with improving
or maintaining water quality can also be related to controlling the
discharge of eroded soils to surface waters. Control strategies can
then be divided into two major categories: those that are aimed at
preventing or minimizing the erosion process (source controls); and
those that are aimed at preventing or minimizing the discharge of eroded
soils to surface waters (discharge controls).
The measures which can be implemented to control runoff and erosion
and/or the resultant pollutant discharges to surface waters fall into
two major types: physical and structural control measures,'and management
control measures. The physical and structural controls include reducing
erosion rates by developing facilities which modify surface runoff
quantities, rates or locations. They also include modifying surface
characteristics, topography, or stream channel configuration to reduce
erosion. In addition, physical and structural controls can be developed
which treat runoff to remove eroded soils prior to discharge to surface
waters.
Management control measures are mainly aimed at modifying or controlling
activities which impact or influence erosion rates. These activities
relate to both the disturbance of land and the use Of water. The
management measures attempt to control the location, extent, timing and
specific practices of the activities so that they will have a minimal
adverse impact on those factors which influence the rate of erosion and
discharge of sediment to surface waters.
71
-------
Control strategies can be characterized in the following manner:
Control of Runoff and Erosion
Structural and Physical Techniques
Modification of surface characteristics
Modification of topography
Modification of surface runoff
Modification of channel characteristics
Management Techniques
Minimize impacts on surface characteristics
Minimize impacts on topography
Minimize impacts on channel characteristics
Restrict activities in areas or times of high erosion potential.
Control of Discharges of Eroded Soils and other Pollutants to Surface Waters
Structural and Physical Techniques
Treatment associated with collected and in-channel drainage.
Treatment associated with Surface runoff
Management Techniques
Restrict location of activities
Restrict water use
These control strategies are described in greater detail in the
following sections.
CONTROL OF RUNOFF AND EROSION
Structural and Physical
Modification of Surface Characteristics
Brush Control - Eradicating pinyon-juniper, sage and other brush, and
replacing with more desirable vegetation.
Seeding - Establishing adapted plants by seeding to provide soil cover
and to hold soils in place in the root zone.
Tree and Shrub Planting - Planting tree or shrub seedlings or cuttings
to establish desirable cover and root zones.
Critical Area Planting - Stabilizing severely eroded areas by estab-
lishing vegetative cover.
Crop Residue and Mulching - Utilizing crop residues or mulches for soil
cover.
72
-------
Cover and Green Manure Crop - Establishing a crop of close-growing
grasses, legumes, or small grain used primarily for seasonal protection
and for soil improvement.
Riprap - Utilizing large rock or aggregate as cover for soils in areas
with high erosion potential or critical water quality concern.
Chemical Binders - Adding chemical binders to soils to increase cohesion
and/or to secure soils until vegetation is established.
Concretes and Cements - Covering soils with nonerodable concretes and
cements in limited areas with higih erosion potential or critical water
quality concern; especially applicable to gravel and dirt roadways.
Soil Compaction - Increasing soil cohesion or strength through mechani-
cal compaction.
Chiseling and Subsoiling - Loosening the soil, without inversion and
with a minimum of mixing of the surface soil, to shatter restrictive
lower layers that inhibit water movement or root development.
Pervious Areas - Replacing impervious soil cover with pervious materials
to improve infiltration.
Fire Protection - Utilizing a variety of measures to prevent and control
fires which remove vegetation and other organic soil cover, including
constructing roads, trails, fire breaks, and water storage and transport
facilities.
Modification of Topography
Contour Terracing - Developing water storage capacity along the contour
by excavating and placing soil as an embankment along the downstream
side.
Contour Furrowing and Trenching - Making furrows and/or trenches along
the contour to reduce runoff velocities and slopes.
Retaining Walls - Constructing retaining walls to prevent mass soil
movement into surface waters. Also used to decrease area of soils
exposed to erosion and to enable slope modification (see below).
Slope Modification - Grading or o£h|Pf|«i*mddliying surface slopes in
areas where erosion potential is great or in close proximity to surface
waters.
Wind Breaks - Placing structures or vegetation (usually trees or tall
brush) in areas susceptible to wind erosion to reduce wind velocities.
73
-------
Modification of Surface Runoff
Field Diversion - Constructing an interception channel near the contour
to divert runoff to a waterway.
Pitting - Making shallow pits or basins of suitable capacity and distri-
bution to retain water and increase infiltration.
Diversions and Dikes - Diverting water away from eroding areas through
use of structures, dikes, or channels.
Drop Structures and Gully Plugs - Placing concrete, masonry, sheet
piling or earth structures in eroded channels or gullys below the top of
the bank to control grade, prevent further erosion and provide sediment
storage.
Channelization - Constructing channels and associated structures to
transport runoff waters (see channel modification).
Water Spreading - Diverting channeled or concentrated runoff to flat
areas for flow velocity reduction and/or infiltration.
Pervious Areas - Replacing impervious soil cover with pervious materials
to increase infiltration and reduce surface runoff.
Temporary Storage - Developing facilities which include temporary storage
of rainfall or runoff (e.g., roof tops, parks; parking lots) to reduce
runoff velocities and peak flows.
Modification of Channel Characteristics
Channel Lining - Protecting channel bottoms and banks with concrete or
riprap. Stream bank protection can also be used to retard flows along
the bank, and promote deposition instead of erosion.
Reservoirs and Detention Basins - Providing for either temporary or
permanent water storage to reduce flow velocities and peak flow quanti-
ties .
Grassed Waterway or Outlet - Using a natural or constructed waterway or
outlet shaped or graded and establishment of suitable vegetation as
needed for the safe disposal of runoff.
Revetments - Placing materials on the stream bank to protect it from
erosion by stream flow.
Sills - Placing structures of rock, masonry, rails, etc., at channel
grade to prevent stream downcutting.
74
-------
Jacks and Jetties - Building projections in the stream channel to divert
currents away from a vulnerable bank.
Channel Changes - Constructing a new waterway or channel with improved
characteristics with respect to existing and potential erosion.
Management Techniques
Minimize Impacts on Surface Characteristics
Staged Development - Completing construction and land development proj-
ects in stages or increments in order to minimize the extent of ground
cover disruption and soil exposure.
Fire Prevention and Suppression - Employing a variety of measures for
the control and prevention of fires which remove vegetation and other
organic soil cover, including restricting access by the public and
conducting fire prevention education programs.
Access Controls - Limiting or restricting access for activities which
remove soil cover or disrupt surface characteristics, including live-
stock, wildlife, and vehicular traffic.
Proper Grazing Use - Grazing at an intensity which will maintain ade-
quate cover for soil and maintain or improve the quantity and the qual-
ity of desirable vegetation; includes rotation and deferred grazing in
which one or more grazing units are rested at planned intervals through-
out the growing season of key plants, and generally no unit is grazed at
the same time in successive years.
Proper Cropping and Use - Using close growing crops on erodible land
includes strip cropping which is a,systematic arrangement of cultivating
crops in strips or bands acsoss the general slope or on a contour to
reduce water erosion and approximately at right angles to the prevailing
winds to reduce wind erosion.
Selection of Construction Materials - Utilizing construction materials
with low erodability; includes measures such as using ce&ents and con-
cretes in road construction rather than dirt or gravel.
Impervious Surface Controls - Limiting the use of impervious materials
in instances where surface runoff rates will be increased adversely.
Miniiplze Impacts on Topography
Slope Controls - Minimizing increases in ground slopes occurring from
land-disturbind activities; includes practices such as spreading or
filling with excess soils from construction and mining activities rather
75
-------
than constructing mounds or berms and Includes establishing maximum
construction slopes.
Contour Farming - Conducting farming operations on sloping cultivated
land in such a way that plowing, land preparation, planting and culti-
vating are done on the contour, resulting in contoured rills.
Minimize Impacts on Channel Characteristics
Restrictions on Channel Material Removal - Limiting or restricting
removal of materials within stream channels; includes restrictions on
gravel mining and borrow operations for construction activities.
Channel Modification Controls - Establishing design criteria for projects
which result in changes to stream channels. Criteria can include estab-
lishing maximum flow velocities and requiring design features as described
under structural and physical control techniques.
Restrict Activities In Areas or Times of High Erosion Potential
Activity Scheduling For Erosion Control - Scheduling land disturbing
activities so that ground cover removal or soil exposure operations are
not taking place or are at a minimum during spring runoff or seasonal
periods of high rainfall.
Stream Setbacks - Preserving buffer or natural vegetation areas adjacent
to streams channels by restricting activities in order to minimize
erosion in critical areas.
Land Use Restrictions for Erosion Control - Restricting the type and
level of activities and/or requiring specific structural, physical, or
management controls on the basis of land classifications which reflect
erosion potential.
CONTROL OF DISCHARGES OF SEDIMENTS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS TO SURFACE WATERS
Structural and Physical Techniques
Treatment Associated With Collected Or In-Channel Drainage
Detention Basins and Reservoirs - Providing for flow velocity reduction
by developing ponds or lakes behind a flow restriction device or through
channel modifications in order to settle and remove suspended sediment.
Sediment Filters - Constructing filters of gravel, sand, or other materials
which trap and remove sediments as waters flow through the filter.
76
-------
Debris Basins - Removing and storing sediment by constructing a dam with
spillway above channel grade; by excavation below grade, or both. Water
retention is not an intended function of the structure.
Drop Sructure - Placing concrete, masonry, sheet piling or earth structures
in eroded channels to reduce flow velocities and remove and store sediment.
Sediment Traps - Constructing wells or weirs in channels and drainage
collection facilities to settle and store sediments; used mainly in con-
junction with storm drain inlets and catch basins in urban drainage systems.
French Drains - Using perforated pipe to discharge collected storm drainage
to groundwater so that sediment can be filtered and removed by natural soils.
Treatment Associated With Surface Runoff
Buffer Areas - Maintaining or restoring vegetation adjacent to stream
banks in order "to reduce runoff velocities and settle and remove sedi-
ment; also includes placing structures or vegetation adjacent to streams
to provide wind breaks to reduce the transport of sediments to surface
waters by wind.
Pervious Placement - Establishing pervious areas for discharge
of runoff to groundwaters where sediment can be filtered and removed by
natural soils.
Filter Dikes - Using gravel, straw, hay, or other materials to construct
temporary or permanent dikes in which sediment is filtered and removed
as surface water flows through the dike.
Management Control Techniques
Restrict Location of Activities
Stream and Shore Setbacks - Restricting activities in areas adjacent
to surface waters in order to maintain maximum distances for the travel
of eroded soils, thus enabling natural settling and filtering of sedi-
ments.
Buffer Are* Maintenance - Restricting development or activities in
natural vegetation areas which serve as natural settling and removal
systems for sediments In runoff.
Wetlands Maintenance - Preserving natural wetlands areas which tend to
settl^n^remove sedi®«nts from runoff; can include restricting activi-
ties in wetlands areas such as filling and development.
77
-------
Restrict Water Use
Water Application Rates - Restrict the amount of water that can be used
in a specific activity, e.g., application of irrigation water.
Water Discharge Rates - Restrict the amount of water that can be dis-
charged to a receiving body, thereby limiting sediment quantities.
IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES
Control techniques are often implemented by the activities which are
impacting or accelerating the runoff and erosion process. Governmental
units or agencies can have several roles in influencing implementation,
however. One potential governmental role is in regulating activities
and requiring implementation of desired runoff and erosion control
practices and techniques. Another potential governmental role is in
providing economic assistance or tax advantages to activities which
institute runoff and erosion control practices. In addition, government
units or agencies can provide technical assistance or carry out education
programs to gain acceptance and aid in implementing runoff and erosion
controls.
Activities which impact or accelerate runoff and erosion can be under
either public or private control. For example, livestock grazing on
federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management is tinder
public control. Thus, control practices Implemented by the activities
which impact or accelerate runoff and erosion can be carried out by
governmental units or agencies as well as private individuals or businesses.
In addition, governmental bodies can take responsibility for implementing
specific runoff and erosion control programs. For example, buffer areas
adjacent to waterways could be purchased and maintained by a governmental
unit in order to reduce discharge of eroded soils to surface waters.
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
One means of influencing the implementation of control mechanisms is
through the establishment of regulatory programs which place requirements
and/or restrictions on activities which impact or accelerate runoff and
erosion. A variety of approaches exist in Instituting a regulatory
program depending on the objectives to be accomplished and on the
institutional framework which will administer and enforce the program.
Each program has certain common elements, however, including a defined
set of regulations, a means of enforcement, and a defined area in which
78
-------
the regulations apply. The alternatives possible for these elements are
shown in the figure below, with a discussion of them following.
Elements of Regulatory Programs For Runoff and Erosion Control
Scop* of Regulations
Type of Regulation*
Enforcement Mechanisms
Area of Application
Regulate Specific
Activities
Regulate Impacts on
Natural Features
Regulate Sediment
Discharges to Surface
Specification Standards
Performance Standards
Discretionary Require-
ments '
Plan Conformance
Pernits
Licensing
Monitoring
Inspection
Project Plan Review
' Jurisdictional Areas
Stat*
County
Cities & towns
Special districts
Erosion Sensitive Areas
Sensitive lands
Het leads areas
Shoreline areas
Surface water
drainage areas
Scope of Regulations
Regulatory programs can be established which apply to a specific
activity because of its importance or relative contribution to runoff
and erosion problems. Examples could include the regulation of live-
stock grazing, grading and construction, at irrigated agriculture. In
this way, regulations can be based on the characteristics of the
specific activity and can include regulation of the type of practices or
techniques which may be employed in conducting £he activity.
n
-------
Regulatory programs can also be established which place restrictions on
the amount of eroded soil and other pollutants which can be discharged
to surface waters. This can be accomplished through regulations which
require specific treatment processes prior to discharge or by establishing
requirements for the maximum amount or concentration of suspended sediment
and other pollutants in discharges.
A third approach could be a regulatory program aimed at establishing
requirements and/or restrictions on the manner in which activities can
modify or impact natural features which influence erosion. These fea-
tures include topography, runoff, surface characteristics, and channel
characteristics. Regulations or standards can then be established for
each feature. An example would be regulations for surface runoff which
require that natural runoff rates cannot be increased as the result of
modifications by any land-disturbing activity.
Type of Regulations
Regulations can establish requirements and/or restrictions for runoff and
erosion control in a number of ways. These include the use of specification
standards, performance standards, discretionary requirements established
on a case-by-case basis, and requirements established by a specified
plan.
Specification Standards
Specification standards establish detailed restrictions and/or require-
ments for implementing specific erosion control practices. Examples of
specification standards include requirements for paving all roads re-
ceiving over a specified traffic loading, or requirements for all land
development projects to include the construction of holding ponds with a
capacity sufficient to retain runoff associated with storms having a
recurrence frequency of 25 years.
Performance Standards
Performance standards establish requirements for the performance of
erosion control measures. This can be accomplished by establishing
mar-fmiim allowable erosion rates, maximum sediment discharge rates, or
maximum allowable impacts on natural features. Examples of performance
standards include requirements that the amount of soil which erodes from
a roadway cannot exceed that which would occur from that same land area
prior to construction, or requirements that land development projects
cannot increase runoff rates over those occurring naturally during a
storm having a recurrence frequency of 25 years.
80
-------
Discretionary Requirements
Regulations can establish requirements and/or restrictions for erosion
control which are specified on a case-by-case basis, dependent on the
discretion of a governmental unit, agency, or commission. Criteria or
guidelines are usually developed to serve as the basis for determining
specific requirements or restrictions.
Plan Conformance
Regulations can require conformance with specific comprehensive plans
which establish varying restrictions and/or requirements for erosion
control on a location, time, and/or activity basis. The requirements or
restrictions can be in the form of either specification or performance
standards for each varying condition addressed or established in the
plan. This enables requirements or restrictions to be established in a
comprehensive manner, taking into account conditions existing at various
locations within the planning area for various time frames. It is also
possible to modify requirements or restrictions as conditions change by
updating the plan. A number of different types of plans can be speci-
fied as the basis for regulating erosion control, including land use
plans, water quality and waste management plans, drainage and flood
control plans, and specific erosion control plans.
Land Use Plans - The process of assigning zoning classifications
or allowable uses to land areas can include using criteria for
mjnim-tM'ng runoff and erosion and its effects on water quality.
It is also possible to include control requirements or restrictions
as part of zoning classification descriptions.
Water Quality and Waste Management Plans - Plans can be developed
which establish water quality standards and waste ldad allocations
for specific water bodies. Requirements and restrictions for
runoff and erosion control can then be established to meet these
standards and allocations.
Drainage and Flood Control Plans - The planning for drainage
facilities and flood control can include the use of criteria
aimed at runoff and erosion control. Restrictions and requirements
established by these plans would then help minimize runoff and
erosion problems.
Runoff and Erosion Control Plans - A plan can be developed specifically
for runoff and erosion control. The plan can develop requirements
and restrictions on an area basis for any or all land-disturbing
activities. The requirements or restrictions could be based on
analysis of present runoff and erosion problems, water quality
conditions, and the potential for runoff and erosion problems based
on analysis of natural features.
61
-------
Enforcement Mechanisms
The enforcement of regulations is usually necessary to assure their
being followed or implemented as specified. . A number of mechanisms
exist for enforcement, including the use of permits, licensing, moni-
toring, inspection, and project plan reviews.
Permits
A permit is a written warrant granted by a governmental unit or agency
which conveys the right to conduct a specific activity, normally for a
given period of time and/or at an identified location. It then becomes
unlawful to conduct the activity without having a valid permit. This
system can be utilized to administer and enforce regulations by making
compliance with the erosion control requirement or restrictions neces-
sary to obtain and hold a permit. It is often required that the appli-
cant must provide detailed information concerning the proposed activity
prior to being granted the permit in order to assure compliance with the
regulations. Activities which can require a permit for enforcement of
erosion control regulations include construction, grading, land develop-
ment, and discharge of surface waters in closed conveyance systems.
Licensing
Any individual or enterprise which conducts or undertakes a specific
activity can be required to obtain and hold a license. A condition for
doing so may be that the individual or enterprise must be familiar with
runoff and erosion control regulations and that he conform with the
regulations which apply to that activity. The license can then be
revoked if applicable regulations are not complied with. Activities
with which licensing can be used for regulating runoff and erosion
control include land development and construction.
Monitoring
A program can be established to monitor compliance with regulatory
programs and/or to assist in establishing discretionary requirements or
modify specific requirements. Monitoring programs can use aerial photog-
raphy or field surveys to assess runoff and erosion rates and to assure
that control mechanisms are being implemented as required. Water
quality monitoring programs can also be utilized to assess problems
associated with suspended sediments in rivers, streams, and lakes.
Monitoring programs can then ascertain the success of control regulations
as well as help enforce them.
Inspection
Visual inspection is a means of assuring that runoff and erosion control
mechanisms are implemented as required. This can be accomplished in
conjunction with permit and licensing programs whereby the individual
&2
-------
who obtains a permit or license notifies the regulatory agency or
governmental unit at specified times during or after instituting
runoff and erosion control mechanisms. The governmental unit or agency
then performs the inspection to assure that control requirements are
met. Inspection can also be accomplished on a random basis and carried
out without the need for notification by those required to implement
runoff and erosion control mechanisms.
Project Plan Review
A review of project plans, layouts, and construction details can be
required prior to undertaking specified activities. This review process
can then make sure that required runoff and erosion control mechanisms
will be implemented as part of the project and can confirm the appropriateness
of specific designs.
Area of Application
The area to which regulatory programs apply can vary. It can coincide
with the jurisdictional area of the governmental unit, agency, or com-
mission which is responsible for enforcing and administering the pro-
grams. This could be the entire state, a county, a city or town, or a
special district such as a soil conservation district.
Regulatory programs for runoff and erosion control can also be applied
to special areas where there is a potential for runoff and erosion
problems. These areas can include sensitive lands which are determined
on the basis of natural features including topography, surface characteristics,
runoff quantities and rates, climatic conditions and stream channel
characteristics. Other areas which can be considered for special control
regulations include wetlands, shorelines, and drainage areas for surface
waters in the state. The regulatory programs would then apply only in
the selected area or areas, thereby reducing the requirements for ad-
ministration and enforcement.
ECONOMIC PROGRAMS
Governmental units or private sector agencies can assist in the imple-
mentation of runoff and erosion control mechanisms through economic
programs. These programs can include direct economic assistance in the
form of grants or loans to individuals developing runoff and erosion
control facilities. Tax incentives can also be used which provide
economic incentives to those implementing desired control mechanisms.
It is also possible to include some elements of runoff and erosion
control in development activities financed |jy the private sector.
83
-------
Grants and Loans
Funds can be provided to any individual or enterprise which implements
desired runoff and erosion control mechanisms-. These funds can be in
the form of either direct grants, or low interest loans aimed at assisting
runoff and erosion control. The criteria by which funds are dispersed
can be either discretionary, determined on a case-by-case basis, or can
be determined by needs established on an area-wide basis through comprehensive
planning. Funds can also be provided from one governmental unit to
another, as in the case of RC&D funds provided by SCS to a county for
establishment of an erosion control program.
A difficulty in administering funding assistance programs is in
determining appropriate allocations of monies among assistance requests.
Normally, available funds are not sufficient to meet all desired
expenditures and prioritization systems must be developed and adminis-
tered. Grants for capital expenditures can also have the effect of
promoting capital intensive problem solutions since those implementing
the controls can look on assistance monies as being essentially free.
Thus, if those implementing the controls must finance operations and
maintenance costs, solutions will be sought which minimize these costs,
often at the expense of capital expenditures. A final problem can be in
delaying implementation of some controls by those waiting for assistance.
This can be especially critical if the program is under-funded and those
implementing controls attempt to wait for assistance.
Tax Incentives
Taxing policies can be developed which provide economic incentives to
those implementing desired runoff and erosion control mechanisms. One
means of providing tax incentives is through policies which reduce
property taxes for those areas which are excluded from development and
maintained in a natural state, including buffer areas adjacent to
shorelines, wetland areas, and other areas which have high potential for
runoff and erosion problems if disturbed. Another means of providing
tax incentives is through investment tax credits for facilities con-
structed for the purpose of runoff and erosion control.
Private Sector Financing
Many industrial, commercial or agricultural projects obtain financing
from a bank or other financial institution. As part of the process
of securing this private sector financing the prospective borrower must
normally submit to the lender a detailed plan for the project. A
component of this plan could be resource conservation plan, with runoff
and erosion control as an integral part of the conservation plan.
Either the terms of the financing, or the availability of financing
could be partially dependent on the adequacy of the resource conservation
plan.
84
-------
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Education programs can be utilized by governmental agencies to provide
planning or technical assistance to those implementing runoff and erosion
control mechanisms. Education programs can also be used to inform
individuals as to the need for runoff and erosion control, and thus gain
acceptance for implementing control mechanisms as part of carrying out
various activities.
Planning or Technical Assistance
Many governmental agencies have the capability to provide planning or
technical assistance in the area of runoff and erosion control. This
assistance may be in the form of publications dealing with one or more
aspects of runoff and erosion control. Typical titles include: "Guides
for Controlling Sediment from Secondary Logging Roads"; "The Control.of
Pollution from Hydrographic Modifications"; and "Methods and Costs for
Stabilizing Fine-Sized Mineral Wastes." These publications are made
available at little or no cost to any individual who requests them, for
use in working to effect a solution to a runoff or erosion problem.
Government agencies also provide technical assistance in the form of
field evaluations and recommendations for specific problems and
locations. Many federal and state agencies participate in review of
proposed projects, or assist in the development of site-specific or
comprehensive plans by other agencies.
Another approach to planning or technical assistance is for a govern-
mental agency to actually work directly with an individual who perceives
that he has a runoff or erosion problem. The Cooperative Extension
Service and the Soil Conservation Service through the local Conservation
Districts provide technical assistance in this way. A technical
specialist may assist the individual in the preparations or review of
plans designed to minimize runoff and erosion on a planned or existing
project This assistance is normally provided at no direct cost to the
individual, but may require a commitment of some sort by the recipient
of the assistance.
General Information
These programs can be conducted as advertising campaigns in which runoff
and erosion control needs and mechanisms are described, in an attempt to
educate the general public and minimize practices which accelerate runoff
and erosion. In this way people can become generally aware of the
importance of controlling runoff and erosion, and the broad spectrum of
activities which can generate erosion and attendant water quality problems.
Education programs can also be aimed at specific activities in which
governmental agencies work closely with groups in developing improved
practices and implementing mechanisms for runoff and erosion control.
Such programs can include discussions or seminars with activity oriented
groups (e.g., cattle ranchers, or developers) covering specific aspects
of runoff and erosion causes and concerns, and appropriate control
mechanisms.
&5
-------
EFFECTIVENESS
The amount of eroded material discharged to a receiving water from a
given land area can be estimated with a function based on the Universal
Soil Loss Equation (1). This function is as follows:
Y(S) = E {A± •
-------
to determine the effectiveness of specific control mechanisms. This fact
was underscored in the following recommendation made by Midwest Research
Institute in a report for the National Commission on Water Quality (1):
To verify how effective various (erosion) controls in fact are,
field measurements are needed. Even if measurements were made
for a given location, their applicability to other geographic
locations requires careful assessment# The present state of the
art is still evolving and a real need for continuing research in
this area is clearly suggested. Research dealing with local con-
ditions in various urban centers in the country is especially needed
to establish trends and comparisons with respect to various control
practices.
Generalized estimates can be made of the potential reduction in erosion
rates associated with certain control techniques. On the following
page, the figure gives values for the "C" factor in the sediment loading
equation for various ground cover conditions. The sediment loading
varies in direct proportion with the value given for the "C" factor;
e.g., if the "C" factor is reduced from 0.5 to 0.25, the theoretical
reduction in sediment loading to 50%.
It can be seen from the various "C" factor values that reductions in
erosion rates from fifty to eighty percent could be achievable through the
use of control techniques aimed at modifying ground cover. This would
occur if the existing ground has little modifying cover (10%) and the con-
trol technique results in this condition to one of appreciable ground
cover (50%).
In addition, estimates have been made for reductions in sediment loads
which may be achieved by using a combination of best practices. These
include both the control of erosion rates, and the control of discharges
of eroded soils to surface waters in appropriate combinations. Using
best practices, it is estimated that sediment discharges can be reduced
by 60 to 80 percent of that which would result from land disturbing
activities with no control (1) •
The effectiveness of management control measures is difficult to estimate
because of the variability of the manner in which they can be applied.
If land disturbing activities can be scheduled to take place during times
of no rainfall, the increased erosion rates accompanying the activity can
be essentially eliminated. Controls on the location of activities can also
have major effects on reducing sediment loadings. The sediment loading
to surface waters decreases as the distance from the erosion source
increases. This relationship has been estimated for the eastern United
States in the following equation (2):
87
-------
"C" Values for Permanent Pasture, Rangeland, and Idle Land (2)
Vegetal Canopy Canopy Cover that contacts the Surface
Type and height Cover Percent ground cover
of raised canopya
(%)
Typec
0
20
40
60
80
95-100
Column No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No appreciable canopy
G
0.45
0.20
0.10
0.042
0.013
0.003
W
0.45
0.24
0.15
0.090
0.043
0.011
Canopy of tall weeds
25
G
0.36
0.17
0.09
0.038
0.012
0.003
or short brush
W
0.36
0.20
0.13
0.082
0.041
0.011
(0.5 m fall height)
50
G
0.26
0.13
0.07
0.035
0.012
0.003
W
0.26
0.16
0.11
0.075
0.039
0.011
75
G
0.17
0.10
0.06
0.031
0.011
0.003
W
0.17
0.12
0.09
0.067
0%038
0.011
Appreciable brush
25
G
0.40
0.18
0.09
0.040
0.013
0.003
or bushes
W
0.40
0.22
0.14
0.085
0.042
0.011
(2 m fall height)
50
G
0.34
0.16
0.085
0.038
0.012
0.003
W
0.34
0.19
0.13
0.081
0.041
0.011
75
G
0.28
0.14
0.08
0.036
0.012
0.003
W
0.28
0.17
0.12
0.077
0.040
0.011
Trees but no appre-
25
G
0.42
0.19
0.10
0.041
0.013
0.003
ciable low brush
W
0.42
0.23
0.14
0.087
0.042
0.011
(4 m fall height)
50
G
0.39
0.18
0.09
0.040
0.013
0.003
W
0.39
0.21
0.14
0.085
0.042
0.011
75
G
0.36
0.17
0.09
0.039
0.012
0.003
W
0.36
0.20
0.13
0.083
0.041
0.011
Average fall height of waterdrops from canopy to soil surface: m = meters,
k Portion of total-area surface that would be hidden from view by ..canopy in a vertical projection
(a bird's-eye view).
c G: Cover at surface is grass, grasslike plants, decaying compacted duff, or litter at least
5 cm (2 in.) deep
W: Cover at surfa- e is mostly broadleaf herbaceous plants (as weeds) with little lateral-root
network near the surface and/or undecayed residue.
-------
where:
S ¦ sediment delivery ratio
d
D * distance from receiving water in feet.
This equation Is a rough approximation and is dependent on the character-
istics of tha travel path fro® the erosion source and on the erosion rate*
It does show that Ideational controls In general can be effective in reduc-
tion of sediment loadings to surface waters, however.
By controlling sediment loadings to surface water., other poUutanta cm
be reduced ae well since a variety of materials are present in the soil.
The discharge of materials which are for the most part tawluM* « reduced
in the same proportion as the reduction in sediment loading. These pollu-
tants include heavy metals, insoluble pesticides, organic matter, and
phosphorus. Materials which are eoluble are reduced mainly by thoae con-
trols which reduce the contact between soils and water. These are mainly
the controls on aurface characteristics and runoff locations. The dis-
charge of soluble pollutants, which include salts, soluble pesticides,
and Lids can in fact be increased by some erosion control practices which
increase the contact time between soils and water or which reeult in
increased infiltration and leaching of pollutants In groundwater flows.
89
-------
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Resources required to implement runoff and erosion controls can be
defined in terms of dollar costs and time. However, the specific
resources required to implement controls vary widely, are dependent on
the level of control desired, on the physical characteristics of the
area in which controls are being implemented, and on the characteristics
of the activity associated with the accelerated erosion process. As runoff
and erosion rates increase, the cost of controls becomes greater to
provide a given level of reduction in sediment discharge. Also, costs
increase for achieving higher reductions in sediment loading from a
given erosion source. The costs associated with permanent controls are
usually higher than those for temporary ones. Thus, the characteristics
of the activity accelerating the erosion process are important in
determining control costs. '
In addition, resource requirements for runoff and erosion controls vary
depending on whether the controls are being implemented to correct an
existing problem or are being implemented in conjunction with a new
activity (such as a new housing development project) to minimize or
prevent runoff and erosion problems from occurring in the future. In
general, both time and dollar costs are lower for implementing controls
which prevent future problems than for those aimed at correcting
existing problems. This can be especially true for activities which
remove vegetative ground cover, such as construction and grazing. As an
example, preventive controls can be implemented by an activity to
maintain a minimum desired ground cover, thereby minimizing the runoff
and erosion process. If ground cover is greatly reduced, however,
extensive corrective controls with higher costs may be required such as
channelization of runoff with treatment for removal of sediment. In
addition, once ground cover has been destroyed, extremely long periods
of time may be required for re-vegetation, particularly in an arid
environment.
Appendix VIII for each of the three "Comprehensive Framework Studies"
embracing parts of Nevada, lists total land areas needing some form of
erosion control and approximate total costs. Unit costs used for the
Great Basin Region, a hydrographic region which includes 85% of the land
area of Nevada, are shown below:
Water Spreading
Road and Trail Rehabilitation
Stream Bank Stabilization
Contour Trenching
Stabilization of Mine Dumps
Tree Planting
Seeding
Brush and Weed Control
$ 100/acre
2,000/mile
500/mile
35/acre
15/acre
90/acre
10/acre
4/acre
90
-------
Gully Stabilization
Debris Basins
Diversion Dams
Dikes
Fence
Contour Farming
2,500/mile
10,000/each
20,000/each
1,000/mile
1,400/mile
2/acre
Estimated total costs for erosion control in Nevada came to about $70
million needed before 1980. An additional $80 million would be needed
before the year 2000.
ACTIVITY CONTROLS
Earlier sectors of land-disturbing activities which cause accelerated
runoff and erosion were identified. In e^ining resource requirements
for control of runoff and erosion, it would be useful to have specific
resource requirements relating to each activity sector The availability
of data in the literature is spotty, with substantial information on
some activities, and little or none on others. In addition the
available information tends to be generalized for the United States, and
does not relate specifically to conditions in Nevada. The information
in the following sections, however, provides some indication of the
costs associated with runoff and erosion control for certain activity
sectors.
Fine-sized mineral wastes from ore milling plants require stabilization
to prevent erosion and resultant water pollution. This stabilization
can be attained by physical, chemical or vegetative methods, or by a
combination of methods. The table shown on the following page gives
cost estimates for various types of stabilizations. Although broadly
generalized, these costs provide some concept of the magnitude of costs
involved, and provide a comparison of different methods.
Construction
The primary reference source on costs of erosion control associated with
construction is an EPA report, "Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment
Control, Construction Activities." It develops detailed cost estimates
for 25 methods used by the construction industry to control erosion.
These estimates are summarized in the second table.
Mining
91
-------
Costs for Control of Erosion from Mining Wastes
Approximate
cost per acre,
Type of Stabilization Effectiveness Maintenance dollars^
Physical:
Water sprinkling
Slag (9-inch depth):
By pumping
By trucking
Straw harrowing
Bark covering
Country gravel and soil:
4-inch depth
12-inch depth
Chemical:
Elastbmeric polymer
Lignosulfonate
Vegetative:
4-inch soil cover and vegetation
12-inch cover and vegetation
Hydroseeding
Matting
Chemical-vegetative
Fair Continual
Good Moderate $350- 450
do do 950-1,050
Fair do 40- 75
Good do 900-1,000
Excellent Minimal 250- 600
do do 700-1,700
Good Moderate 300- 750
do do 250- 600
Excellent Minimal 300- 650
do do 750-1,750
do do 200- 450
do do 600- 750
do do 120- 270
^¦Based on average tailings, costs could be revised upwards for acidic tailings
requiring limestone or other neutralizing additives.
Reference: Dean, K. C., Havens, R. , Giants, M.W., "Methods and Costs for
Stabilizing Fine-Sized Mineral Wastes," U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report #7896, 1975.
92
-------
Costs for Control of Erosion from Construction Sites
Item Unit Costs
Gravel and Earth Check Dam
$ .83 - 1.84/cf
Rock Riprap Check Dan
$6.71 - 8.17/cf
Concrete Check Dam
$217 - 598/cy
Concrete Chute
$5.40/sf
Diversion Dike
$12.93/cy
Erosion Check
$3.43/lf
Filter Berm
$10.63/cy
Flexible Erosion Control Mats
$l.l8/sf
Gabions
$12.67 - 30.10/sy
Level Spreader
$1.63 - 3.80/lf
Sandberg Barriers
$3.10/Sack
Sectional Downdrain
$10.91 - 14.55/lf
Sediment Retention Basin
$10.51 - 13.78/cy
Straw Bale Inlet Protection
$55 per inlet
Excelsior Mat
, $l,2,200/acre
Jute Mesh
$7,700/acre
Straw or Hay
$l,200/acre
Woodchips (3 in. layer)
$8,000/acre
Woodchips. furtilizer and seed
$3,100/acre
Sod
$11,300 - 14,000/acre
Chemical Soil Stabilization
$l,300/acre
93
-------
The actual costs of controlling erosion on any construction site vary
substantially, as erosion rates and control techniques are dependent on
climate, topography, soils, and many other variables. The EPA report
attempts to develop the cost of a typical erosion and sediment control
plan, and arrives at an average cost per acre of about $1,350.
Irrigated Agriculture
The casual relationships between agriculturally derived wasteloads and
irrigation practices are complex, and not well understood. Irrigation
return flows carry sediments and other pollutants, but it is neither
possible nor desirable to completely eliminate return flows. Improvement
in irrigation practices can, however, substantially reduce the quantity
of pollutants associated with irrigation return flows.
The costs of improved irrigation practices are of two types: capital
costs; and operations and maintenance costs. Both are a function of the
irrigation system employed, and can vary over a wide range. Installa-
tion costs of permanent solid set sprinkler systems for example, can run
as high as $950 per acre.
In the report prepared for the National Commission on Water Quality,
"Cost and Effectiveness of Point Source Pollution Control Options for
Irrigated Agriculture" three levels of pollution control were defined:
o Low level - non-structural changes in existing irrigation
practices that will achieve some reduction in
pollutant loading
o Medium level - structural and non-structural changes in present
practices that will maximize reduction in pollutant
loading
o High level - structural and non-structural changes in practice
and, if necessary, treatment of wastewaters, such
that any discharged wastewater does not impair
stream quality.
Cost estimates were developed to achieve each level, using- annualized
capital costs, plus annual operating and maintenance costs. For the
Great Basin and Colorado regions these costs range from $5 per acre per
year for low level control, to $102 per acre per year for high level.
Urbanization
Urban stormwater runoff contributes significantly to the pollutant loads
of receiving waters in urban areas. A study of stormwater abatement
alternatives for the Atlanta area has been conducted by the Corps of
Engineers. Although a similar study for Reno or Las Vegas would yield
somewhat different results, the Corps study is representative of the costs
and benefits associated with storm water treatment alternatives for any
urbanized area. The results are tabulated in the following figure.
94
-------
Cost and Effectiveness of Various Storm Water Treatment Alternatives for a Design Storm of 0.4 Inches
(Atlanta, Georgia)3
Annual
Expected
Percent Removal
($/lb)
Treatment Scheme
Capital Cost
($ million)
O&M
($ million)
Suspended
Solids
BOD
Suspended
Solids Removal
( $ / lb )
BOD Removal
Storage/sedimentation
371
11
51
11
0.36
52.96
Dissolved air flotation (in-
cludes pretreatment by
screening)
396
28
77
57
0.34
14.78
Miscrostraining
379
13
70
50
0.28
12.38
Filtration (including pre-
screening plus chlorination)
418
47
65
40
0.54
28.15
Rotating biological discs
393
22
70
54
0.34
14.03
Physical-chemical (2-stage lime
clarification, dual media filtra-
tion, ammonia stripping, carbon
adsorption, lime recalcination) 773 45 93 94 0.51 16.10
aCovers an area of 609.3 square miles.
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
The resource requirements for governmental strategies to assist or
ensure implementation of runoff and erosion control mechanisms are
dependent on the level of control desired and on the specific imple-
menting strategy being utilized. Costs associated with these programs
are primarily related to the numbers and types of personnel utilized in
the program. In addition, economic programs have costs directly related
to the monies spent in implementing runoff and erosion controls.
The resources required to implement a regulatory program are dependent
on its specific provisions. In general, manpower and cost requirements
are lowest for administering regulations in the form of specification
standards since little administration effort is needed to determine
specific control requirements which are specified in the standards.
Discretionary and performance standards require higher manpower and
dollar cost levels since greater efforts are required to determine the
appropriateness of specific controls. In addition, greater costs are
expended in these programs in gathering and maintaining information
which serves as the basis for determining runoff and erosion control
needs. Types of information needed to administer discretionary and
performance standards include descriptive information on physical
characteristics of the land area, and information on water quality
levels in the various surface waters of the area under consideration.
Economic programs require resources which are equivalent to the costs
of controls being assisted or funded by the programs. Thus, estimates
of these cost requirements must be made in order to adequately fund these
types of programs. In addition, manpower is required to administer
the programs. The manpower needed can be considerable to ensure that
public monies are being spent as authorized.
Resources expended in administering education programs are mainly
related to the amount of manpower utilized. The level of expertise
required in these programs is normally high since the individual
providing assistance must have sufficient education and knowledge to
assist in selecting, designing, and implementing the appropriate
runoff and erosion control mechanisms. The actual resource requirements
are a function of level of assistance required in implementing controls.
96
-------
Existing
Institutions
-------
FRAMEWORK
The institutional framework which is presently involved in control of
erosion and attendant pollution problems in Nevada is complex. It
includes agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels.
These agencies are involved through regulatory, financial, educational
or public works mechanisms or some combination of these mechanisms.
Their programs impact one or more of the activity sectors which con-
tribute to water quality problems in Nevada.
One of the key premises underlying this project is that the exist-
ing institutional sets and control authorities are inadequate in terms
of solution of the water quality problem. A detailed understanding of
the existing situation is a prerequisite to developing recommendations
for new or refined authorities or programs. It was necessary, there-
fore, to develop as much information as possible on every agency pres-
ently or potentially involved in control of erosion and attendant water
quality problems.
Tine screening out of uninvolved agencies, and subsequent development
of detailed information on the involved agencies, was handled somewhat
differently for each level of government - Federal, State, and Regional/
Local.
FEDERAL
A large number of Federal agencies operate to varying extents within
the State of Nevada. Using literature available on roles of Federal
agencies, such as the United States. Government Manual, it is possible
to screen out many agencies that are obviously not involved in any
aspect of runoff and erosion control. This initial screening provided
the following list of federal agencies which are, or might be, involved
in the control of accelerated erosion and attendant water quality
problems in Nevada.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Mines
Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Navy
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Farmers Home Administration
Department of the Air Force
Federal Highway Administration
Bureau of Reclamation
Geological Survey
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Corps of Engineers
Economic Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
97
-------
National Park Service
Soil Conservation Service
Energy Research and Development Administration
Forest Service
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
eitller in the form of a letter or a meeting was made
in the cnnr-i- i ^ a8e°cies t0 determine the extent of their involvement
in the control of accelerated erosion. A copy of a typical inquiry
two response°iet-f-!» ^ f°U°win8 Pa8e. That is followed by examples of
ment- and the C ?;etter fro® SCS indicating substantial involve-
minimal involvement^ ^ ^ ^ Flsh *nd Wildlife indicatin8
letters" the foll^ing°Federainaeefrr ^ lnitlal ffleetin8s and response
are, or could be, signifSntLidentified as ones which
erosion in Nevada: involved in the control of accelerated
Environmental Protection Agency
Bnreau of Land Management
Soil Conservation Service
Corps of Engineers
Forest Service
Federal Highway Administration
Agricultural Stabili2ation and conservation Service
agencies! us in" th^inte^view^^ conducted with each of these
the evaluation system section of°tMS J"*
-------
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES
Capitol Complex
CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89710
August 6, 1975
District Engineer
Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sir:
The State of Nevada is developing a management system for the control
of accelerated erosion and attendant discharge of pollutants to waters of
the State from land disturbing activities (i.e., agriculture, construction,
mining and silviculture). We have found that attainment of Nevada's water
quality standards and goals must include increased control of man-caused
erosion. Present authorities for the control of accelerated erosion from
land disturbing activities are spotty, unconsolidated, variably enforced,
and difficult to inventory.
One of the first tasks in initiating a State erosion control management
program is to fully identify and evaluate all the existing controls and
authorities. After evaluation of existing authorities, new control authority
requirements will be developed where needed to form a comprehensive manage-
ment system.
The Corps of Engineers has been identified as having an influence on the
management of water quality and controls of accelerated erosion. Certain
items of information describing the role that the Corps of Engineers plays
in the State of Nevada regarding erosion control are critical to our endeavor.
These items are listed below:
1. Authority and legislation related to Corps work in erosion control;
2. Specific programs initiated by or participated in by the Corps
relating to erosion control;
3. Erosion problems and locations encountered by the Corps in Nevada;
4. Erosion control techniques employed by the Corps;
5. Criteria, guidelines, handbooks, etc., relating to erosion control
used in Corps projects;
A section of the Iturcau of Envirooineafetl Health
99
-------
District Engineer, Sacramento Dist.
August 6, 1975
Page 2
6. Listings of Corps technical publications relating to erosion control;
7. Identification of perceived deficiencies in present Corps erosion
control authorities or programs;
8. Formal and informal working relationships with other agencies and
organizations pertaining to erosion control;
9. Organization chart of Corps functions and programs in Nevada with an
indication of budgets and numbers of personnel;
10. Anticipated future roles of the Corps in erosion control.
This agency is not necessarily ^interested in obtaining new authority for
itself in the control of erosion. Rather, we are taking an initiative to
determine and establish changes and additions to the present framework of
institutions and authorities as necessary to effect the most appropriate means
of attaining water quality goals vis-a-vis the problems posed by accelerated
erosion from land-disturbing activities. Your cooperation in this effort is
most appreciated. I look forward to receiving the above-outlined information
by August 22, if at all possible.
I will keep you informed of developments in the management program. The
name of a person on your staff with whom I can discuss this program will be
quite helpful. If you wish, I can be reached at (702) 885-4670.
For your information, I am writing a similar request to the District
Engineer of the Los Angeles District.
Sincerely
rd
100
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 4850, Ren(% Nevada 89505
Au;
James C. Breitlow, Project Director
Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex
1209 Jofinson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Dear Mr. Breitlow:
We are flattered to be identified as the premier Federal agency per-
taining to control of accelerated erosion. We do have considerable
expertise in this field and feel we can provide constructive service
to all states, Including Nevada.
Below are our answers to the items listed in your August 4 letter.
1. Major authorities SCS implements to solve erosion and other problems.
a. Public Law 46, 74th Congress 1935.
b. Flood Control Act, Public Law 534, 78th Congress 1944 (not
applicable to Nevada).
c. Public Law 566, 83rd Congress, 1954.
d. Public Law 1021, 84th Congress, 1956 (not applicable to Nevada).
e. Food and Agriculture Act, Public Law 703, 87th Congress, 1962.
f. Rural Development Act , Public Law 92-419, 1972.
These laws are more adequately explained in the enclosed brochures,
USDA-Ag Inf. Bulletin No. 345 and Land Use Planning Assistance available
through USDA.
2. Specific programs initiated by the Soil Conservation Service in Nevada.
For this item we can only provide you a few examples to show the diversity
of our assistance.
a. Plans have been developed with individual farmers, ranchers and
units of government. Most of them would reflect some aspect that
relates to erosion control. For example, canals, drop structures,
land leveling and other measures are part of a plan for irrigated
acreages. Designs and specifications are such that irrigation
101
-------
Breitlow, Dept. of Human Resources
August 15, 1975
2
waters are moved on and off the fields at non-erosive velocities.
For ranch plans, ranges are improved for sustained production,
but better range also results in less erosion. Resource data
are provided to units of government. This data may be used as
a basis for ordinances that control erosion on streams, highways,
and other land areas.
Construction has been completed on four P. L. 566 watersheds.
Each contain provisions to control erosion. Land treatment
measures have been applied on the upper drainages and those projects
with floodwater retarding structures have capacity in the reser-
voirs to contain fifty (50) years or more of sediment accumulations.
To date no projects
-------
Breitlow, Dept. of Human Resources
August 15, 1975
3
The Carson River in Douglas County is also degrading. However, the
greatest concern to local residents is the stream bank erosion that is
occurring. Some effort has been made to rip-rap critical areas, but
more work will be needed to solve the problem.
4. Erosion Control Techniques "Used by SCS.
Erosion control is achieved by vegetative or structural means.SCS
has nearly every specialist needed to help individuals or groups solve
erosion problems. These specialists include soil scientist, geologist,
range conservationist, agronomist, plant materials specialist, engineers,
hydrologist and others. The SCS philosophy is to stop erosion where it
starts. Generally, the first increment of control is achieved by vegeta-
tive means. (Example - Plant grass, trees or shrubs on a slope.) If this
isn't adequate to achieve control, the next step is a structural measure.
This could include terraces, diversions, drop structures, debris structures
or floodwater retarding structures. Some of the general techniques are
outlined in the bundle of brochures labeled "Broad Techniques for Control-
ling Erosion". These are non-technical materials made available to
cooperators.
When Conservation Plans are developed "Job Sheets" are often given to
the cooperator. These job sheets are developed on a national, regional,
state and county1 basis.
5. Criteria, Guidelines, Handbooks, Relating to Erosion Control.
It is difficult and time consuming to list all of the items requested.
Mostly, SCS develops handbooks for specific programs (Example, Watershed
Protection Handbook or Resource Conservation and Development Handbook).
These handbooks outline how these authorities can be implemented. Then
there are handbooks or manuals for specific fields, such as, engineering.
These are detailed technical publications used for design of various
measures. We have enclosed an "Engineering Field Manual", "Structural
Design Handbook, Section 6", and a "Chute Spillway Handbook, Section 14".
Numerous other handbooks for other fields are available and all have some
chapter or section that relates to erosion control.
6. Listing of SCS Technical Publications.
To respond to your request, on or about August 15, there is not
103
-------
Breitlow, Dept. of Human Resources
August 15, 1975
4
6. Listing of SCS Technical Publications. (Continued)
sufficient time to develop a list. Very few publications relate
exclusively to erosion control. As indicated above, our handbooks or
publications have a section or chapter that relates directly or indirectly
to erosion control. If such a list is needed for your work, it might
work out best if we arranged a conference with you and our principal
staff members who are expert in particular fields. At this conference
each staff member could discuss with you technical materials we use in
our work and a list could be prepared that would best serve your needs.
7. Identification of Perceived Deficiencies in SCS Erosion Control
Authorities.
Generally, SCS authorities are adequate to handle a wide variety of
erosion problems. Naturally, all of these authorities are established
to operate within our democratic form of government. This is as it should
be. Because of this, the use of SCS authorities by citizen groups is
voluntary. Funds for these programs are provided annually by Congress.
Often funding limits the availability of technical manpower to plan and
construct projects. Lack of funds also limits new construction starts.
Our authorities also contain certain limitations, so that our work doesn't
significantly overlap or duplicate the work of other agencies. For example,
under P. L. 566, there are limitations as to size of watershed, size of
structures, and number of recreation developments. This is not a deficiency.
Most consider it wise legislation. As with most major federal construction
programs, erosion control measures in certain SCS programs are subject
to economic and environmental analyses. These analyses can be time con-
suming, but they do safeguard the public interest and funds.
8. Formal and Informal Working Agreements With Other Agencies.
Agreements specifically dealing with erosion control have not been
developed with any agency. However, numerous agreements dealing with
many aspects of conservation exist between SCS and other,federal and state
agencies. These agreements are called "Memorandums of Understanding".
As described in AIF Bulletin No. 345 on Page 4, SCS has agreements with
each conservation district. Agreements are developed at the National
level as well as at the State level. Some State Agreements are supplemen-
tary to National Agreements. On a National level, there are agreements
with the Corps of Engineers, Farmers Home Administration, and other
agencies on how to work cooperatively on Public Law 566 projects. These
agreements are not about erosion control, but indirectly they can involve
erosion. On a State level SCS frequently enters into agreements.
104
-------
Breitlow, Dept. of Human Resources
August 15, 1975
5
8. Formal and Informal Working Agreements With Other Agencies. (Continued)
An example is an agreement with the Bureau of Land Management on how to
handle "Coordinated Ranch Plans". Again, erosion control is not the
principal part of the agreement, but the Plans developed with a rancher
can have a significant effect on .erosion.
Often SCS enters into agreements with agencies or units of government
for specific jobs. Sometimes these agreements reinburse SCS for work.
An example is a county who provides a sum of money for a soil survey.
Counties use the information to establish ordinances on land use. The
ordinance may restrict land use so that erosion is decreased or at least
not accelerated. Another example is an agreement with the State Engineer
for setting priorities for Flood Hazard Analyses Studies. Again, these
studies provide information that can effect erosion control. In summary,
SCS or conservation districts can have formal or informal agreements with
nearly any agency that can be named. Conservation districts when asked
to develop a Conservation Plan execute a Cooperative Agreement with
nearly every cooperator with which they work.
9. Organization Chart of SCS Functions and Programs.
Attached is a copy of Personnel Memorandum NV-41 (Rev. 9) which
describes the SCS organization in Nevada. Reading this will give you a
better understanding of the positions that have responsibility for the
various SCS functions and programs.Also attached is a National SCS organi-
zational chart. Nevada has fourteen field offices headed by a District
Conservationist. These offices have zero to seven additional employees.
In Nevada the current budget, including reimbursables, is about two
million. The budget vacilates from year to year. During the current
fiscal year if Congress appropriates sufficient funds, another half million
may be available for construction of an RC&D recreational project. It
is impossible to identify which portion of this budget will be used for
planning and constructing erosion control measures.
The current personnel ceiling in Nevada is 90 people. This ceiling
also changes annually, a few years ago, it was over 100. This reflects
national trends. SCS once had about 18,000 people and currently we have
about 13,000.
10. Anticipated Future SCS Role in Erosion Control.
I believe SCS will continue to have an important role in erosion
control. Whether it is an increasing role is dependent on congressional
legislation. SCS under the Rural Development Act was given a charge
105
-------
Breitlow, Dept. of Human Resources
August 15, 1975
6
10. Anticipated Future SCS Role In Erosion Control (Continued)
to do Land Inventorying and Monitoring every five years. However,
this cannot be carried out until funds are appropriated.
I hope the above mataial basically fills your needs. As indicated, time
has not allowed a complete listing of all material requested. Even if
time were available, the volume of material might have been overwhelming.
If you should have specific, additional questions, you may want to consider
arranging a conference so you can talk directly with some of our principal
staff.
Sincerely,
GERALD THOLA
State Conservationist
cc:
Norman Ritter
Ray Huxtable
Enclosures (Under Separate Cover)
106
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1500 N.E. IRVING STREET
P.O. BOX 3737
PORTLAND, OREGON 97208
Reference: ES
October 24, 1975
Mr. James C. Breitlow
Department of Human Resource-
Environmental Protection Services
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
OCT 3 0 1975 ^
Environmental Protection
Dear Mr. Breitlow:
Your letter of October 3, 1975 requested information regarding
our Service's role in erosion control.
Actually we have only what might be called a peripheral authority
in erosion control matters. We are frequently asked for input into
proposed management plans and development plans of other Federal
agencies. Should such plans appear to have facets that might result
in excessive erosion and attendant impairment of water quality, we
attempt to bring our concerns to the attention of the responsible
agency.
Of course on lands that we own we attempt to be good stewards and
manage those lands in accordance with good soil conservation practices.
I'm sorry we could not be of more help.
Sincerely yours,
Donald H. Reese
Regional Supervisor
Div. of Ecological Service
CONSERVE
I AMERICA'S
J ENER0Y
Save Energy and You Serve America!
107
-------
AGENCY NAME: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco California 94111
NEVADA OFFICES: None
TELEPHONE: (415) 556-7285
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
Paul DeFalco, Jr. - Regional.Administrator. Five divisions
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
Toward the principal end of reducing air and water pollution,
EPA has evolved into a regulatory agency with a supporting financial
assistance function. Another activity of comparable magnitude
is to assure that state and local pollution control agencies develop
and maintain comprehensive pollution control programs.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (particularly
Section 208)
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The principal program is the administration of 208 planning, conducted
locally in four designated 208 areas and conducted by EPS in the
balance of the state. The EPA approach is to use 208 planning to
assess water quality impacts and to specify reduction measures
(with emphasis on the concept of best management practices in
association with improved institutional capabilities). This,
then, would lead to the use of 208 planning recommendations in the
terms and conditions of NPDES permits, where such permits would have
to be issued. With respect to the relationship of the construction
grant program to runoff and erosion control, EPA's current thinking
is to narrow the eligibility of construction grant projects. Hence,
the construction grant program may be counted on only with respect
to Step 1 planning, without any promise that Step 2 or Step 3 phases
will ensue.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
EPA's views on the physical problem were not ascertained. Rather,
EPA perceives the problem from the standpoint that institutional
capabilities and relationships are inadequate presently to manage
the existing and potential physical problems on a continuous, total-
environment basis. This definition of the problem applies not only
in Nevada, but nationally as well.
108
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
EPA recognizes that there are limitations to the effectiveness of
a discharge permit program as applied to runoff and erosion problems.
Hence, EPA is placing extensive reliance on the 208 planning program.
This program has not proceeded for enough to enable an assessment of
its effectiveness. However, EPA has been devoting substantial time
to assuring itself that the 208 program will produce effective
plans and management processes.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
EPA's principal approach to controlling runoff and erosion problems
is the development and implementation of best management practices
which emphasize preventive or source control techniques. This
approach is based on applying a base level combination of best
management practices to runoff and erosion problems; if, in a
specific area, water quality goals cannot be attained with the base
level practices, additional control measures are to be applied.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
There are in excess of 325 employees in EPA, Region IX. EPA
planning grants to various 208 agencies in Nevada approximate $1.8
million.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
As mentioned above, EPA feels that the application of NPDES discharge
controls on most runoff and erosion sources of pollution cannot
result in effective management of the problem. Another deficiency in
existing authorities lies in the existance of separate statutes
for air quality management, water quality management and hazardous/
residual/solid waste management. This situation impedes EPA's
efforts to administer intermedia programs.
Regarding budget deficiencies, limitations on available funds in
the construction grant program is a major reason for limiting the
eligibility of runoff and erosion control projects for funding.
109
-------
AGENCY NAME:
NEVADA OFFICES:
Bureau of Land Management
Nevada State Office
Room 3008 Federal Building
300 Booth Street
Reno, Nevada 89502
District offices in Carson City,
Winnemucca, Battle Mountain, Elko,
Ely and Las Vegas
TELEPHONE:
784-5455
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
A state director is administrative head in Nevada. District managers
located in each district office.^
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The role of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is one of managing the
national resource lands for multiple use consistent with environmental
protection and public welfare.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Economy Act (Act of June 30, 1932)
Taylor Grazing Act (Act of June 28, 1934, as amended).
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (Act of April 27, 1935,
as amended).
Public Law 566, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(Act of August 4, 1954, as amended)
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act of June 30, 1948, as amended)
Public Land Administration Act (Act of July 14, I960).
Water Resources Research Act (Act of July 17, 1964, as amended).
Classification and Multiple Use Act (Act of September 19, 1964, as
amended).
Water Resources Planning Act (Act of July 22, 1965, as amended).
Water Quality Act (Act of October 2, 1965).
Clean Water Restoration Act (Act of November 3, 1966).
State Enabling Legislation for Soil and Water Conservation District in
States Affected.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190, January 1, 1970).
Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970).
Mineral Leasing Act of Feb. 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181-287).
Minerals Act of July 31, 1947 as amended (30 U.S.C. 601-604).
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500,
October 18, 1972).
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205).
Sikes Act Extension for Wildlife (PL 93-452, October 14, 1974).
110
-------
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Inventory and analysis of the erosion condition classes in general
categories of stable, slight, moderate, critical and severe has been
completed on 80 percent of BLM lands. Livestock grazing management
plans have been implemented on 7.5 million acres. Fire rehabilitation
has been completed on many wildfire areas within the last twenty years.
Other programs include range and watershed improvement covering one
million acres of brush control and/or seeding, 9,500 miles of fencing
and 3,40C wafer control structures. BLM is involved extensively in
land use planning. This involves land inventories which become part
of the unit resource analysis and socio-economic studies, incorporating
policy guidance and existing agreements. All of these are ingredients
to multiple land use plans which attempt to draw the many different
aspects of national range management together into one
coordinated program. The agencies with which the BLM works most frequent]
are the Geological Survey, State Lands, U.S. Forest Service, Department
of Fish and Game, and the State Planning Coordinator.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
Most problems are being caused by livestock forage over-utilization,
natural or geologic gully erosion, mineral exploration, off-road vehicular
use, private land uses (urban development), and mineral extraction.
The BW views runoff from land disturbing activities as being only
a minor problem in Nevada. While the BLM does recognize the potential
relationship between land disturbing activities and water quality,
it feels that for the most part, the disturbance of land rarely affects
the water quality of Nevada, and where it does affect water quality,
it is only in isolated areas.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The BLM knows if its programs are being carried out by a detailed
reporting system based on plans which have manpower allocations.
The state office reviews progress of programs with the district offices
and similarly, the Washington office of BLM meets and reviews¦program
progress with the state BLM office. The BLM assesses the effectiveness
of its land use planning effort through evaluations (i.e. determinations
of how often the planning is used in agency decisions and operations)
and also by the mechanism of public feedback to the land use planning
effort. The BLM feels that it is moderately effective in providing
this program inasmuch as it is a new program and as such has been
somewhat general in the early stages. The BLM feels that the people
impacted by the land use planning do not have a concensus of opinion
on the effectiveness of this program. It varies from enthusiastic
support to angry opposition.
Ill
-------
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
Present vegetation cover is being manipulated by application of chemicals
or mechanical methods in areas of increased erosion caused by a brush
competition problem. Other techniques in use include contour terracing,
ripping, pitting, drops, detention dams, diversion and dikes. Criteria
and guidance are summarized in BLM Manuals 7000 through 7400.
With respect to data collection, the BLM conducts inventories of the
public lands. This involves soil types, plant types and numbers,
etc. There is also policy guidance out of Washington BLM which says
that there will be water quality data collected. However, at this
point, BLM has not collected such data themselves; rather, BLM has
relied on obtaining data collected and developed by other agencies.
The other data is collected on a regular basis. However, the regularity
varies depending on the particular resource being inventoried. The
BLM does not feel that its data is too satisfactory in terms of meeting
its needs, due to limitations ob funding.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
There are approximately 215 permanent employees with approximately
another 200 temporary employees. The annual budget approximates $15
million.
Approximately 7-1/2 percent of the annual budget is devoted to the
BLM's land use planning programs.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
Environmental constraints prohibit the application of erosion control
practices in many areas. No other authority or program deficiencies
are obvious.
112
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Soil Conservation Service
NEVADA OFFICES: Nevada State Office
P. 0. Box 4850
Reno, Nevada 89505
District conservationists located
in Minden, Reno, Las Vegas, Yerington,
Elko, Winnemucca, Eureka, Ely, Tonopah,
Caliente, Battle Mountain, Wells,
Fallon and Lovelock
TELEPHONE: (702) 784-5304
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
A state office headed by a State Conservationist which supports
each headed by a District Conservationist. The SCS operates
under the direction of 32 local Conservation Districts.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The Soil Conservation Service is active in data collection and dis-
semination in the areas of conservation, erosion control, agricul-
tural practices and development, soil surveys and analyses, water
development in small watersheds and many other areas.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Public Law 46, 74th Congress, 1935
Flood Control Act, Public Law 534, 78th Congress 1944 (not appli-
cable to Nevada)
Public Law 566, 83rd Congress, 1954
Public Law 1021, 84th Congress, 1956 (not applicable to Nevada)
Food and Agriculture Act, Public Law 703, 87th Congress, 1962
Rural Development Act, Public Law 92-419, 1972
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Plans have been developed with individual farmers, ranchers and
units of government. Canals, drop structures, land leveling and
other measures are part of a plan for irrigated acreages. Con-
struction has been completed on four P.L. 566 watersheds. Each
contain provisions to control erosion. River basin studies for
the Humboldt and Central Lahontan areas address themselves to the
magnitude of erosion problems and offer alternatives for solving
these problems.
113
-------
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
All lands in the state are subject to various degrees of erosion
by either water or wind. Pine Valley has a very serious channel
degradation problem. In the upper watershed and on the side
tributaries, there are active gully heads. Water tables are being
lowered. In the Tahoe Basin new highways, new housing areas, ski
runs and other disturbed areas produce critical sediment source
areas which end up polluting the pristine waters of the Lake. On
the Little Humboldt River in Humboldt County, there are active
sand dunes. The Carson River in Douglas County is also degrading.
However, the greatest concern to local residents is the stream
bank erosion that is occurring.
The major contributors to accelerated erosion in Nevada are, first,
grazing by removing the vegetation, trampling the soils, and pul-
verizing the soils. Perhaps equal to grazing as a cause is con-
struction in its different forms including recreational home develop-
ment, commercial and industrial development, mobile home development,
and residential development. The primary reason these factors con-
tribute to accelerated erosion control problems is the stripping of
land. Other problems rated moderate include campgrounds and chan-
neling or other stream modifications. The SCS acknowledges some
very localized contributions to the problem from roads.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The SCS feels its efforts in grazing programs are only as effective
as the land owner wants them to be and can afford to be. The SCS
provides soils data to units of local governments on the basis of
which they can develop control ordinances. The SCS feels that the
effort expended in this regard has had some effect, but again it is
entirely voluntary. The only way SCS can check to see if this
effort is being effective is to watch for the adoption of new
ordinances.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
Erosion control is achieved by vegetative or structural means. SCS
has nearly every specialist needed to help individuals or groups
solve erosion problems.
SCS develops handbooks fpr specific programs and handbooks on spec-
ific fields. These are detailed technical publications used for
design of various measures. Very few publications relate exclusively
to erosion control.
Information generation and transmission is a very large program of
SCS in consideration of the fact that SCS is a cooperative type of
114
-------
agency. The information SCS collects on soils is distributed
through agricultural schools and public meetings. SCS rates the
quality of the data as very high and feels that the people that
receive the data similarly rate it as very high. The improvement
of its data collection and dissemination process is a continual
goal in the annual plans of operation.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
Nevada has fourteen field offices headed by a District Conserva-
tionist. These offices have zero to seven additional employees.
Budget: about two million dollars
Current personnel ceiling: 90 people
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
Generally SCS authorities are adequate to handle a wide variety of
erosion problems. Often funding limits the availability of techni-
cal manpower to plan and construct projects. Lack of funds also
limits new construction starts. Our authorities also contain cer-
tain limitations, so that our owrk doesn't significantly overlap
or duplicate the work of other agencies.
115
-------
AGENCY NAME: Corps of Engineers
South Pacific Division
630 Sansome Street, Room 1216
San Francisco, California 94111
NEVADA OFFICES: None
TELEPHONE: (415) 556-0914
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
Northern Nevada is administered by the Sacramento District and
Southern Nevada by the Los Angeles District. Both are under the
South Pacific Division.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The Corps of Engineers is a resourse development agency.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Authority comes from either Congressional authorization or several
special continuing authorities that permit authorization by the
Chief of Engineers of small projects with specific monetary limi-
tations.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
1. The authorized Humboldt River and Tributaries project, which
is in the advanced planning stage.
2. The authorized Gleason Creek Dam project, also in the advanced
planning stage.
3. The Truckee River and Tributaries Investigation, under which a
channel modification study of the Truckee Meadows is being con-
ducted.
Programs currently available in Nevada include reservoir planning
on the Humboldt River, flood control studies, and a stream bank
erosion study. There is a division of labor between the Corps of
Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service whereby the former
tends to take on work in the lower watersheds and the latter takes
on work in the upper watersheds.
The major function undertaken by the CE is public works. This
includes reservoirs, channels, recreation areas, stream bank ero-
sion protection, etc. The CE is also involved in regulatory pro-
grams affecting accelerated erosion and runoff from land-disturb-
ing activitites.
116
-------
The agencies with which the CE tends to work most are: The Divi-
sion of Water Resources, Division of Colorado River Resources,
State Planning Coordinator, local groups on specific projects, BLM
and the Forest Service if these two agencies are involved in a
Corps project, the SCS and the Bureau of Reclamation.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
The Corps of Engineers view runoff from land-disturbing activities
as being only a minor problem in Nevada.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
Erosion control techniques employed by the Corpos are typical of
those in the civil engineering field. They include various stabi-
lization practices such as channel realignment, numberous methods
of bank protection, storage facilities that provide flow regulation
and flood plain management practices that allow for natural stream
flow but regulate adjacent development so as to minimize the destructive
effects of erosion. Engineering pamphlet (EP) 310-1-1 lists publications
used by the Corpos in all applications, including erosion control.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
A. Total Agency - all personnel and programs.
B. Agency personnel and budget levels specificall related to water
quality management and erosion control.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
No perceived deficiencies in present Corps erosion control authori-
ties or programs.
117
-------
AGENCY NAME:
NEVADA OFFICES:
TELEPHONE:
U. S. Forest Service
Toiyabe National Forest
111 N. Virginia St. Room 601
Reno, Nevada 89501
Humboldt National Forest
Mountain City Highway
Elko, Nevada 89801
(702) 584-5331 (Reno)
(702) 738-6409 (Elko)
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
There are two national forests in Nevada. Both have forest supervisors
who administer many smaller offices, ranger stations, etc. throughout
the state.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The role of the Forest Service is the management of forest lands for the
best combination of multiple uses, that is, to provide a continuous flow
of timber while protecting the watersheds. The Forest Service is a producing
agency as well as a service organization.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Any specific programs participated in or cooperated in with other agencies
would be covered under the written authority of a given Act, Executive
Order or Regulation.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The Forest Service's goals and objectives are to initiate grazing
allotment plans which provide for water developments, revegetation,
etc., to maintain the grazing allotments, and to implement the plans.
Annual goals of the Forest Service are established in the beginning
by the receipt of a budget letter from the Washington office, whereupon
a group composed of rangers, a forest supervisor and staff, congregate
and develop a plan of action which goes to Washington, is considered
in Washington, and is handed back down. The grazing allotment plans
are followed up by range inspections. This involves photo transects
and water quality monitoring. The Forest Service may phase out the
special use permits for recreational home developments that have a
very bad impact on the environment. They put stipulations on special
use permits for commercial and industrial developments. In terms
of mining, the Forest Service develops with miners, an operating plan
118
-------
in the nature of a gentlemen's agreement to consider the ways in
which the operation of a mining activity can mitigate the adverse impacts
of that activity. The Forest Service works on erosion control with
the Fish and Game Department, the Division of Forestry, the Division
of State Parks, Environmental Protection Services, Division of Lands
and Land Use Planning, Desert Research Institute, Renewable Natural
Resources Division of the University of Nevada-Reno, Bureau of Land
Management, Soil Conservation Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines, Bureau
of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. The Forest Service has
been involved to some extent in the development of 303 (e) plans. The
nature of their involvement has been quick reviews of the plans to
determine the impact of the plans on the Forest Service programs.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OF WATER QUALITY:
The Forest Service feels that in Nevada, most of the land-disturbing
activities are major contributors, where they occur, to our water
quality problems. Of these, grazing (especially in terms of stream
bank trampling and free access to streams), mining (especially in
association with roads), and roads in general, are the major causes
of our water quality problems. Those activities which are not deemed
to be very extensive as contributors to the problem are irrigated
agriculture, campgrounds, logging and railroads.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The Forest Service feels its grazing allotment plans are having only some
impact on the problem due to limits of funds and personnel. However, where
there are efforts being made relative to developing and implementing allotment
plans, the Forest Service feels it is very effective in controlling the problem.
They anticipate that more sophisticated monitoring capabilities will accrue to
the Forest Service and thereby enable the Forest Service to do an improved job.
Their impact on commercial and industrial developments has been very effective.
With respect to mining, the Forest Service feels it has a moderate impact on
the effect of mining on water quality, due to the economic influence of the
miners. They really have no legal authority to do an effective job. The Forest
Service is hindered by an 1872 mining law giving the "right" to mine. They
believe their special use permits on new trails and roads are very effective.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
In terms of data collection and dissemination, data is collected on an
as-needed basis for planning. This involves water quality, timber, and
range data.
119
-------
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
There are approximately 100 employees in the Toiyabe National Forest
with 40 of the employees in the central office and the remainder in
the district offices.
The grazing allotment plans involve approximately 25% of the Forest
Service's budget resources.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
In terms of staff commitment to attaining environmental goals, the staff
knows that there is a need, but seem to be limited in knowing what to do
about environmental problems.
120
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Federal Highway Administration
NEVADA OFFICES: Division Administrator
106 East Adams
Carson City, Nevada 89701
TELEPHONE: (702) 885-5331
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The Division Administrator heads a single Nevada office which
provides technical and financial assistance to the State through
the Nevada Highway Department.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The FHWA is involved in providing planning assistance to the State
Highway Department and provides this assistance by helping estab-
lish priorities and traffic needs, and by providing guidelines
which include consideration of erosion and erodibility of soils in
the routing of roads.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROLS
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
None enumerated.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The type of programs administered by the Federal Highway Admini-
stration in Nevada is essentially a financial assistance program
with an overview function to see that the procedures of the State
Highway Department are conforming with the previously agreed upon
procedures that meet Federal Highway Administration requirements.
FHWA is also involved in technical assistance in a limited way
by reviewing plans and designs for highways that are developed by
the State Highway Department. In terms of control guidelines,
regulations, monitoring, and enforcement, most of this function has
been delegated to the State Highway Department. The FHWA has only
to review, in terms of spot checks, the procedures of the State
Highway Department to make sure they continue to conform to the
FHWA guidelines, specifications, and standards. The principal
agency with which the FHWA works is the State Highway Department.
FHWA works with no other agency at any level of government in
Nevada without working through and with the State Highway Depart-
ment. The FWHA also works occassionally with the Bureau of Land
Management.
121
-------
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
In terms of highways and roads being a land-disturbing activity
during construction and maintenance, the FHWA views the runoff from
this land-disturbing activity as being only a minor problem in
Nevada. The FHWA has no opinion as to the impact that all factors
have on accelerated erosion problems in Nevada. The only factor
identified was highways and roads. Only to some small minor extent
does FHWA feel that this factor is a contributing factor to our
water quality problems. When this factor is a contributing factor,
it is primarily during construction of highways and roads and to a
lesser extent during the period between the completion of con-
struction and the time when the banks and road cuts can be stabili-
zed.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
FHWA feels that their planning assistance with the State Highway
Deparment is very effective from an erosion control standpoint and
has no additional plans for the future regarding their planning
assistance program. The FHWA feels that in terms of highways and
roads the State Highway Department is always the most effective
agency in dealing with the accelerated erosion control problems
associated with highways.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The FHWA relies primarily on its "Federal Highway Program Manual"
as a handbook for liaison and sediment control techniques during
highway construction.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
The FHWA's program of technical and financial assistance with the
State Highway Department has a budget of approximately $30 million
per annum and a staff of highway engineers.
122
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
NEVADA OFFICES: Nevada State Office
P. 0. Box 360
Reno, Nevada 89502
District offices are located in
Elko, Fallon, Caliente, Winnemucca,
Yerington and Lovelock
TELEPHONE: (702) 784-5411
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
There is a state committee supported by a state staff with an executive
director. Six district offices are served by county committees in each
of the 17 Nevada counties.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The principal role of ASCS is to administer cost-sharing programs whereby
50-75 percent of the costs of installing selected practices funded by the
ASCS. This is primarily for water conservation and irrigation practices.
The agency is organized with a state office in Reno and six county offices.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
None enumerated
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
In responding to the problems caused by over-grazing, the ASCS provides
funds for better range practices. The goals of the agency are to conserve
and improve the quality of the limited amount of water available for all
uses, to prevent or reduce soil erosion on crop range and watershed lands,
to develop or improve stands of forest trees fbr timber production and to
create new, or improve existing, wildlife habitat. The agencies with which
ASCS works include the Fish and Game Department, Environmental Protection
Services, U.S. Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, Division of
Forestry, Conservation Districts, Bureau of Land Management, and the State
Department of Agriculture.
123
-------
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
The ASCS views the extent of the runoff problem from land-disturbing
activities as minor. However, ASCS feels that some land-disturbing
activities do cause major problems in localized areas. The major con-
tributor to the problem where It exists seems to be over-grazing coupled
with retarded grass growth due to brush. Of a somewhat moderate
nature, mining is considered to be a problem. All other activities seem
to be considered as not very extensive in contribution to water quality
problems in Nevada.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The ASCS feels that its range practices programs have a limited impact due
to the fact that the public range is very preponderant in Nevada. Without
controls on the public range, the controls on the private range are, by
necessity, very limited in effect. ASCS feels that it is very effective
in providing financial assistance. It feels that the recipients would rate
ASCS as very effective in providing the services.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
These are primarily financial support of SCS techniques and practices by
individual land owners.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
There are fifteen employees of the ASCS in the State of Nevada, four of
whom work in the State office in Reno. The budget is approximately
$700,000 per year.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
The ASCS is not satisfied with the cooperation between their agency and
Environmental Protection Services, Fish and Game Department, and most
state agencies in general. However, the ASCS feels the cooperation is
improving.
124
-------
STATE
The project team possesses substantial knowledge on the workings of
Nevada State Government. Accordingly, it was possible to easily make an
initial screening down to those State level agencies that are, or should
be, involved in the control of runoff and erosion. The following
agencies survived the initial screening:
Environmental Protection Services
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Highways
Department of Agriculture
Division of Conservation Districts
Division of Forestry
Division of State Lands
Division of Water Resources
Each of these agencies was then interviewed to determine the nature of
their present and potential future involvement in the control of runoff
and erosion.
A parallel activity which was essentially complete prior to the State
agency interviews was a review of authorities relating generally to
the subject of erosion control. This authority survey consisted of a
detailed search of the Nevada Revised Statutes to identify all sections
pertaining to erosion control, either directly or indirectly. These
authorities, once identified, were indexed by agency to display the
statutory authorities granted to each agency.
On the following pages are standardized summaries of the eight State
agencies of interest in this project, describing the agency, its author-
ities and programs relating,to control of accelerated erosion in Nevada.
Also included are summaries of many of the Nevada Revised Statutes under
which these agencies have authority. Although they were not interviewed,
the State Environmental Commission is included in the summaries. Environ-
mental Protection Services works very closely with the State Environmental
Commission and implements the regulations and standards .which the Commis-
sion adopts.
125
-------
AGENCY NAME:
State Environmental Commission
NEVADA OFFICES
State Office
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
TELEPHONE:
(702) 885-4670
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
Norman Glaser, Chairman; eight other members, five of whom are
officials of other state agencies; one staff person: Kenneth Boyer,
Executive Secretary
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The Commission considers and adopts rules and regulations, including
water quality standards, for administration by EPS.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
NRS Chapters 445 which provides broad authorities.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
None other than the aforementioned adoption of rules and regulations
administered by EPS.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
None ascertained.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
Not applicable
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
Not applicable.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
Manpower is as stated above, although EPS provides substantial
staff support. Budget is minimal, and primarily applied to operating
costs.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
None ascertained.
126
-------
Environmental Protection
CITATION- NRS Chap^rc LUL f. us KEY ciiMrrinm- Alr & Watgr Pollution, Solid Waste ;
-------
AGENCY NAME: Department of Human Resources
Environmental Protection Services
NEVADA OFFICES: 201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
TELEPHONE: (702) 885-4670
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The Chief of Environmental Protection Services is directly under
the head of the Department of Human Resources.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The basic mission of Environmental Protection Services (EPS) is to
maintain water and air quality in the State of Nevada. EPS also
has a secondary role relating to solid waste disposal, which at this
time they are handling as a planning level assignment.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Authorities under which EPS works most frequently are NRS 444 and 445.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL
AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The 303(e) plans prepared for the State of Nevada were done under
the direction of EPS. The primary state agencies which provided
meaningful support were Water Resources, and Fish and Game. The
main way in which EPS has control over erosion matters relates to
their approval function on subdivisions. As part of the review and
approval process, EPS reviews water quality, sewage disposal and
water pollution aspects of every proposed subdivision in the state.
They are also working very closely with TRPA on developing the Tahoe
Basin Erosion Control Program. The only agencies with which EPS
works directly in matters of accelerated erosion are local and
regional.
The major regulatory role performed by EPS relates to the permit
program. Through this program they are inheriting some 90 plus
existing permits issued by EPA, and have issued some 3-4 themselves.
Their regulatory role is one of compliance monitoring in which they
assure that the permit holder is living up to the conditions of his
permit. They have the ability to levy both civil and criminal fines
in the event of noncompliance.
128
-------
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
The major contributors to the erosion problem are development in
all of its many facets—recreational homes, commercial, industrial,
residential, streets, highways and the activities of off-road
vehicles. Moderate contributors are logging, urban runoff, and the
various modifications of stream channels. Also contributing to the
problem but to a lesser degree, are grazing, irrigated agriculture,
mining, country roads, and the various third level or access roads
that are common throughout the state.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The community education and involvement program of EPS is not very
good. At the present time, it consists primarily of a small amount
of public relations work in the way of news releases and speaking
engagements on the part of the EPS staff. The whole is not very
formal or structured and is greatly in need of improvement. The
relationship with TRPA and with the local northern political juris-
dictions is excellent. With the southern political jurisdictions,
it is admittedly not very good.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The collection of data on air quality and water quality is a major
function of EPS. Water quality is collected monthly and air quality
data is collected on a continuous basis. In addition, specific
water quality or air quality information is collected in support of
special project activities. Most of the data is used internally in
the EPS program. As part of the recently adopted permit program,
permit holders will be required to collect and provide to EPS water
quality data. EPS is developing a quality assurance program and a
compliance monitoring program to assure the validity of the data
being supplied.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
Total employment of EPS is 22 people.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER, OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
129
-------
Environmental Protection
CITATION: NRS Chapters 444 t, 445 K£y FUNCT|0N. Air & Water Pollution, Solid Waste KEY ACTIVITY: All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (Si
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Reg.
Certlficatioi
Department of Human Resources (Environmental Protection)
Department approves local solid waste management plans (444.510).
Urbanization
Technical ,
Assistance
Planning
Financial
Assistance
Department advises, consults, etc., with Federal Government, states,
municipalities, etc., in formulation of plans for and establishment of
any solid waste management system.
Accepts and administers loans and grants for solid waste management
systems - planning, construction, and operation (444.570).
Designates state agency for required purposes of Solid Waste Disposal
Act (42 U.S.C. IS 3251-3259) (444.590).
Urbanization
Reg. Other
Department may bring action v. violator of solid waste management
statute or regulations (444.600).
Urbanization
Civil action in
district court.
Regulatory;
Other
Standards
State, its agencies and all political subdivisions, must comply with
all State laws and regulations and local ordinances applicable to
private persons engaged in same type of work, altering the material
condition of land or vegetation (445.015).
Ml
Regulatory
Permits
Bureau of Environmental Health (Environmental Protection, in fact)
issues permits to allow construction of building, sewage systems,
etc., in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and to allow piers, breakwaters,
removal of sand, etc., in Lake Tahoe (445.080).
Construction
Urbanization
R-ecreation
Transportation
Misdemeanor
445.120
Regulatory
Other
Bureau of Environmental Health (Environmental Protection, in fact),
enforces regulations and statutes to carry out protection of Lake
Tahoe Watershed (445.100).
Ml
Misdemeanor
445.120
-------
CITATION: NRS Chapters 444 & 445
Environmental Protection
KEY FUNCTION: Air & Water Pollution, Solid Waste KEY ACTIVITY:
All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Legislative
Declaration
Public policy of State to restore chemical, physical and biological
integrity of water in Nevada;
Prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution;
Plan development and use including restoration, preservation and
enhancement of land and water resources; and
Consult, cooperate, etc., with other states, agencies, and Federal
Government to fulfill objectives (445.132).
All
Regulatory
Permit
Certification
Other
Technical
assistance
F inanrial
assistance
Planning
Department (Of Human Resources) is designated the State water
pollution control agency for all purposes of Federal water pollution
control legislation (except enacting regulations).
Department authorized to take all necessary actions to secure
benefits of Federal legislation (water pollution) (445.211).
All
Regulatory
Permit
Certification
Other
Technical
assistance
Financial
assistance
Planning
Director of Department of Human Resources, powers and duties:
Perform any acts consistent with water pollution statutes and Federal
requirements of NPDES;
Administer and enforce statutes and regulations and all orders and
permits Issued by Department;
All
Technical
assistance
Planning
Financial
assistance
Technical
Advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies, states, Federal
Government, etc., in furthering purposes of water pollution statutes
Qualify for, accept, and administer loans, grants, etc., from Federal
Government, etc.
All
-------
CITATION:
NRfi rtiapl-ppi 444 f. &AS
Environmental Protection
KEY FUNCTION Alr 6 "ater Pollution, Solid Waste KFY ACTIVITY:
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Technical
assistance
Encourage, etc., studies, surveys, etc., by contract, grant or other
All
Reg. Other
Maintain and require maintenance of records, etc., necessary to prepare
reports.
All
Planning
Technical
assistance
Develop comprehensive plans to eliminate and prevent pollution, etc.,
and encourage improvements necessary (445.214)
All
Planning
Technical
assistance
Department shall establish continuing planning process consistent with
applicable requirements resulting in plans for all waters of State
(445.257).
All
Regulatory
Other
Director may do following for violation of statutes, regulations.permit:
Issue order (.324); H
Commence civil action (.327, .331).
Request Attorney General institute criminal proceedings (.334, .337).
Department is final authority on water pollution in State (.334)
All
All
Injunction or up to
$10,000 fine/day
Up to $25,000 fine/day
and up to 1 year in
jail.
If 2nd violation,
$50,000 fine and up
to 6 years in Jail.
Legislative
Declaration
Policy of Nevada:
All
-------
Environmental Protection
CITATION: NRS Chapters 444 & 445 KEY FUNCTION: Air & Water Pnll.n-irm, s„HH uag.-«. KEY ACTIVITY: All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENAl TIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory
Other
Technical
assistance
Financial
assistance
Planning
Department is:
Designated as air pollution control agency of state for purposes of
Federal Act.
Authorized to take all necessary actions to secure benefits of
Federal Act. (445.456)
Regulatory
Other
Planning
Department shall:
Hake determination and Issue orders to implement statutes.
1
\
All
Financial
assistance
Apply for and receive grants or funds.
Technical
assistance
Cooperate and contract with other government agencies and Federal
government.
Technical
assistance
Conduct Investigations, research, etc.
Regulatory
Permits
Technical
assistance
Planning^
Require preliminary plans and specifications and other information
necessary to process permits.
Regulatory
Other
Institute proceedings to prevent continued violation of director's
orders and enforce provisions of statutes. Take action in
accordance with regulations and orders of commission to prevent,
abate, and control air pollution.
(445.473)
Technical
assistance
Financial
assistance
Department may:
Cooperate with Federal government, states, locals, etc., to
prevent air pollution. Apply for grant from Federal government.
Develop measures for control of air pollution in Nevada. (445.474)
All
-------
AGENCY NAME:
NEVADA OFFICES:
Nevada State Department of Fish and Game
1100 Valley Road
P. 0. Box 10678
Reno, Nevada 89510
Region I
P. 0. Box 489
Fallon, Nevada 89406
Region II
1375 Mountain City Highway
Elko, Nevada 89801
Region III
4747 West Vegas Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89108
TELEPHONE: (702) 784-6214 (Reno)
(702) 385-0285 (Las Vegas)
(702) 738-5332 (Elko)
(702) 423-3171 (Fallon)
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The staff under the direction of the Department Director carries
out the policies set by the State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The role of the Fish and Game Department is to promote and protect
the fish and wildlife resources and their habitat in the State of
Nevada, They carry out survey, management, enforcement, boating
safety and R&D programs that place emphasis on all facets of
wildlife needs.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Powers and duties spelled out in NRS 501.165.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The Department offers cooperative assistance with the land manage-
ment agency to land owners to develop land management plans and
provide technical assistance to private owners of land. The Depart-
ment works with BLM, U. S. Forest Service, Environmental Protection
Services, Geological Survey, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Depart-
ment of Highways, State Agriculture Department, Division of Water
134
-------
Resources, Division of Parks, Division of Forestry, various Councils
of Governments, Irrigation Districts, Conservation Districts, and
the National Park Service.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
Grazing, especially grazing on stream banks, is a major contributor
to runoff and accelerated erosion problems in Nevada. Another
major contributor is channeling or other stream modifications.
Also listed was highway construction and roads. Of moderate con-
cern are recreational home development, commercial and industrial
development, residential development and mining.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The effectiveness of their efforts in reducing the impacts on water
quality is not rated as very high. The way that the Department
feels more effectiveness can be attained is by obtaining more exper-
tise in the Department to provide more fundamental and sound infor-
mation from which to advise the land management agencies and the
private land owners. This cooperative technical assistance approach
is the same approach that is applied to the other moderate or major
contributing factors, such as the channeling or other stream mod-
ifications, and various developments. The effectiveness of their
review process is assessed primarily by visual observation, and
the Department feels that recipients of this service would rate the
Department as very effective in providing the service.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The Department carries out surveys and inventories of wildlife pop-
ulations and habitat to' collect basic data for resource management
decisions, season and harvest recommendations and technical assis-
tance efforts. They also provide progress reports made on indiv-
idual projects to land management agencies.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
The staff numbers approximately 140 people with five fish hatcheries
and seven wildlife management areq#.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
135
-------
Fish 6 Game Control
CITATION: NRS Cl.aoters 503. 501 KEY FUNCTION: Esp. Re: Erosion KEY ACTIVITY: .. AgHrnlriire.
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory:
Permit to
dredge using
suction or
vacuum equipment
required.
Regulatory
Department of Fish and Came
Person submits application to Department to use vacuum or suction
dredge equipment; specifies type, size and location where equipment
will be used. If Department determines not harmful to fish, it
Issues permit to applicant (507.425).
Department of Fish and Game
No procedure in statute - possibly in regulation. Probably simple
enforcement by Fish and Game Harden with peace officer powers (503.430)
Board of Fish and Game Commissioners shall establish policy for the
acquisition of lands, water rights, and easements for management,
propagation, protection and restoration of wildlife; entry, access
Co, and occupancy and use of property Including lease of grazing
rights, sale of agriculture and timber products, exploration and
extration of minerals, oil, gas, or thermal power on lands controlled
by Department (501.181).
Unlawful to dredge w/o
permit, operate equip-
ment not specified in
permit, or operate
outside area specified
in permit.
Misdemeanor to deposit
or allow to pass into
waters of State
deleterious substance.
License
fees
License
fees
License
fees
-------
CITATION: NRS 503
KEY FUNCTION: Fish and flamg
KEY ACTIVITY:
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS 8c PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory
Permit to dredge
river or lake
bottoms
Any person wishing to dredge must submit permit application to Fish
and Game Department, and permit will be granted if Department
determines such dredging will not be deleterious to fish (.425)
Other
Misdemeanor
Normal court appeals,
Variance opportunities
none stated
Prohibition
from passing intc
waters any
substance
deleterious to
fish
None stated (.430)
All
Misdemeanor
Normal court appeals,
no variance procedures
Policies may be
established &
regulations
adopted as
necessary for
preservation,
protection,
restoration of
wildlife (in-
cluding fish)
and its habitat
State Board of Fish and Game Commissioners, which is advised by
County Game Management Boards, the State Fish and Game Advisory
Board, and the State Wildlife Damage Control Advisory Committee
(wildlife depredation natters only)
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Nevada State Highway Department
NEVADA OFFICES: Headquarters
1263 S. Stewart
Carson City, Nevada 89701
District I
1200 North Main
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
District III
P. 0. Box 111
Elko, Nevada 89801
District IV
P. 0. Box 477
Ely, Nevada 89315
District V
P. 0. Box 791
Tonopah, Nevada 89049
District VI
P. 0. Box 326
Winnemucca, Nevada 89445
TELEPHONE: (702) 885-5440 (Carson City)
(702) 385-0351 (Las Vegas)
(702) 738-7284 (Elko)
(702) 289-4471 (Ely)
(702) 482-6475 (Tonopah)
(702) 6^13-2536 (Winnemucca)
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The State Highway Engineer is the administrative head of the Department.
Policies are set by the State Highway Board consisting of the Gov-
ernor, Attorney General and State Controller.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The role of the State Highway Department is to build and maintain roads
throughout Nevada.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Powers and duties spelled out in NRS 408.135, 484.739, 484.743.
138
-------
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The only area of erosion control over which the highway department
has any responsibility is that associated with state and county
highways. In all road designs, erosion aspects are taken into con-
sideration. Although there is a certain amount of runoff and
resulting erosion, particularly from paved surfaces, the feeling
is that in the overall scheme of erosion control and water quality
management the amount contributed by highways is negligible. The
State Highway Department is already doing everything possible within
the funds available to control erosion on highway right-of-ways.
Since highway design and maintenance is their only responsibility,
they have no future plans for broader erosion control responsibilities.
The State Highway Department works with BLM, SCS, the State Forestry
and Federal Forestry Departments on erosion control matters.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALTIY:
Although runoff from land disturbing activities has some impact on
their activities, the Highway Department views wind erosion as a
significantly greater problem. Grazing and urban runoff were con-
sidered as having moderate impact, while offroad vehicles, access
roads, and recreational activities (such as trails and vacation
homes) were identified as having some impact on erosion.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The overall capability of the staff is considered to be excellent.
This is particularly true in view of a fairly recent substantial
reduction in staff, which theoretically at least, allowed only the
best employees to remain. The spectrum of available skills is very
large, and a comment was made that the capability to accomplish
almost any assignment is available somewhere within the Department.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The primary data collected by the Highway Department for dissemina-
tion relates to traffic volumes, accident statistics, O&D, revenue
projections, and materials information. This data is made available
to other state agencies and local political jurisdictions for use in
their planning and design work. For use within the department they
have been recently collecting substantial information on noise, air
quality, and runoff quantities (no quality data) from highways.
This data is primarily for use within he Department in meeting
design standards on future projects.
139
-------
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
The Department currently has approximately 1,300 employees, with 450
of these in the Carson headquarters office. In addition, there are
district offices in Las Vegas, Reno, Elko, Ely, Tonopah, and Winne-
mucca.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
140
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Nevada State
Department of Agriculture
NEVADA OFFICES: 350 Capitol Hill Avenue
P. 0. Box 1209
Reno, Nevada 89504
215 East Bonanza Road
P. 0. Box 389
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
946 Idaho Street
P. 0. Box 630
Elko, Nevada 89801
TELEPHONE: (702) 784-6401 (Reno)
(702) 385-0231 (Las Vegas)
(702) 738-7211 (Elko)
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The executive director heads the Department and implements the policies
of the State Board of Agriculture.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The role of the State Department of Agriculture is to provide service
to and regulatibn of state agricultural activities.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The primary responsibilities of the State Department of Agriculture
are spelled out in NRS 561.015.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The overall goals and objectives of the State Agriculture Department
are those established by the state legislature. The Department pre-
pares an annual program plan, which is designed to respond to the
mandate of the legislature. The only activity sectors in which the
Department of Agriculture has any erosion control impact whatsoever
are grazing and irrigated agriculture. In both instances their
involvement is minimal, being limited primarily to working with the
University of Nevada-Reno on programs to educate agricultural interests
relative to erosion control. They have no plans to expand their role
in this area of endeavor. They do provide technical assistance pri-
marily in the form of bulletins to extension agents on various subjects.
141
-------
Current involvement of the State Agricultural Department in erosion
matters is limited basically to working with the Soil Conservation
Service and BLM.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
Statewide, the Agriculture people view erosion and runoff from land
disturbing activities as a moderate problem. Those activities iden-
tified as major contributors to erosion in Nevada included grazing,
mining, and urban runoff. Those identified as moderate included
irrigated agriculture, recreational home development and commercial/
industrial development. In the case of grazing, the problem is
simply one of removal of vegetation and thereby exposure of erodible
soil. The mining problem is related both to the actual mining
activity and perhaps more significantly to the access to the mine.
Urban runoff is simply a case of impervious surfaces that accumulate
significant quantities of debris which are washed away by the peri-
odic rainfall. The major erosion problem within the State of Nevada
is not water related, but i^ rather wind erosion.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The main feedback loop on the Department's effectiveness is the com-
plaint process, which surfaces very quickly if they are not doing an
effective job. Most of the activities of the Department are ongoing
continuous functions which vary little from year to year. The pri-
mary means of measuring overall performance is what has been accom-
plished this year versus what was accomplished in previous years.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
Data collection and dissemination is a very minor function of the
Department. They work with the U. S. Department of Agriculture and
the University of Nevada-Reno in collecting and' disseminating certain
statistical information. They annually publish a booklet called
"Nevada Agricultural Statistics" which has essentially no informa-
tion in it on the subject of erosion, or erosion control. It is
primarily statistics on agricultural activity and output for the
year.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
Total permanent staff is about 60 people, with an additional 15 to
18 seasonal employees.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
Many of the Department's activities are really constrained by budgetary
limitations, and their performance is simply the best they can do with
the limited resources available. In many instances they have very few
people assigned to a function while they are trying to cover the entire
state.
142
-------
CITATION: NRS 324.010 - .290
KEY FUNCTION: Reclamation of DF.SKRT lanils
KEY ACTIVITY: Agriculture
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory
Approval
Standards
Planning
Reg. Stats.
Planning
Technical
assistance
Reg. other
approval
.
State Commission of Industry, Agriculture and Irrigation, established
to seek grants of federal lands under "Carey Act" and to select,
manage, and dispose of such lands (.030).
Establish rules and regulations (.060).
Determine circumstances of disposition of lands (t^me, manner and
conditions of entry or sale) (.076).
\griculture
Appropri-
ation (to
start);
then fees
and charges
on sale of
lands (.100)
-------
AGENCY NAME: Nevada State Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, Division of Conservation
Districts
NEVADA OFFICES: 201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
TELEPHONE: (702) 885-4363
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The State Conservation Commission oversees the operations of the
local Conservation Districts. They have an administrator who is
the only full-time employee.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
Primary role is to work with, assist, and coordinate the work of
the individual conservation districts of the state.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The Conservation District law is found in NRS 548.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
Offers planning assistance in the field with the individual dis-
tricts. Works with the conservation districts, the SCS, and the BLM.
A closer working relationship is anticipated with the Environmental
Protection Services and the Division of Forestry.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
The Division views runoff and accelerated erosion from land-disturbing
activities as a major problem in Nevada. Of all the different types
of land-disturbing activities occurring in Nevada, the Division feels
that grazing, residential development, and roads are the post major
contributors to the problem. Somewhat more moderate contributors
to the problem are irrigated agriculture, mining, recreational home
development, and urban runoff.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The Division assesses the effectiveness of their efforts by viewing
the activeness of the conservation districts. The Division feels
that it is very effective in providing this planning assistance and
feels likewise that the recipients (the conservation districts) of
this service would rate the Division as being very effective.
144
-------
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The Division does not conduct a data acquisition program.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
One staff person and a part-time secretary to a Commission comprised
of nine persons. The resources available are minimal and involve,
essentially, the time and expertise of the administrator.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER, OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
145
-------
Resource Conservation
CITATION: ™s 548 KEY FUNCTION: (esp erosion') KEY ACTIVITY: . All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Financial and
Technical
Conservation Districts have power: to finish, via agreements,
financial or other aid to any agency or occupier of lands (.360); to a\
out preventive & control measures, with consent of occupier (.355); to
provide occupier the equipment, seeds & other material (.365); to
operate facilities in performance of operations authorized by NRS 548
(.370)
A11
ry
Appropria-
tions
Planning
Conservation Districts have power to develop plans detailing acts,
procedures, etc., for effectuating the plans, incl specification of
engineering operations, methods of cultivation, growing of vegetation,
cropping programs, tillage practices, and changes in the use of land;
fi> to provide such plans to land occupiers (.375)
All
Regulatory (land
use regs requir-
ing necessary
engineering
operations,
cultivation meth-
ods, cropping an<
tilling practicefa
retirement of
erosive areas
from cultivation,
and other provi-
sions as may
control erosion)
Conservation Districts may petition State Conservation Commission to
formulate regs; Commission may hold hearings; Commission may approve
petition or more likely hold referendum among land occupiers of
district, in which case the Conmission may enact regs into law if
majority of votes cast favors regs; adopted regs are binding upon all
land occupiers and agencies administering lands in the district;
enforcement via inspection by Commission and/or District and thence by
,Commission petition to court for order to perform required work (and
for authorization to perform work at occupier's expense if occupier
does not perform in reasonable time).
All
Court order to perform
work
Appeal by occupier by
petition of Commissior
to anunend, supplement
or repeal regs in samt
manner as adopting
regs.
Variance obtained by
petition to Bd of
Adjustment, whose de-
termination is appeal-
able to the court by
any petitioner
Legislative
Policy
Failure to accomplish the conservation and controlled development of
natural resources is to handicap economic development and cause
degradation of environmental conditions important to future
generations.
Increasing demands on natural resources must be recognized and must be
conserved, protected and developed at such levels of quality as will
meet the needs of people of the State,
-------
AGENCY NAME: Nevada State Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry
NEVADA OFFICES: State Office
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Nevada Youth Training Center
Elko
Nevada 89801
Forestry
Mount Charleston
Nevada 89100
TELEPHONE: (702)
(702)
(702)
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
885-4350 (Carson City)
738-5137 (Elko)
872-5483 (Mount Charleston)
The State Forester-Firewarden is executive head of this division.
He answers to the director of the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
Forestry protection and preservation - the purpose of the State
Forestry Division is to look after some nine million acres of
state private lands which are classified as forest lands. They
provide fire protection to some 3,000,000 acres of the forest
land.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The 1971 session of the Nevada legislature passed a forest prac-
tices law, which provides the Nevada Division of Forestry with
very strong control over the forest practices. These regulations
contain very strong provisions relating to acceleration of erosion
on forest lands.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The 1971 law prohibits such things as building a road within 200
feet of any body of water, crossing any body of water, etc. They
maintain a very strong regulatory, monitoring and enforcement
roll with respect to commercial forests. Forestry deals with
147
-------
each of the other agencies in the area of erosion control. They
have agreements with BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies
relating to a variety of matters.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
Forestry views accelerated erosion from land disturbing activities
as a relatively minor problem. Their scope of work is with forest
erosion, caused by logging, access roads and recreational home
development in forest lands.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The agency feels it is generally very effective. Approximately 30%
of the total resources of the Division of Forestry are expended on
planning assistance. It could be more effective, with one of their
primary problems being a difficulty in providing inputs in a timely
fashion.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The agency at this time provides little in the way of data. They
are working on a desert forestry program and anticipate that as this
program develops they will be providing data on suitability of var-
ious practices, and vegetation, for use in desert areas. They also,
on a request basis, provide information relative to specific plant
recommendations.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
The Forest Service is organized with the main office in Carson City
with about 15 people and district offices in Reno (30 people), Elko
(6 people), and Las Vegas (3 people).
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
148
-------
CITATION: NRS 527.050 & .100
KEY FUNCTION: Protection of Trees and Flora
KEY ACTIVITY: All
I AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES. PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
1 Regulatory:
1 Permit
1 Other Approval
Unlawful to cut, remove, destroy, etc., any tree, roots, flora, etc.,
without permit from the owner, the State Forester-Firewarden, or parks
division. Enforced by State Forester-Firewarden, public officials
in charge of federal lands, and peace officers.
All
Does not apply to
native Indians and
gathering for food
or medicinal use.
•
I Standards
1 Permit
I Planning
State Forester-Firewarden establishes regulations for enforcement,
including Issuance of permit to collect,and designating of issuing
authority (527.050).
Public offense propor-
tionate to value
destroyed at least
$10 fine and at least
a misdemeanor.
¦ Regulatory:
1 Other Approval
Unlawful to cut evergreens, remove, destroy, etc., without written
permission from owner specifying locality and number of trees to be cut
All
Doesn't apply to
trimming by public
utility or to a
logging operation.
¦ Standards
¦Planning
To sustain productivity and to preserve water-suoDlyinp funrMnnx of
Nevada forest lands. State Forester-Flrmm-Hon fuUi, .rr^r.,ni of =tntc
Board of Forest and Fire Control) shall adopt regulations governing
cuttings, stump heights, etc., and other evergreen cutting practices
(527.100).
Misdemeanor, mln. fine
$10 (527.120).
-------
CITATION:
MRS S7ft
KEY FUNCTION: Erosion Control
KEY ACTIVITY: Forestry
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Statutory Reqmnt
Trails, landings,
roads, & fire-
breaks shall be
located, con-
structed, used
and left such
that erosion is
limited to a
reasonable min-
imum that will
not impair soil
productivity or
appreciably
diminish water
quality (.055)
Statutory Reqmnt
I
Forestry
Forestry
Presumably denial,
revocation suspension
of permit
Misdemeanor
Ditto
Variance: If weather
or soil conditions
prevent meeting 11/15
date, drainage shall
be maintained by
hand.
Variance: Where
terrain or other
factors precludes
proper diversion of
waterflow from trails
slash shall be
scattered on trails
sufficient to hold
erosion to minimum.
Variance: Outsloped
drainage structures
permitted in lieu
of waterbreaks or
culverts,
NLT 11/15 water-
breaks &/or cul-
verts shall be
constructed for
all trails, roads
& firebreaks to
divert runoff
from same, and
to divert runoff
to an area hav-
ing the filter
capacity to
remove sediment.
Shall be lnstalle
at certain in-
tervals depending
on slope (.0551 -
,0554)
-------
Erosion Control „ Forestry
CITATION: NRS 528 KEY FUNCTION: KEY ACTIVITY:
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Reguiatorv
Certiricate
required for
conversion of
timber land to
other use (.082-
.088)
Application made to State Forester, with conversion plan detailing
soil characteristics, conversion techniques, future use, time
schedule, and with performance bond. Certificate may be denied for
non-compliance with forest practice regulations, for unsatisfactory
provision for stabilization and rehabilitation of disturbed soils 1n
order to minimize erosion, and other reasons. Bond may be reduced
proportionate to number of acres stabilized or rehabilitated.
Certificate may be suspended or revoked for failure to comply with
certificate conditions or for any reason for which denial can be
made.
Forestry
Denial, suspension,
revocation of certi-
ficate
Misdemeanor
Appeal by hearing of
State Forester
General
State Forester, acting in accordance with the policies adopted by
State Board of Forestry, «hall administer all above provisions (.040);
Board may adopt regulations regarding timberland conversion (.060)
Forestry
Legislative
Policy
To preserve natural water supply in the interest of economic welfare
of the State"
The provisions of .010-.0^P shall not be construed to condone any
activity causing significant degradation of water quality
Technical and
Financial
Assistance
State Forester may develop flursery sites for the production and
procurement of tree seeds and plants in order to conserve water
resources, renew timber supply, and bring about benefits resulting
from reforestation and establishment of windbreaks (.100-.140)
Forestry
Appropriatior
-------
CITATION:
NRS 528
KEY FUNCTION: Erosion Control
KEY ACTIVITY: Forestry
AUTHORITIES
Regulatory
Permit required
prior to
logging or
cutting
operations
Statutory
Prohibition
No tractor
logging on slope
of 30 degrees or
more
Statutory
Prohibition
No felling, skid-
ding, rigging,
road or landing
construction,
vehicle operation
within 200' of
body of water
Statutory Reqmnt
Upon completion oj
logging: trails,
roads, & landings
shall be seeded
(.057)
AGENCIES. PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
Permit application made to Div of Forestry, and must be accompained
by a logging plan. The plan must specify volume of timber to be
removed, time required for removal, revegetation plan, slash disposal/
cleanup plans, road construction/erosion control measures. A
performance bond, in an amount set by State Forester, also required.
State Forester may deny permit for failure to comply with forest
practice rules, for prospect that logging operation will cause
significant soil erosion & siltatlon, and for other reasons. Permit
issued for calendar year, and is renewable. Performance bond may be
reduced proportionate to number of acres reforested. Permit may be
suspended or revoked for failure to comply with forest practice rules,
permit conditions, logging plan. (.042-.047)
Variance request must include data on soils, reproduction capability
erosion hazards, drainage features, methods of logging, and other
info as may be required by State Forester. In acting on request,
State Forester must consider expected destruction of litter cover,
soil erosion. Performance bond reqd (.048)
In granting variance request, committee must determine that preserving
watersheds, water quality standards, fish & wildlife and preventing
significant soil erosion will not be compromised. (.053)
Seed shall be approved by State Forester
ACTIVITY (S|
Forestry
Denial, suspension,
revocation of permit
Misdemeanor
Forestry
Forest cy
Forestry
PENALTIES
Ditto
Ditto
Misdemeanor
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
If permit denied,
applicant may have
hearing with State
Forester
Variance may be re-
quested of State
Forester; Appeal of
denied variance may
be by hearing of
State Forester
Variance may be re-
quested of a committe
of State Forester,
F&C Director, & State
Engineer
FUNDING
-------
CITATION: WRS Ch 528 & 1975 Stats, Ch. 371 KEV FUNCTION: P^ctice & Reforestation KEY ACTIVITY: Agriculture
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES. PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S|
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Technical
assistance
Planning
Financial
assistance"
State Forestry Fire Warden cooperates vlth all to establish and
develop nursery site(s) to produce tree seeds and plants, accept
(.100-.140 & Ch. 371)
Agriculture
Misdemeanor
Contribu-
tions, can
sell land
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Nevada State Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Division of State Lands
NEVADA OFFICES: State Office
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
TELEPHONE: 885-4363
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The administrator is head of this division within the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources. The administrator is responsible
to the department director.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The mission of the organization is to establish standards and
guidelines for statewide land use planning and to establish and
prepare plans for areas of critical concern.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL
OR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The State Land Use Planning Agency (SLUPA) was formed as a result
of a 1973 state law (NRS 321).
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
SLUPA has prepared a program for state land use planning in Nevada
to develop an efficient system of land use planning and decision
making or regulatory procedures. SLUPA works with all state, federal
and local agencies that have anything to do with erosion control
in one form or another.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
The only areas rated as moderate or major were in the area of
development, both commercial/industrial, and residential. The
only way in which SLUPA will get involved in erosion matters as they
relate to developments, will be in critical areas.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
At this time the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization
and staff is excellent. Their program of support to county or
city planning departments is considered very effective by SLUPA and
the receivers of the service would rate the service as very
effective.
154
-------
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
SLUPA is not really a data collecting agency, but rather more of
an accumulator of other people's data. They have spent considerable
effort in trying to identify existing data sources within the state
ad plan to continue this effort.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
At this time, SLUPA consists of an administrator, two planners and
a secretary all housed in an office in Carson City.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
155
-------
CITATION:
NRS 321.730 - .810
KEY FUNCTION: State Land Use Planning
KEY ACTIVITY:
All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Planning
Technical
Assistance
Regulatory
Standards
Zoning
Other
Regulatory
Zoning
Standards
Financial
assistance
Regulatory
Other
Director of Conservation and Natural Resources:
Development State Land Use Plan process.
Coordinate activities of State Land Use Planning Agency with:
All Federally assisted or financial planning programs re land use;
All regulatory activities of air and water pollution standards;
Flood plain zoning plans (Sec./Army re 33 U.S.C. IS 642 et seq.;
Areawlde agencies designated under 42 U.S.C, S§ 3301 et seq.;
Planning activities of local governments and regional planning
commissions, and Federal agencies.
Director holds hearings to development State Land Use Program. Invite
participation by local agencies. Make land use data available to
public (321.730).
Director, through State Land Use Planning Agency, shall:
Designate areas of critical enviromental concerns.
Promulgate standards and criteria for conservation and use of land
and other resources.
Adopt a land use plan and criteria and standards for use of land,
water, resources.
Promulgate procedures to accomplish above, Including public hearing.
(321.77). -
Director to cooperate with Federal Government and apply for any land
use planning grants, etc. (321.800).
All provisions of State Land Use Planning Agency statutes shallbe'
enforced by Director and political subdivisions. If being violated,
Director may bring action In court to Insure compliance or injunction
for relief from noncompliance (321.810).
All
All
All
All
Federal
Court action and
injunction
-------
AGENCY NAME:
Nevada State Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources
NEVADA OFFICES: 946 Idaho Street
Elko, Nevada 89801
State Office
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
4220 Maryland Parkway, Suite 305
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
TELEPHONE: (702) 885-4380 (Carson City)
(702) 732-2562 (Las Vegas)
(702) 738-7211 (Elko)
AGENCY ORGANIZATION:
The State Engineer is executive head of the Division of Water Resources.
He is responsible to the Director of the Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources.
GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY:
The role of the Division is to provide for the administration of the
state's water resources.
AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF EROSION CONTROL OR WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The water law is given in NRS 416, NRS 532 to NRS 538 and NRS 542
to NRS 544.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROGRAMS RELATED TO EROSION CONTROL AND
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
The Division was involved in the development of the 303(e) basin
plans through the state study team, reviewing and commenting on the
draft plans. They work mostly with the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps
of Engineers, SCS, Fish and Game Department, Division of Parks,
Division of Forestry, Division of Colorado River Resources, Environ-
mental Protection Services, Irrigation Districts and county govern-
ments . The Division performs a planning function for water resources
prefeasibility plans. Approximately 20% of the Division's efforts
are devoted toward this end. The Division offers assistance with
respect to information on water rights, on the construction and main-
tenance of dams, and on flood control considerations. Approximately
15% of the Division's efforts are devoted toward this function. The
157
-------
regulatory function (approximately 50% of the Division's resources)
includes the permit and certification activities of the Division,
as well as the physical distribution of the water.
SPECIFIC NEVADA PROBLEMS RELATED TO EROSION OR WATER QUALITY:
The Division views runoff from land disturbing activities as a mod-
erate problem in Nevada. None of the several different types of
land disturbing activities were viewed to be a major cause of the
water quality problem. Among the moderate causes of water quality
problems are irrigated agriculture, various developments, and
channeling or other stream modifications.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS:
The Division feels it is very effective in its regulatory function
and its data collection progrkm. The Division feels that its plan-
ning efforts are very effective for setting general parameters.
Approximately 15% of the Division's efforts are devoted toward
technical assistance. It is a very high priority and is felt to be
very effective. The regulatory function accounts for approximately
50% of the Division's resources and is felt to be very effective.
There have been very few appeals of decisions made by the Division.
EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES:
The Division conducts resource inventories of water availability and
water use. Data is also gathered to determine the effects of water
use on groundwater table fluctuations. Data is collected in terms
of land use inventories to help assess the needs for water. Data is
collected on a regular basis and is more frequently collected where
development is increasing.
MANPOWER AND BUDGET LEVELS OF THE AGENCY:
There are 32 people in the Carson office, 5 in the Elko office, and
4 in the Las Vegas office. There are 10 to 12 part-time summer
employees who work as water distributors for the Division. There
is an annual budget of approximately $1 million.
DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING AUTHORITIES, MANPOWER OR BUDGET:
None enumerated.
158
-------
CITATION: Chapter 416 - 1975 Statutes
Control Development of
KEY FUNCTION: Ceothermal Resources
KEY ACTIVITY: Mining
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES. PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory
Standards
Technical
assistance
State Engineer adopts regulations, sets the standards and procedures
for preventing pollution and waste In development of geothermal
resources.
Mining
-------
REGIONAL/LOCAL
In determining the involvement of regional and local agencies in the
control of runoff and erosion, a somewhat different problem was faced
than with Federal and State agency involvement. Whereas there are only
7 Federal and 8 State agencies determined to be involved in erosion
control in Nevada, the number of regional and local agencies directly
involved is very large. These agencies include cities, counties,
regional governments, conservation districts, irrigation districts and
the Cooperative Extension Service.
The sheer number of agencies involved made physical interview of each
agency impossible within the time and budgetary constraints of this
study. These agencies were grouped into units having similar author-
ities and a geographically mixed sample was chosen for interview. Those
interviewed were:
Cities:
Elko
North Las Vegas
Reno
Yerington
Counties:
Clark
Elko
Washoe
Regional:
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Walker River Irrigation District
Carson Valley Conservation District
Cooperative Extension Service
To those agencies not interviewed, a paper-and-pencil questionnaire was
sent requesting information similar to that obtained by interview.
The information obtained from regional/local agencies showed a wide
variation with respect to awareness and action in the area of
accelerated erosion and attendant water quality problems. At one
extreme is the TRPA which is doing a detailed study with substantial
emphasis on control of runoff and erosion and which has enacted a very
strict grading ordinance. Conversely, the City of Yerington which is
flat and has little land disturbing activity within its boundaries,
views runoff and erosion as a very minor problem and is quite logically
doing almost nothing about it.
160
-------
Cities and counties generally have a broad array of problems and demands
placed upon a rather limited budget. Accordingly, only in areas where
cities or counties perceive erosion and attendant water quality problems
as a serious concern are they inclined to actively pursue corrective
programs. Of the cities and counties interviewed or responding to the
paper-and-pencil questionnaire, only one county and three cities indi-
cated that erosion is a major or moderate problem in their area. Based
on the review of authorities for cities and counties, which are on the
following pages, existing authorities are sufficient to have some
impact on erosion through initiation of local action, if local jurisdictions
are so motivated.
Irrigation districts are essentially single purpose organizations, that
purpose being the collection, storage and distribution of water for
irrigation purposes. They build, operate and maintain facilities for
water storage and distribution, but have no authority to enforce any
program for control of erosion or water quality. The permanent full-time
staff of each district is less than five employees, all of whom are
solely involved in water storage and distribution.
The State of Nevada is subdivided into 33 conservation districts, each
of which is headed by a five-member Board of Supervisors. Conservation
Districts, which operate under statutory authority granted by NRS 548,
have as their primary role the protection of all removable natural
resources on private lands. Statutory authorities granted under NRS 548
are summarized in the table on Page • All types of land owner? <*xe
eligible to join, although a distinction is made between people live
off their land (farmers and ranchers) and those who just own land. A
conservation district offers planning and technical assistance for its
membership by utilizing the expertise of the Soil Conservation Service,
as Conservation Districts have no paid employees. The Conservation
Districts set priorities for the SCS technical activities, consistent
with local goals and objectives. The SCS and the Conservation Districts
have entered into memos of understanding setting up the working partnerships,
which state that the districts will set direction, policy and priorities
for the district program, and the SCS will adhere to it.
The role of the Cooperative Extension Service is in education, away from
the University, concentrating in the areas of agriculture, home economics,
community resource development and 4-H. There are offices to serve each
county, within the state. These offices are partially funded by the
county, partially by state funds, and partially by federal funds. The
program is administered through the State Land Grant University at the
University of Nevada-Reno, whose resources aire directly available. In
terms of technical expertise and other services, the agency is primarily
an educational arm, using scientific knowledge and principles to help
improve agriculture and assist in solving related problems. The CES
works closely with local and other government agencies.
161
-------
CITATION: NRS 266, 267 KEY FUNCTION: City Government KEY ACTIVITY: Urban
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY IS)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Planning, Tech-
nical assistance
Financial
assi stance
Planning,
Technical, as-
sistance,
Financial as-
sistance
City Council (Commission) may acquire, improve, equip, operate and
, maintain, convert to or authorize: curb and gutter projects,
drainage projects, storm sewer projects, sidewalk projects,
street projects, water projects. (266.261) Commission (267.120)
Any governing body of a municipality may acquire, improve, equip,
operate and maintain: a drainage or flood control project, a
sewerage projecc, a sidewalk or street project, a water project,
etc. (271.265) & (267.395)
\
Governing body of any municipality may request Federal government to
undertake any "Project" for the municipality and obtain contracts
etc. to fulfill requests. (267.505)
Urbanization
Transportation
Recreation
Construction
Urbanization
Transportation
Recreati on
Construction
Jrbanization
Transportation
Recreation
Construction
Powers
granted to
municipali-
ties by
Ch. 271 &
704A of NRS
G.O. Bonds
267.400
Bonds
350.010
350.070
-------
CITATION: NRS Ch. 244
KEY FUNCTION: Cnnni-v
KEY ACTIVITY:
All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY IS)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Tech. assist.
Financial "
Planning "
Board of County Conmissioners in counties over 200,000 has power to
construct, operate, maintain, and improve, water facilities, including
aqueducts, canal!,, reservoirs, storm sewers, etc. (244.366)
All
Financial as-,
sistance
County Commissioners: authorized to hold an election to sell bonds to
secure federal aid for a public works project (244.385)
All
Financial as-
sistance
County Commissioners: authorized to make the required contribution or
cooperation to secure available federal aid (244.415)
4
All
Technical as-
sistance
Financial as-
sistance
Planning
Board of County Coranissloners Is Authorized to acquire, improve,
operate, maintain, and improve a drainage and flood control project,
etc. (244.804)
All
Technical as-
sistance
Financial as-
sistance
Planning
Board of County Commissioners: authorized to acquire, improve,
operate, maintain, and improve drainage projects, storm sewer projects,
water projects, etc. (244.865)
All
244.866
General
Funding &
Levy Bonds
-------
CITATION: HRS Chapters 403 6 405 KEY FUNCTION: County Maintain Highways KEY ACTIVITY: All
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTIES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory
Technical &
Financial
Assistance
Planning
Financial
Assistance
Regulatory
Permit
Standards
Other Approval
Board of County Coiwnlssioners has control over matters
regarding construction, maintenance, and repairing of public
highways within its county (403.090).
Board of County Comnissioners may expend funds for grading, draining,
maintaining. etc (Including sprinkling or oiling roads) marls.
Purchase of material and machinery for construction of superstructures
necessary for the perfection of drainage of a highway (403.470).
\
Anyone conducting water across public road or highway shall construct
and maintain culvert, bridge, etc., and not allow water to flood, etc.
the road. Board of County Commissioners approves the culvert, etc.,
and forms standard plan and specifications (405.120).
Construction
Urbanization
Transportation
Construction
UrbanizatIon
Transportation
All
Civil action for cost
of repairing or con-
structing necessary
culvert, etc., & cost;
of suit
(405.130-150).
PENALTIES
Criminal penalty for
failure to construct
culvert, etc., up to
$500 fine (405.170).
Same penalty for
negligently allowing
water to flow across
public road, etc.
(405.180)
Gen. Fund
Appropr iat ior
& hwy. &
bridge fund;
bonds
-------
CITATION: NRS Ch. 278 KFY PIIMrTlOM- Regional/Local - Planning & Zoning KEY ACTIVITY: ALL
AUTHORITIES
AGENCIES, PROGRAMS & PROCEDURES
ACTIVITY (S)
PENALTiES
APPEALS
AND
VARIANCES
FUNDING
Regulatory -
permit
certificate
standards
zoning
Governing body of the city, county or region may divide it into
districts; within the districts, it may regulate and restrict:
erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of
buildings, structures or land. Regulations shall be designated to
preserve the quality of air and water resources. To promote the
conservation of open space and the protection of other natural and
scenic resources from unreasonable impairment to protect property
in areas subject to floods landslides and other natural disasters.
To Insure that the development on land is commensurate with the
character and physical limitation^ of the land. (278.250)
All
Board of Adjustment
hears appeals where
appellant feels there
is error in the en-
forcement of any zon-
ing regulations, etc.
Decides requests for
variances. Decides
requests for special
use permits. (278.300)
-------
Evaluation
System
-------
As used in this project, the term institution embodies three concepts:
o The governmental agencies operating within the State of Nevada
which have the capacity to effect some impact on the activities
of man which cause runoff and erosion, and attendant water qual-
ity problems.
o Those activities of man which cause runoff and erosion. These
include both public and private sector activities.
o The interrelationships between regulators and regulated, in the
form of interventions aimed at controlling runoff and erosion.
An institutional evaluation must examine both the governmental agencies
involved> as well as their authorities and programs which provide
mechanisms for intervention in the accelerated erosion process. The
evaluation system, therefore, consists of two elements: a model for
the evaluation of agencies; and assessment criteria for the evaluation
of authorities and programs.
EVALUATION MODEL
to evaluation model was developed specifically for use in the accomplish-
ment of organizational level investigations {or the state of Hevada.
Implementation of this model is Intended to provide this study the prac-
ticality and consistency necessary in the evaluation process.
While the model concept provides a comprehensive structure for organiza-
tional evaluation, the effectiveness of actual investigations is
extremely dependent on the analytical ability and perseverance of the
assigned analyst. The model does not provide a substitute for the human
decision-making process; at best, it supports this function through the
enforcement of a disciplined approach. Further, the evaluator should
always anticipate "information gaps" in any organizational investigation.
By following a basic model framework and procedure, the opportunity for
collecting all available information and making a maicmum number of sub-
stantiated judgments will be increased.
The model can accept both content modification and technical refinement
resulting from actual field experience. This model is most effective
when used in conjunction with on-site investigations, because of the
increased ability to gather information and make direct observations. How-
ever , it can also be applied indirectly using information such as
organizational profiles and available background materials on various
units of government.
The structure was designed to meet the specific requirements for organi-
zational evaluation required for this study. The model is built around
the three basic functions of an organization—planning, performance and
control—plus certain general measurements of organizational capability
specifically related to this project. The three basic functions are
further divided into evaluation categories as follows:
167
-------
Planning
Agency Contribution to Problem Solution
Planning Structure
Performance
Technical Performance
Information Generation
Staff Capabilities
Control
Organizational Analysis
Administrative Systems
The general measurements of organizational capability relating specifically
to the requirements of this project are:
Agency review and appeals procedures
Degree of community involvement and support
Degree of receptivity for revised/expanded role
CRITERIA FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EVALUATION
In order to analyze the basic organizational functions utilizing the
evaluation categories, and hence to develop an assessment of overall
organizational capability, it is necessary to establish criteria for
each of the evaluation categories. Summary criteria are displayed below
for each category of evaluation.
AGENCY CONTRIBUTION TO PROBLEM SOLUTION
A-l Agency relationship to Nevada environmental goals
A-2 Agency responsiveness to specific expressed needs/problems
A-3 Potential for improvement to the erosion control system
A-A Potential for impact on erosion problems
PLANNING STRUCTURE
B-l Completeness and general quality of agency plans
B-2 Plan feasibility with respect to attainment of stated goals
B-3 Responsiveness to planning parameters
B-4 Innovative characteristics and technical quality
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
C-l Actual (composite) performance level of all tasks
C-2 Achievement of planned results
C-3 Operational response: the address and solution of problems
C-4 Maintenance of schedule
168
-------
INFORMATION GENERATION
D-l Significance/authenticity of generated information
D-2 Quantity and consistency of technical reporting
D-3 Dissemination of iziformation to appropriate sources
D-4 Technical caliber of final agency reports
STAFF CAPABILITIES
E-l Management capability
E-2 Staff technical capability
E-3 Attitude with respect to task achievement
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS
F-l Effectiveness measures
F-2 Efficiency measures
F-3 Appropriateness of expenditures
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS
G-l Internal operational monitoring
G-2 Response to correspondence and inquiries
G-3 Regulatory process
GENERAL MEASUREMENTS
H-l Agency review and appeals procedures
H-2 Degree of community involvement and support
H-3 Degree of receptivity for revised/expanded role
METHODOLOGY
In this topic, a brief description of the recommended methodology is given
for obtaining relevant information required for each of the criteria pre-
sented in the preceding section.
AGENCY CONTRIBUTION TO PROBLEM SOLUTION
A-l Agency Relationship to Nevada Environmental Goals
Determine the relationship existing between the agency and the
significant components of the relevant goals statements as they are
described in the State of Nevada's environmental plans. Specifically,
compatibility testing should be conducted to measure the agency
statement of goals and objectives against the State's environmental
goals and objectives, implementation plan and stipulated end results.
169
-------
Ascertain the degree to which the accomplishments of the agency are
likely to contribute to the achievement of the state environmental
plan requirements.
A-2 Agency Responsiveness to Specific Expressed Needs/Problems
Rate the responsiveness of the agency, in a general sense, to the
authenticated needs and problems being expressed in the erosion
control system. If no obvious relationship exists, the evaluator
should request that the agency director describe any needs/problems
that influenced the development of the agency plans for erosion
control.
A-3 Potential for Improvement to the Erosion Control System
Assess the potential improvements, or advancements in the "state of
the art," that can conceivably result from the successful accom-
plishment of the agency's goals. For example, will the agency be
likely to contribute technical substance and experience to the
knowledge base of the related areas of the runoff and erosion
control system, and provide a positive movement toward the attain-
ment of specified goals contained within the state environmental
goals?
A-A Potential for Impact on Erosion Problems
Any specific runoff and erosion problem(s) noted by the agency
should be reviewed by the evaluator. If erosion problems have not
been identified by the agency, the evaluator can attempt to develop a
possible connection between the agency's goals and the erosion
targets stipulated in the Task Report. A summary assessment should
be developed from the working of the agency being evaluated.
PLANNING STRUCTURE
Completeness and General Quality of Agency Program Plan
Review the agency program plan to determine whether it contains all
of the standard elements required in a usable plan. The following
components must be included in the plan:
o Statements of purposes (goals/objectives)
o An outline, or a description of the problem(s)
o The planned course of action (tasks)
o Expected results
o Resource requirements
o All necessary justifications and responsibility assignments
o A schedule
170
-------
Further, an analysis should be made to determine if the planned
resources have actually been assigned (in terms of manpower and
dollars) and whether the plan has been extended and detailed beyond
the level of the original agency statement of work. The evaluator
should also judge whether the agency plan represents a functional
working document or has been used primarily as a sales tool.
B-2 Plan Feasibility With Respect To Attainment Of Stated Goals
A plan should indicate the probability of agency goals/objectives
attainment that can be reached if the tasks are accomplished in the
prescribed manner. In this situation, the evaluator must make a
subjective judgment. It should also be stated whether, in the
evaluator's opinion, the likely degree of goal attainment will be
substantial or limited. Further, it should be determined if the
stipulated goals and objectives are realistic and definitive.
B-3 Responsiveness To Planning Parameters
A plan should be based upon an objective assessment of the problems
and needs of the clients and constituents for whom service is
provided. The evaluator should determine what factors were con-
sidered in developing plans. Specifically, what social and econ-
omic constraints exist which influence plan development.
B-4 Innovative Characteristics And Technical Quality
Make an overall assessment, from a technical standpoint, of the
general quality of the plan. For example, does it evidence advanced
thinking and concepts in its construction and is it original? Com-
pare the requirements of the plan with the visible, or demonstrated,
technical capabilities of the agency director to judge whether he
was likely to have either prepared, or directly supervised, the
actual development.
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
C-l Actual (Composite) Performance Level Of All Tasks
A measurement should be made of the actual versus planned level of
accomplishment. The evaluator should attempt to determine whether
the agency is likely to achieve the desired erosion control system
end results based upon its performance to date. It will also be
supportive to the analysis to note whether the agency director is
addressing and accomplishing the difficult tasks as well as those
which are less demanding.
171
-------
C-2 Achievement Of Planned Results
Assess the probability that the desired end results will be attained.
The results should be validated (to the extent possible) through
analysis rather than total reliance on verbal comments and inter-
pretation by staff members. The evaluator should attempt to
determine, in those instances where it is applicable, if the
designated target population is receiving the planned agency
services.
C-3 Operational Response: The Address and Solution Of Problems
Examine major, identifiable problems which have arisen and evaluate
the agency's demonstrated response to each situation. Determine
whether an aggressive, or passive, attitude has been shown with
respect to obstacles and the formulation of remedial solutions; the
originality and resourcefulness demonstrated by the agency under
these conditions should be evaluated. Notations should also be
made of any tendencies to bypass difficult or unforeseen situations.
C-4 Maintenance Of Schedule
Test both for historical maintenance of established schedules and
the general attitude toward meeting deadlines. In instances where
the agency has fallen behind schedule, analyze attempts to regain
the appropriate schedule position.
INFORMATION GENERATION
D-l Significance/Authenticity Of Generated Information
Determine if the agency is generating a sufficient amount of
appropriate technical data as an output. The data/information
being produced should be carefully reviewed for significance and
value.
D-2 Quantity and Consistency Of Technical Reporting
Assess the agency's consistency in maintaining a programmed schedule
for data preparation and output. Analyze the historical level of
performance in this area and note the degree of concern evidenced
by agency personnel toward the development and perpetuation of
technical information generated by this ar a similar type of program.
D-3 Dissemination Of Information To Appropriate Sources
Examine the established data distribution pattern; determine whether
the agency-generated information is being transmitted to the appro-
priate recipients. Ascertain how serious an attempt has been made
172
-------
by the agency to determine who should receive this information and
the general comprehensiveness of the distribution plan. Evidence
should be sought that indicates the agency's apparent concern with
making the information available to concerned/affected individuals/
agencies.
D-4 Technical Caliber Of Final Agency Reports
It has been assumed, in establishing this particular criteria
statement that all agencies will be required to generate final,
formal reports, the possible exceptions being those oriented primarily
toward the acquisition of land. The evaluator should attempt to
assess the character and correctness of the planned final document
through interrogation of the agency director and his staff. This
should be supported with a judgment of the seriousness with which
the agency views this responsibility.
STAFF CAPABILITIES
E-l Management Capability
A judgment must be developed concerning the agency director's
apparent management capabilities as an organizer, "motivator and
supervisor of work. The evaluator should also place a valuation on
the director's inferred degree of dedication toward the accomplishment
of runoff and erosion control programming.
E-2 Staff Technical Capability
Assess the collective credentials and quality of the staff with
respect to the total "kgency requirements.
E-3 Attitude With Respect To Task Achievement
Assess the apparent degree of staff dedication to erosion control
programming and the level of determination shown toward meeting
program objectives and deadlines.
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
F-l Effectiveness Measures
The evaluator should probe to identify the criteria used to assess
organizational effectiveness by the Department Director. Specifi-
cally, how does the Director tell strengths and weaknesses of the
organization?
173
-------
F-2 Efficiency Measures
The evaluator should probe to identify the parameters used to assess
organizational efficiency. Specific parameters should be discussed
with the Director including: cost estimate versus actual expense;
planned versus actual manpower; and planned versus actual schedule.
Where variances exist, specific justifications should be discussed
with the Director.
F-3 Appropriateness Of Expenditures
The evaluator should ask the Director to explain budget estimate
parameters. How does the agency or organization develop budget
plans? What type of measures are used to assess unit cost values?
Does the agency conduct comparative analysis of various projects or
tasks?
administrative systems
G-l Internal Operational Monitoring
The evaluator should determine if the agency maintains key logs and
records that provide good historical visibility of the agency's
operations. Specific questions should be raised in regard to records
on environmental concerns with special emphasis on problems of con-
trolling runoff and erosion.
G-2 Response To Correspondence And Inquiries
The evaluator should review the agency's procedures on inquiries
and correspondence. Specifically, the evaluator should ascertain
approximate response time for answering questions requests for
information. In particular, determine if accurate records are
maintained on specific environmental and erosion control inquiries.
G-3 Regulatory Processes
The evaluator should assess the agency's regulatory procedures (if
applicable). Special emphasis should be placed on adequate docu-
mentation of requirements, decision and programs designed to enhance
or maintain the environment.
GENERAL MEASUREMENTS
H-l Agency Review And Appeals Procedures
The evaluator should probe to identify the agency's formal and infor-
mal review and appeals procedures. Special emphasis should be placed
174
-------
on the process used by both other agencies and the general public to
resolve disagreements and conflicts on environmental issues. Spec-
ifically, does the agency have a review or appeals panel? If so,
who serves on it and what are their duties and responsibilities?
H-2 Degree Of Community Involvement And Support
The evaluator should inquire as to process and procedures used by
the agency to gain understanding of the community's concerns. Addi-
tionally, the agency's plans and programs to gain community support
should be discussed. Special emphasis should be placed on identify-
ing special constituent groups of the agency.
H-3 Degree Of Receptivity For Revised/Expanded Role
Assess the current program focus of the agency in response to runoff
and erosion control system and concepts. Review the clarity of pro-
grams in relation to the agency's goals and objectives.
To what extent do they view erosion and runoff as a problem within
Nevada, particularly relative to other perceived problems?
PROCEDURAL STEPS
Use of the evaluation model requires collection and analysis of data in a
comprehensive and consistent manner. Questionnaires developed for data
collection are described in a subsequent section of this report.
The questionnaires were designed to obtain detailed information on each
of the criteria for organizational evaluation previously described. An
actual organizational assessment, however, requires consolidation of this
information into specific evaluation factors. A total of 12 evaluation
factors were selected, and an analysis form prepared to be used in develop-
ing numeric values for the evaluation factors. The analysis form, shown
on the following pages, provides a mechanism of utilizing the question-
naire data to derive evaluation factor values.
Based upon discussions with the Sounding Board, a review of the liter-
ature on Institutional Evaluation, as well as a brief field test of an
interview questionnaire, the 12 evaluation factors were aggregated into
6 components for organizational assessment. The diagram on page 179
shows the procedural steps.
The following is a summary of the six components:
175
-------
Interviewer:
Agency:
Agpncy Code:
INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION MODEL
Analysis Form
"0" - if not applicable
rating -- "1" - lowest rating
"5" - highest rating
Rating
A. Capability to Plan within urgamzatiun
(review responses to questions 2 and 3)
RATIONALE:
B. Capability to Implement within organizatiuri
(review responses to questions 1» 5, 6, 7 ana a)
RATIONALE:
C. Capability to Control within organicLiuti
(review responses to questions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ana
RATIONALE:
functional support assessment - Planniny.
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE:
Functional support assessment - Technical Assistance
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE:
Funr.r.innal suppnrt assessment - Financial Assistance
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE:
176
-------
Analysis Form - Page 2
5. Functional support assessment - Guideline and Regulatory
Assistance
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE:
Rating
6. Functional support assessment - Monitoring and Assessment
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE:
Sensitivity to erosion (run-off) problem
(review responses to questions 2D, 4, 5, 6, 10F and 18)
RATIONALE:
8. Willingness to accept greater role in erosion control
(review responses to questions 6E, 7H, 8C, 9H, 10F, 16,
17, 18, 19 and 21)
RATIONALE:
9. Community Involvement
(review responses to questions 1, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
RATIONALE:
10. Overall Assessment of Management's ability to accept expanded
role.
(review responses to questions 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,
19, and 21)
RATIONALE:
177
-------
General Organizational Functioning — This category relates to the
overall ability of the organization to plan, implemen an
the three categories of organizational functioning. __5 &.
refers to the ability of an organization to define work output an
process objectives, to set target dates, and to allocate resource .
Once organizational plans are developed, implementation becomes
possible. Each organization is assessed on its ability to meet
the goals, objectives and tasks identified in their agency plan.
Organizational control was viewed as the ability of an organization
to assure consistency between planned and actual operation; and, to
identify and mediate problems prior to their reaching crisis pro-
portion.
Functional Support — Five separate areas are under the general
heading of functional support: planning; planning and technical
assistance; financial assistance; guideline and regulatory ass s-
tance; and monitoring and assessment. Functional support s
viewed as the capability and effectiveness of an agency to proy—e
support and service in these functional areas. Obviously, some
agencies provide a wider range of support than do others w o are
more specialized. As such, the assessment of capability an
effectiveness on each separate area must be considered.
Sensitivity to Runoff and Erosion Problems — This criteria was
specifically chosen to provide an indicator of awareness to tne
problems under study. To the extent that an organization does not
view runoff and erosion control as "its concern" or does not perce ve
it as a significant problem, then it is unlikely that the organiza-
tion will commit its resources to the problem.
Willingness to Accept a Greater Role in Erosion Control — While
some agencies may not currently be involved in providing support in
the area of erosion control, these same agencies may be both willing
and capable of providing it. Moreover, some existing organizations,
either due to their enabling legislation or to their goals, plans
and programs, may currently be involved but are neither interested
nor willing to continue in this role. Finally, assessing agencies
along this criteria enables the project staff to identify the
"form" of support (financial, planning, etc.) that these organiza-
tions were willing and able to provide, if at all.
Community Involvement — This criteria was used to assess the
organization in two ways; one was the capability of the agency to
solicit and involve the public in planning and decision-making
process, the other was the capability of the agency to provide
information and educational packages.
178
-------
PROCEDURAL STEPS
8
Evaluation
Factor
Valuation
1A - CAPABILITY TO PLAN
IB - CAPABILITY TO IMPLEMENT
1C CAPABILITY TO CONTROL
PLANNING
3 - TECHNICAL/PLANNING ASSISTANCE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
REGULATORY
MONITORING & ASSESSMENT
SENSITIVITY TO EROSION
ACCEPTANCE OF GREATER ROLE
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
10 CAPABILITY FOR GREATER ROLE
(1)
NOTES:
(1) The numerical ratings assigned by the eval-
uator within each category.
(2) Average Valuation for each component
(e.g., combinations of lA, 1B & 1C).
Component
Average
Value
(2)
+
Significant
Component
Statements
(3)
+
Evaluation
Report
Assembly
/
X
RTl \
mnncito »
Composite
Statistical
Rating
h
Summary
Analysis and
Findings
\
Supplemental
Information
\
y
/
(3) Isolation and assembly of significant state-
ments pertaining to each component. These
should be extracted from the "Comments"
section of the Evaluation Format and used
as the primary basis for the documentation
process.
(4) Total project average, composite of the six
components.
(5) Main body of evaluation report: docu-
mented observations, findings and recommendations
-------
6. Overall Assessment of Management's Ability to Accept an Expanded
Role — This final criteria provides an overall assessment of the
focus and direction of the organization as perceived by senior man-
agement. This view from "the top" of an organization is a strong
indicator of the likelihood of success in an expanded role, not-
withstanding the capability of the agency as viewed from its
resource set to implement an expanded role.
ASSESSMENT OF AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS
The second step in the evaluation process is an assessment of the govern-
mental authorities or programs extant in Nevada which deal with the
control of accelerated erosion and attendant water quality problems.
Present programs for the control of accelerated erosion from land-
disturbing activities are viewed as spotty, unconsolidated, and variably
enforced. Federal land management agencies exert some control. State
agencies and their subdivisions provide additional forms of regulations.
Conservation districts and irrigation districts sponsor voluntary con- ,
trol programs. Cities and counties possess building and grading author-
ities which pertain to some extent.
Certain criteria were developed in order to conduct the assessment. The
process of developing criteria begins with the listing of standard func-
tions which traditionally comprise governmental authorities and programs
in general. These functions include:
o The establishment of goals, policies, and objectives;
o the establishment of standards, either performance or specification;
o the development of plans, both comprehensive and site-specific;
o the issuance of permits to conduct specific activities - major per-
mit categories include land operations, stream operations, water
use, effluent discharge, resource allotment, and building construc-
tion;
o the approval of plans developed by others;
o the monitoring of activities conducted by others;
o enforcement of regulations, usually coupled with permit, standard
or plan approval authorities;
o the provision of financial assistance, in the form of grants, loans,
or incentives;
o education on runoff and erosion control, either in the form of
technical assistance or the raising of public awareness of runoff
and erosion problems;
o the construction, operation and maintenance of public works aimed
at runoff and erosion control.
Taking one activity sector at a time, the authorities and programs per-
tinent to runoff and erosion control are then compared to the functions
listed above. This comparison begins a 3-step process to analyze the
180
-------
adequacy and appropriateness of existing authorities and programs. The
process, diagrammed on the following page, shows a logical sequence of
three questions, the answers to which lead to the identification of needs
for new or refined authorities and programs.
The first question basically asks whether each one of the governmental
functions is present in existing authorities or programs (e.g., do stan-
dards exist for a particular activity sector?). Two alternative responses
are possible; either the functions are present ("they are there") or they
are not. If the functions are not present, the task is to identify why
not.
Assuming that the functions are present, the second question is a qual-
itative assessment; that is, with respect to each function present, are
the existing authorities appropriate ("are they good")? For example, if
the function of standards is present, is the type of standards "good"?
To answer this, it is necessary to define the characteristics of an ideal
authority or program aimed at the control of erosion and attendant water
quality problems. A comprehensive list of "ideal" characteristics includes
the following:
1. provide the earliest control;
2. utilize preventive (source control) techniques;
3. factor in social and economic considerations;
4. provide governmental approval of activities;
5. require little paperwork;
6. provide rapid procedures for approval or disapproval;
7. provide variance opportunities, but not open ended;
8. provide appeal procedures;
9. mesh assistance with regulations;
10. be flexible to allow proper application to local situations;
11. provide baseline levels of control;
12. cause the least stress to the regulated and regulator;
13. closely approximate existing authorities;
14. provide for adequate notice;
15. provide effective sanctions;
16. provide for public participation;
17. be periodically reviewed and updated;
18. be comprehensive in their coverage.
These characteristics can be aggregated into eight generalized charac-
teristics, as follows:
1. recognize water quality;
2. consider preventive or source control techniques;
3. factor in social and economic considerations;
4. provide rapid and simple procedures;
181
-------
ANALYSIS OF AUTHORITIES AND PROGRAMS
00
N3
ARE THEY
THERE?
Yes
ARE THEY
GOOD?
i
I
i
Yes
ARE THEY
ENOUGH?
Yes
IDENTIFY
WHY
IDENTIFY
DEFICIENCIES
IDENTIFY
DEFICIENCIES
DEVELOP NEW CONTROL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS
-------
5. provide variance (or alternative) opportunities in the application
of controls, but not open ended;
6. provide for public participation;
7. provide for periodic evaluation.
Additionally, the total of all authorities and programs should:
8. cover the entire state.
The answers to Question two serve to evaluate the appropriateness of
existing programs and authorities. The evaluation is completed once
the adequacy of programs and authorities is assessed.
This is the third question, the answer to which reflects whether a
governmental function fulfilled by an authority or program has enough
resources or coverage needed to meet the potential problems posed by an
activity sector. For example, if erosion standards exist for residen-
tial building construction and none exist for commercial building
construction, this situation would reflect a lack of coverage.
By going through this 3-step process for each activity sector, function
by function, existing authorities and programs can be evaluated. How-
ever, once the evaluation is completed, it must be viewed in its entirety
with respect to all of the functions. This is necessary in order to
avoid the pitfall of concluding that all of the functions which may be
evaluated as deficient need to be strengthened. For example, if five
functions are deemed deficient, only one or two may need strengthening
for the purpose of attaining water quality goals.
183
-------
QUESTIONNAIRES
The evaluation system requires collection of data in a comprehensive
manner consistent with the criteria, and supporting methodology described
previously. This is best accomplished through the use of questionnaires,
where answers are obtained to specific questions, thereby generating
structured data and information.
Because of the differing nature of the agencies about which information
was needed, and the requirement that some agencies be contacted by mail
while others were interviewed, three separate questionnaires were
developed.
Questionnaire #1 was intended for use in interviewing those federal
agencies operating within the State of Nevada which do not play an
active or dominant role in runoff and erosion control. For these agen-
cies the major thrust of inquiry related to the nature of their pro-
grams and resources which are now, or could be in the future, beneficial
in controlling runoff and erosion in Nevada.
Questionnaire #2 was designed to gather in-depth information about the
agencies identified as key in implementing any successful erosion con-
trol program in Nevada. It was used in the interviews of all agencies
which could potentially have a major role in a new or modified runoff and
erosion control program.
Questionnaire #3 is a paper-and-pencil questionnaire intended for mail
distribution to regional and local agencies which could be involved in
an erosion control program. If «^s used instead of personal interviews.
The questionnaire forms used are included on the following pages, ltie
Data Collection Process section provides defct^ls on specifically how
the questionnaires were used in collecting tttfe data required for this
project.
18A
-------
NEVADA ACCELERATED EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
QUESTIONNAIRE #1
Interviewed by:
Agency:
Agency Code:
Person Interviewed:
Title:
General Content Areas
* General View Erosion Control Problem in Nevada
* Specific Views of Non-point Source Erosion Control
* Factors which impact and extent of impact
* Agencies response to these factors
* Future plans of agency
* Agenices' view of Nevada's ability to:
* Recognize problems
* Impact problems
Questions
1. Tell me a little about your agency.
A. Does your agency have Resource Management and/or control
responsibility?
B. VJhat resources and programs of your agency are available in
Nevada?
2. To what extent do you view erosion as a problem in Nevada?
3. What are some of the factors which you see as contributing to
erosion in Nevada?
Note to Interviewer: For each factor identified ask:
A. How does this impact erosion in Nevada?
B. To what extent do you feel it is a contributing factor?
Note to Interviewer: For each factor not raised by respondent
(see list)ssk:
What about ? Do you viewitas a coritributer? Then 3A & B
none
some
moderate
major
185
-------
Questionnaires (^1 & #2)
Agency Name;
Agency Code:
What are some of the factors which you see as contributing to erosion in Nevada?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: For each factor identified ask: A. To what extent do you feel it is a contributing factor?
B. How does this impact erosion in Nevada?
Factors
Extent
How
None
Some
Moderate
Major
1. Grazing
2. Irrinated Agriculture
3. Camp Grounds
5. Recreational Home Development
6. Commercial/Industrial Development..
7. Mobil Home Development
8. Residential Development
9. Recreation Trails
10. Logging
11. Urban Runoff
12. Highways
13. Roads
14. Access Roads
15. Railroads
16. Channeling or other Stream
Modi fications
-------
Questionnaire #1
Page 3
4. Note to Interviewer: For those non-point source factors identified
as moderate or major ask:
A. How does your agency respond to ?
• B. What do you see as the future?
5. Let me move to a more general topic. Federal agencies generally
provide one or more services directly or indirectly to state agencies.
For example, in Nevada, does your agency offer planning assistance
on erosion control? Yes No
If Yes, a. Could you tell me a little bit about what your agency
does in this regard?
b. What types and extent of resources is the agency
currently committing?
c. What about the future?
Note to Interviewer: Ask same set for
* Technical Assistance
* Financial Assistance
* Control Guidelines, Regulations, Monitoring and Enforcement.
6. On another topic: Generally, how satisfied are you with the
cooperation between your agency and the various state and local
agencies you work with?
A. Which state or local agencies do you find easiest to work with?
Why?
B. Which do you find most difficult? Why?
7. In a similar vein, which state or local agencies do you feel would be
effective in dealing with non-point source erosion problems? Why?
A. Which do you feel would be least effective? Why?
8. By the way, what do you believe are the major factors limiting an
effective non-source point erosion control system in Nevada?
187
-------
Questionnaire #1
Page 4
9. Do you have any suggestions how these adverse factors may be best
dealt with?
10. In dealing with the problems of erosion control, several approaches
can be taken. Which approach do you feel would be most effective
and why?
* Education - planning and technical assistance
* Regulatory - scope, type, enforcement mechanism, area
(see attachment)
(Note to Interviewer: Probe willingness to accept this role as
part of the agency's responsibilities)
11. Is there anytmng else you cartel! me which you feel might be
helpful in this study?
Other questions from review of agency file, as appropriate, should be asked.
188
-------
NEVADA ACCELERATED EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
QUESTIONNAIRE §2
Interviewed by: Agency
Person Interviewed: Agency Code
Ti tie:
General Content Areas
1. Capability to plan, implement, and control within organization
2. Overall effectiveness measures
3. Functional assessment of support capabilities:
* Comprehensive planning
* Provision of technical assistance
* Ability to provide financial assistance
* State-wide
* Local government
* Private sector
* Regulatory responsibilities
* Monitoring and enforcement
4. Sensitivity to erosion problems and willingness to deal with problems
5. Community education and involvement process
Questi onnaire
1. Would you tell me a little about your agency?
A. What is the role or mission of your organization?
B. How is the agency organized; for example, are there District operations
provided?
C. What types of resources are available (money, manpower, facilities).
2. Could you tell me about the internal program planning process your agency uses?
A. What are your agency's goals and objectives?
B. How are your agency's goals established?
C. How are priorities set for programs or services?
D. What are some of the key parameters used in your planning process?
E. How does your agency know if your plans are being accomplished?
189
-------
Questionnaire #2
Page 2
3. As you may know, Nevada Environmental Protection Services has
developed an environmental plan. To what extent was your agency
involved in its development?
none some moderate major
If none, go to question 4; otherwise ask:
A. Could you tell me a little bit about how your agency was involved?
B. How do your goals and plans relate to those in the state's plans?
4. To what extent do you view non-point source erosion as a problem in Nevada?
none some moderate major
5. What do you believe are major contributers to erosion in Nevada?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: For each ask:
A. How does this impact erosion in Nevada?
B. To what extent do you feel it is a contributer to the erosion control
problem?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: For each item not raised by respondent (see list)
ask:
What about ? Do you view it as a contributer? Then ask 5A and B
above.
6. NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: For those rated a moderate or major.
A. How does your agency respond to ?
B. Could you tell me a little about the type and extent of resources your
agency expends on the erosion problem?
C. What impact do you feel your agency is having?
D. How do you assess the effectiveness of this effort?
E. What about the future? What plans does your agency have to deal with
this aspect of erosion?
190
-------
Questionnaires (#1 & #2)
Agency Name:
Agency Code:
What are some of the factors which you see as contributing to erosion in Nevada?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: For each factor identified ask: A. To what extent do you feel it is a contributing factor?
B. How does this impact erosion in Nevada?
Factors
tone Some Moderate Major
Extent
How
1. Grazing
2. Irrigated Agriculture
3. Camp Grounds
5. Recreational Home Development....
6. Commercial/Industrial Development
7. Mobil Home Development
8. Residential Development
9. Recreation Trails
10. Logging
11. Urban Runoff.
12. Highways
13. Roads
14. Access Roads.
15. Railroads....
16. Channeling or other Stream
Modifications
-------
Questionnaire #2
Page 4
7. Let me move to a more general topic:
Would you tell me a little about functions performed by your agency?
For example, does your agency offer planning and technical assistance
on environmental concerns and more specifically on erosion control?
Planning/Technical Assistance
yes no
If yes, ask:
A. Could you tell me a little about the process of providing this
support, e.g., How does your agency provide the service?
B. What type and extent of resources is the agency currently committing?
C. To what extent does your agency view the service as a major priority?
not at all Tow moderate high
D. Generally who are the recipients of this service? (NOTE TO INTERVIEWER:
If response is "the public", probe to find out what segment, e.g.,
special interest groups receive this service).
E. How do you assess the effectiveness of this effort?
F. How effective do you feel your agency is in providing the service?
not at all somewhat moderate very
G. How do you think the recipients of the service would rate your
agency in terms of effectiveness?
not at all somewhat moderate very"
H. What about the future?
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER Ask the same set of questions for:
* End Product Planning
* Financial Assistance
* Guidelines and Regulatory
* Monitoring and Enforcement
yes no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
192
-------
Questionnaire #2
Page 5
8. Let me move to a new subject. Could you tell me about your agency's
internal control process?
A. How do you measure overall performance?
B. How do you identify potential problem areas, e.g. in performance or
scheduling?
C. What happens when you identify a potential problem — could you qive
me an example of how you.deal with a typical problem.
NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Probe for any tendency to by-pass or ignore
problems.
9. Along this same line, one area I am very interested in is the information
process of your agency. Could you tell me the types of data your agency
collects and/or disseminates which you believe are helpful in assessinq
problems of erosion? If none go to question 10:
A. Would you tell me about the data collection process?
B. How often is the data collected?
C. What form of quality control is used to assure quality and consistencv
n-F -»•»
D. Who are the recipients of the data you collect? (Probe to see if
agency knows how other agencies utilize this data).
E. How do you assess the quality of the data collection process and content
F. How would you rate the quality of your data collection and dissemination
process?
Not at all
low
moderate
high
G. How do you think the recipient of this data would rate your aaencv in
+ ^, + 5 •?+ rpreivpe;'? J » m
terms of the data it receives?
Not at all
low
moderate
high
H. What plans does your agency have to improve its collection and
dissemination process?
193
-------
J--*. .
Questionnaire #2
Page 6
10. Let me ask you a little about the management capabilities of your
organization.
A. Could you tell me how you view your role as a manager? (Probe about
how the manager plans, motivates, organizes and controls the agency).
B. Generally, what do you look for in a new staff-member?
C. How about the type of individual you view as a manager, what skills
and background do you feel are important?
D. How do you measure the overall quality of your staff?
E. What do you do when a member of your staff is not performing well?
F. How would you assess your staff's commitment to attaining environmental
goals?
11. As a manager, how do you assess the effectiveness and efficiency of your
staff and your agency?
12. Are you satisfied with your agency's internal control process? If you
could change anything to improve control, what would you do?
13. Could you tell me about your agency's regulatory role? (Probe for
documentation, consistency, decision process and review process).
14. Would you tell me about your agency's review and appeals procedures?
If none, skip to 15.
A. Is there an independent review process? If so, describe who
reviews and their duties and responsibilities?
B. How do you assess the equity in the review and appeal process?
C. Roughly what percentage of these appeals are upheld?
D. Are there formal procedures for appeals?
15. Does your agency view community education and involvement as a primary
role?
A. What processes, formal or informal, are used?
B. How does your agency involve the general public in planning and
review of agency operations?
16. By the way, what do you believe are the major factors limiting an
effective accelerated erosion control system in Nevada?
17. Do you have any suggestions how these adverse factors may be best
dealt with'?
194
-------
Questionnaire #2
Page 7
18. In dealing with the problems of erosion control, several approaches
can be taken. Which approach do you feel would be most effective,
and why?
* Education - planning and technical assistance
* Financial Assistance
* Regulatory - scope, type, enforcement mechanism, area
(Note to Interviewer: Probe willingness to accept this role
as part of the agency's responsibilities)
19. Assuming erosion control is to become a more significant aspect of
your agency's operations, what changes would be required?
A. How would this occur?
B. What problems would you anticipate?
C. What could be done to resolve these problems?
D. How would you assess the effectiveness of your agency's
response to this revised requirement?
20. What state, Federal, and local agencies do you work with in
matters of accelerated erosion?
21. How satisfied are you with the cooperation between your organization
and each of these agencies?
22. In a similar vein:
A. Which state or local agencies do you feel are or would
be most effective in dealing with accelerated erosion
problems? Why?
B. Which do you feel are or would be least effective? Why?
23. Is there anything else you can tell me which you feel might be
helpful in this study?
Other questions from review of agency file, as appropriate, should
be asked.
195
-------
Local Agency Survey
Questionnaire #3
Page 1
Agency Name:
1. What type of organization do you represent?
Regional Planning Agency
Irrigation District
City Government
If you have checked City or County:
Which Department do you represent?
Executive Office
Planning Department
Conservation District
County Government
Clerks Office
Public Works
2. How many people are employed by your organization? (Note: If you have checked City
or County, please answer for your Department only.)
no paid employees
1-3 paid employees
A - 6 paid employees
Agency Service Orientation
7-10 paid employees
11 - 20 paid employees
21 or more paid employees
3. Public agencies provide a variety of services to their constitutencies. Please indicate
the relative emphasis your agency or organization assigns to each of the following.
(If your agency does not provide service in a specific area, please check none):
Service
None
EMPHASIS OF AGENCY
Very Low Moderate High
Public Health
Public Safety
Social Services
Public Education
Environmental Protection
Public Works
Land Use Planning & Control
Economic Productivity
4. As you know, erosion and runoff from land disturbing activities (e.g., mining, agriculture
grazing, construction, forestry, roads) can cause water pollution. To what extent do you
believe that erosion and runoff from land disturbing activities represent a problem in the
State of Nevada?
Not at all Somewhat Moderate Major
196
-------
Questionnaire #3, Page 2
5. The following is a list of land disturbing activities which are possible contributors to
the problem of erosion and runoff. Please indicate to what extent you view each as con-
tributing to erosion and runoff in your area. Then please indicate whether or not your
agency has regulations to control this activity.
Activity
Extent of Contribution
to Erosion Problems
Does your Agency
Regulate this
Activity
None
Some
Moderate
Major
Yes
No
1.
Grazing
2.
Irriftafpri Agriculture
3.
Camp Grounds
A.
Reereaflnnal Home Development ,
5.
Commercial/industrial Development
6.
Mining
7.
Reslripnfinl flpvplopmant
8.
Recreational Trails
9.
Logging '
10.
Urban Runoff
11.
Highways
12.
Roads
13.
Access Roads
14.
Railroads
15.
Chaneling or other Stream
Modifications
6* Which of the following approaches do you currently use to control or limit erosion and
runoff from land disturbing activities?
Approach
Extent of Use
None
Very Low
Moderate
High
Planning
Technical Assistance
Financial Assistance
Public Works (Design & Installation)
Regulation
• i
'i;
Zoning
Subdivision ordinances
Grading ordinances
Street and Road ordinances
Grazine p«vnnits
Mining Permits
Pollutant Discharge Controls
197
-------
Questionnaire #3, Page 3
Agency Variance Procedure
7. Public agencies generally provide a procedure which permits applicants to obtain a variance
from a standing requirement (for example, a zoning ordinance). Would you please describe,
in general, how an applicant goes about requesting and obtaining a variance?
Agency Appeals Procedure
8. Xf your agency has regulatory responsibilities, would you please describe, in general, how
an applicant goes about appealing a decision (except for subdivisions)?
Approaches to Impact Probl«""g Associated with Erosion
9. If you were able to provide additional effort, to what extent do you believe additional
effort in each of the following approaches would reduce the likelihood of erosion and runoff
Approach
Effectiveness
None
Some
Moderate
Malor
Planning
Technical Assistance
Financial Assistance
Public Works (Design & Installation)
Regulation
Zoning ordinances
Subdivision ordinances
Grading ordinances
Street and Road ordinances
Grazing permits
Mining permits
Pollutant Discharge Controls
198
-------
Questionnaire #3, Page 4
Acceptability of Approaches
10. Based upon your experience, how willing is your agency to accept additional responsibility
for each of the following approaches?
ACCEPTABILITY
Greater Role in:
Not at all
Somewhat
Moderate
Ma i or
PlanninR
Technical Assistance
Financial Assistance
Public Works (Design & Installation)
Regulation
Zoning ordinances
Subdivision ordinances
Grading ordinances
Street and Road ordinances
Grazing permits
Mining permits
Pollutant Discharge Controls
Organizational Level for Additional Responsibility
11. Assuming that additional responsibility were given to governmental agencies for limiting
and controlling erosion and runoff from land disturbing activities, which level of govern-
ment do you feel would be the most effective in offering the following?
LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
Type of Service
Local Agency
(City, County, etc.)
Regional
State
Federal
Financial Assistance
Technical Assistance
Planning
Regulation
Monitoring and Inspection
Public Works Proiects
Comments, if any:
199
-------
Questionnaire #3, Page 5
Effectiveness of Other State Agencies
12.
A number of state agencies are currently providing services which serve to control and
limit erosion and runoff from land disturbing activities. How effective do you feel each
of the following agencies is in dealing with erosion and runoff concerns?
EFFECTIVENESS
Agency
No contact
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
(Environmental Protection Services
(formerly Bureau of Env. Health)
t* _ . — — - -
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Highways
Department of Agriculture
Division of Conservation Districts
Division of Forestry
Division of State Lands
[Division of Water Resources
Other:
13. What do you believe are the major factors limiting a more effective erosion and runoff
control system in Nevada?
14. Do you have any suggestions how these limiting factors My be best dealt with?
For additional information, contact:
Your Name Phone
200
-------
DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
As a result of the work performed early in the project, the basic agencies
and programs relating to runoff and erosion control in Nevada were
identified. In order to fully analyze these agencies and programs
within the context of the evaluation model, specific additional detailed
information was required.
The project staff attempted to evaluate the maximum number of organizations
feasible within cost constraints. The preferred method of data collection
is through personal interviews. An alternate, but less effective method,
is to mail out a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.
As anticipated, resources available for on-site investigations were limited
in comparison to the eligible array of active organizations. Because of
this condition, a priority framework was established to assure a maximum
degree of evaluative coverage by the project staff.
The following parameters were utilized for the purpose of selecting
organizations to be interviewed:
o All state agencies involved with the establishment of Environmental
Policies and/or Programs.
o All state and federal agencies responsibile for land and/or water
use and control.
o A sample of local units of government geographically disbursed and
including:
o Counties
o Cities
o Conservation Districts
o Irrigation Districts
The agencies selected for interview and the questionnaire used for each
were the following:
201
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE
Agency $1 ^2 #3
Federal
Environmental Protection Agency X
Bureau of Land Management X
Soil Conservation Service X
Corps of Engineers X
Forest Service X
Federal Highway Administration X
Agricultural Stabilization and X
Conservation Service
State
Environmental Protection irvices X
Department of Fish and Game X
Department of Highways X
Department of Agriculture X
Division of Conservation Districts X
Division of Forestry X
Division of State Lands X
Division of Water Resources X
Regional/Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency X
Clark County X
Elko County X
Washoe County X
North Las Vegas X
Yerington X
Reno X
Elko X
Irrigation District (one) X
Conservation District (one) X
Cooperative Extension Service X
Other Cities X
Other Counties X
Other Irrigation Districts X
Other Conservation Districts X
INTERVIEWS
The information required on the selected organizations was secured
through personal interviews. These interviews were conducted by a
202
-------
three-man team consisting of Jim Breitlow, Nevada Department of Human
Resources, Environmental Protection Services; Gordon Ebling, Stevens,
Thompson & Runyan, Inc.; and Bruce Scott, Vasey-Scott Engineering Inc.
The initial interview was conducted with the Soil Conservation Service
in Reno on January 19, 1976. All three members of the team participated
in that interview in order to calibrate the questionnaire and interview
process. Each subsequent interview was conducted by one member of the
team and took from one to three hours. The duration of the interview
and the actual team member conducting the interview depended on the
agency being interviewed.
Each interview consisted of the following steps:
1. A phone contact was made to establish the date and time of the
interview, as well as the interview participants. In each case an
attempt was made to secure time with the senior person or persons
in the organization. The attempt was successful in most instances.
2. A follow-up letter was sent confirming the interview, and describing
the content areas to be covered.
3. The team member scheduled to conduct the interview reviewed all
descriptive materials about the agency that had already been
collected.
4. The interview was conducted, using the appropriate questions, as
contained in Questionnaire #1 or #2.
5. A complete set of interview notes was prepared.
6. A summarized set of interview observations and conclusions was
prepared, and sent to the interviewed agency for review, comment,
and verification.
MAIL-OUTS
To those local units of government not selected for interview, a paper-
and-pencil questionnaire was sent. This provided each principally-
involved agency operating within Nevada with an opportunity to supply
information which could be incorporated into the evaluation process.
Tabulated on the following page is a listing of agencies to which ques-
tionnaires were sent, and an indication of which agencies responded. In
most cases, no attempt was made to follow-up with those agencies which
did not respond. An exception was several key Conservation Districts
where personal contact was made at the request of the Districts in lieu
of the Conservation District completing the questionnaire.
203
-------
RESPONSE
Yes No
Cities
Boulder City
X
Caliente
X
Carlin
X
Carson City
X
Ely
X
Fallon
X
Gabbs
X
Henderson
X
Las Vegas
X
Lovelock
X
Sparks
X
Wells
X
Winnemucca
X
Counties
Churchill
X
Douglas
X
Esmerelda
X
Eureka
X
Humboldt
X
Lander
X
Lincoln
X
Lyon
X
Mineral
X
Nye
X
Pershing
X
Storey
X
White Pine
X
Irrigation Districts
Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District
Carson Water Subconservancy District
Pershing County Water Conservation District
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
Washoe County Water Conservation District
— — Cont 'd
X
X
X
X
204
-------
RESPONSE
Yes No
Conservation Districts
v
Big Meadow
X
X
Carson Valley
Y
Clark County
A
x
Clover
Y
Dixie Valley
Y
A
Duck Valley
A
x
Esmeralda
Y
Eureka
A
Y
Fernley
A
x
Gerlach
Y
Jiggs
A
x
Kings River
X
Lahontan
x
Lamoille
x
Lander
A
x
Lincoln
x
Mason Valley
X
Northeast Elko
x
North Truckee
X
Owyhee
X
Pahrump
X
Paradise Valley
X
Quinn River
X
Ruby
X
Smith Valley
X
Sonoma
X
Starr Valley
X
Stillwater
X
Tahoe-Verdi
X
Tonopah
X
Vya
X
Washoe Valley
X
White Pine
Sent out, 36 were returned for
Out of a total of 64 questionnaires sent
response rate of 56 percent.
205
-------
Agency
Evaluation
-------
Evaluation of the agencies involved in control of runoff and erosion
in Nevada was conducted in accordance with the methodology described in
the preceding section. The primary data source on the agencies of interest
was the interview process which was structured to obtain information on
specific topics. Aggregation of this data in various ways permits an
assessment of the current or prospective capability of each agency to
perform certain functions.
AGENCY CAPABILITIES
The functions to be considered for evaluation purposes were derived from
the evaluation model, and included the following:
o Capability to plan within the organization
o Capability to implement within the organization
o Capability to control within the organization
o Functional assessment - end product planning
o Functional support assessment - planning/technical assistance
o Functional support assessment - financial assistance
o Functional assessment - regulatory
o Functional assessment - monitoring and assessment
o Sensitivity to erosion as a problem in Nevada
o Willingness to accept a greater role in erosion control
o Community involvement
o Capability to accept an expanded role in erosion control
Immediately upon completion of an interview, a summarized set of interview
observations and conclusions was prepared, and sent to the interviewed
agency for review, comment, and verification. An example of interview
observations and conclusions appears on the following pages. It is the
information on the State Division of Forestry, as modified by that agency.
Similar summaries were prepared for each interviewed agency.
As a second part of the post-interview process, an analysis form was pre-
pared for each interviewed agency by the interviewer. The ratings were
subsequently reviewed with the interview team, and a consensus reached
on each assigned value. This process assured consistency of ratings
among all of the agencies interviewed.
The rating system uses numeric values of one (1) through five (5), with
(1) the lowest rating and (5) the highest. Both the highest and lowest
values were used sparingly, in order to provide a reasonable distribution
of all numeric values. A cipher (0) was used to signify that a function
was not applicable to a particular agency. On page 210 is a sample of the
analysis form used for each agency which provides a rationale for assign-
ment of the numeric values.
207
-------
ELMO J. DeRipCO, Director
Department of Conierration
and Natural Resources
GEORGE ZAPPETTIN1
Stmt Fomttr
MIKE O'CALLAGHAN
Governor
Addreu Rtply to
Nye BuQdint
201 S. Fall Street
Canon City, Nevada 89710
U3-U50
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
CAPrrOL COMPLEX
CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89710
NEVADA DIVISION OF FORESTRY
The purpose of the Nevada Division of Forestry is to protect
9 million acres of State and private forest and watershed lands.
About 70,000 of this total is commercial forest lands and is
protected by the Forest Practices Act. Approximately"3.2 million
acres of the total receives direct fire protection.
The NDF is organized w-ith the main office in Carson City
(15 people) and district offices in Reno (22 people), Elko (7 people)
and Las Vegas (3 people). A nursery in Reno has 3 people.
Staffing has increased over the past few years. Forestry and
financial assistance are provided under some programs. Relative
to the lands designated commercial forest, the Division has a
very strong regulatory, monitoring and enforcement role.
Prior to 1971 the NDF attempted to regulate soil erosion
on private commercial forestlands under a law that was vague.
The 1971 Legislature passed a strong forest practices act. This
act required 1) a harvesting permit; 2) omitting areas within
200 feet of a live stream; 3) revegetating disturbed roads, land-
ings and skid trails; 4) restricting tractor use on slopes over
30%. In addition this act required a Timberland Conversion
Certificate before Timberlands could be converted to other uses.
This certificate program required soil, topographic and conversion
information to minize soil erosion. A law suit resulted when the
Forest Practice Act was enforced upon a large timber industry.
As a result in 1973 the law was amended to allow variances to the
200 stream buffer and 30% steepness restriction when adequate
supporting enviornmental data was provided.
The major factor limiting an effective accelerated erosion
control system in Nevada is the lack of precipitation. Under
normal circumstances the best erosion prevention techniques are
vegetative, but the precipiation levels in Nevada are just not
sufficient to support any meaningful vegetation 1n many areas.
Alternatives to vegetation are so costly as to be prohibitive.
In dealing with erosion problems on a Statewide basis the
best approach is probably a combination of education, financial
assistance, and regulation. Individual activities would have to
208
-------
Page -2-
be examined and assessed as to whether they are more susceptiable
to education, financial assistance, regulation, or a combination
of the aforementioned. The feelings seem to be that the agency
best equiped to deal with erosion control matters would be an
agency already interfacing with the particular offender. Forestry
has recently gotten a good hold on erosion on forest lands.
Similarly, a relationship could be established between the
Department of Agriculture and the agricultural sector, and segment
by segment you could come to grips with the erosion problem.
Admittedly, dealing with the agricultural interests will be much
more difficult than with the forestry interest simply because it
is a much larger economic sector. In the same vein, urban erosion
and run-off is probably best handled by city governments.
209
-------
Interviewer: Gordon Ebllng
Date: January 22, 1976
Agency: State Highways
Agency Code:_
INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION MODEL
Analysis Form
rating —
"0" - if not applicable
"1" - lowest rating
"5H - highest rating
1. A. Capability to Plan within Organization
(review responses to questions 2 and 3)
RATIONALE: The plans and programs of the Highway Department
are carefully and systematically conceived, using substantial
external input.
B. Capability to Implement within organization
{review responses to questions 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8)
RATIONALE: Their programs are generally completed on time
and within budget.
C. Capability to Control within organization
(review responses to questions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
RATIONALE: The Department appears to be well organized and
run in an effective professional manner.
2. Functional support assessment - Planning
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE: They work with cities and counties in developing
roadway plans and do an effective job.
3. Functional support assessment - Technical Assistance
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7}
RATIONALE: They provide some technical assistance to cities
"aftcTSoimties, and do an average job of providing it.
4. Functional support assessment - Financial Assistance —
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE: They provide a minor amount of financial assistance
to counties, and do not see it as a major Department function.
210
-------
Analysis Form - Page 2
5.
Functional support assessment - Guideline and Regulatory
Assistance
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7)
RATIONALE: Their regulatory role is very minor, relating
primarily to load limits. This they do effectively.
Rating
6. Functional support assessment - Monitoring and Assessment,
(review responses to questions 1, 6 and 7) ~~
RATIONALE: They do an effective job of monitoring highway
construction and maintenance.
Sensitivity to erosion (run-off) problem ~~~
(review responses to questions 2D, 4, 5, 6, 1 OF and 18)
• .RATIONALE: Water related erosion along highways is of only
moderate concern—erosion in other areas is of no concern.
8. Willingness to accept greater role in er°s1°J c°"£ro],.
(revTewTes^onseF^oquestTons 6E> 7H, ul, yn, tur, io,
17, 18. 19 and 21)
RATIONALE: They are currently doing all that they can to
control erosion along highway right-of-ways. No interest in
other activity sectors.
9. Community Involvement
wnmiun i iv j.nvu i vei.iem. . . -e
(review responses to questions It 13, 14, 15, 6 a 17)
RATIONALE: They devote a large amount of effort to interfacing
with the public, and are quite effective.
10. Overall Assessment Management's ability to accept expanded
(review responses to questions 10, lii ft. 17»
19, and 21)
RATIONALE: Thelr orientation is so strongly highways that
their ability to accept an expanded role is no better than
average, even though the people are quite capa e.
211
-------
The completed set of analysis forms provides numeric values for the func-
tional capabilities of each of the agencies selected for interview. The
chart on page 213 displays the numeric values assigned for each function
to all of the agencies that were interviewed.
In accordance with the procedural steps developed as part of the evalu-
ation model, the functional values were aggregated into six components:
o general organizational functioning
o functional support
o sensitivity to erosion problems
o willingness to accept a greater role in control
of runoff and erosion
o community involvement
o overall assessment of management's ability to
accept an expanded role
The chart on page214 shows the numeric values developed for the six components.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
In reviewing the evaluation of the agencies of interest, as well as the
asic data compiled on these agencies, certain general observations can
e made relative to their present or prospective roles in the control of
runoff and erosion.
1. The only agencies with a high level of sensitivity to the runoff
and erosion problem are the agencies specifically created to respond
to that problem—SCS, Division of Conservation Districts and TRPA.
None of these agencies, however, is judged high in their capability
to accept a revised or expanded role. The SCS is not interested in
a revised role; the Division of Conservation Districts has only one
full-time employee; TRPA is restricted in terms of both manpower and
geographic jurisdiction.
2. Most state agencies are highly specialized in terms of their range
of responsibilities (e.g., Forestry, Highways, etc.) and express
little or no interest in expanding their breadth of responsibility.
Hence any responsibility for control of runoff and erosion is limited
in most cases to only a few activity sectors per agency.
3. Of the agencies rated above average in their willingness to accept
a greater role, EPS is the only state agency which appears able to
interface with all activity sectors. An aggregation of all Nevada
Conservation Districts also interfaces all activity sectors on a
statewide basis.
4. No agency at any level presently has assigned responsibility for
statewide coordination of the various agency activities aimed at the
control of runoff and erosion in Nevada.
212
-------
Regional/Local
State
Federal
AGENCY EVALUATION
Factor
CAPABILITY TO PLAN
1A
CAPABILITY TO IMPLEMENT
IB
CAPABILITY TO CONTROL
1C
- PLANNING
TECHNICAL/PLANNING ASSISTANCE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
REGULATORY
MONITORING & ASSESSMENT
SENSITIVITY TO EROSION
ACCEPTANCE OF GREATER ROLE
- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
CAPABILITY FOR GREATER ROLE
-------
Suite
Federal
AGENCY EVALUATION
c
Factor
GENERAL ORGANIZATIONAL
FUNCTION
FUNCTIONAL SUPPORT
SENSITIVITY TO EROSION
ACCEPTANCE OF GREATER ROLE
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
CAPABILITY FOR GREATER ROLE
-------
Local government capability in runoff and erosion control is roughly
proportional to the population of the jurisdiction, making for a vast
difference in capability between the most populated and least popu-
lated counties and cities.
Local governments and districts are very sensitive to the imposition
of additional requirements by a higher level of government without
a concomitant provision of resources to accomplish the additional
work.
Local governments and districts are generally opposed to the impos-
ition of any controls by a higher level of government which have the
appearance of eroding local authority.
The community involvement programs of regional/local agencies are
generally more effective than those of federal and state agencies.
215
-------
Authority
Evaluation
-------
The second aspect of the evaluation process is an evaluation of the
authorities or programs extant in Nevada which deal with the control of
runoff and erosion, and attendant water quality problems. To accomplish
an evaluation of authorities, the following preliminary tasks were
undertaken:
1. A literature review of existing state statutes was conducted to
identify those statutes which, in the most global sense, pertain to
the control of erosion from land disturbing activities.
2. Authorities and programs of the involved institutions were reviewed
and discussed as part of the interview process.
3. Enabling legislation as it pertains to substate jurisdictional
issues was reviewed.
A. Specific criteria were developed against which to assess the
authorities and programs, as discussed in the evaluation system
section.
The actual evaluation of authorities and programs was a three-step
process:
1. An inventory of agency/activity intervention mechanisms was prepared.
2. A detailed review was made to determine the nature of the authorities
and programs as they relate to each activity sector.
3. An analysis of the appropriateness and adequacy of the existing
interventions was made to determine the apparent deficiencies in
the present set of authorities and programs.
This three-step process is elaborated below.
AGENCY/ACTIVITY INTERVENTION
The first step in the evaluation of authorities for the runoff and
erosion was to examine the interface between government agencies and
erosion causing activities.
In identification of the runoff and erosion problem in Nevada the major
categories of land disturbing activities were identified, and grouped
according to their accelerated erosion impact:
High Runoff and Erosion Activity
Agriculture - Grazing
Agriculture - Irrigation
Construction - Buildings
217
-------
Construction - Roads
Recreation - Trails
Stream Modifications
Urbanization
Moderate Runoff and Erosion Activity
Forestry
Mining - Hard Rock
Mining - Open Pit
Transportation - Roads
Low Runoff and Erosion Activity
Construction - Dams
Construction - Transmission
Military
Recreation - Boats
Recreation - Camps
Transportation - Airports
Transportation - Rail
Governmental agencies have various mechanisms for intervening in the
accelerated erosion process. The control programs are detailed in the
section on Control Techniques. Although ranging broadly in scope,
magnitude and effectiveness, they can be broadly grouped into four
categories:
Regulatory - permit programs of all types, performance and
specification standards, and plan preparation and/or approval.
Financial - grants, loans and incentives.
Education - planning assistance, technical assistance, and public
awareness.
Public Works - construction, operation and maintenance of facilities
intended for erosion control.
The detailed information collected on the agencies of interest to this
project provides an understanding of programs and actions used by each
governmental agency involved in the control of accelerated erosion. On
the following page is a matrix showing the governmental intervention
mechanisms and their relationship to activity sectors.
For the activity sectors considered to be high or moderate erosion
activities, the matrix displays all of the identified interventions. As
this identification process requires considerable time and effort, i^
was concluded that similar work was not justified for low erosion activities.
Accordingly, that portion of the matrix dealing with low erosion activities
is incomplete.
218
-------
Federal
AGENCY/ACTIVITY
INTERVENTION
Activity Sectors
AGRICULTURE - GRAZING
AGRICULTURE - IRRIGATION
CONSTRUCTION - BUILDINGS
cc > CONSTRUCTION - ROADS
mp
S £ RECREATION - TRAILS
STREAM MODIFICATIONS
URBANIZATION
FORESTRY
•
•
•
I
I
h z
< O t MINING - HARD ROCK
•
•
»
Scfe MINING-OPEN PIT
J Ul «
•
•
•
TRANSPORTATION - ROADS
•
•
•
•
CONSTRUCTION - DAMS
»
•
••
•
CONSTRUCTION - TRANSMISSION
*
E> MILITARY
§ > RECREATION - BOATS
Ul 1-
O < RECREATION - CAMPSITES
•
•
•
TRANSPORTATION - AIRPORTS
TRANSPORTATION - RAILWAYS
State
Regional/Local
Regulatory
Financial Assistance
Education (Technical Assistance)
Public Works
T
-------
AGENCY/AUTHORITY INTERVENTION
The actual authorities or programs extant in Nevada cover the full
spectrum of possibilities. Additionally, some of the programs deal with
all activity sectors, while others deal with only one or two. It is
necessary, therefore, to examine the authorities and programs of each
agency involved in erosion control in Nevada on the basis of their
impact on each activity sector.
Through the use of a matrix developed for each activity sector it is
possible to graphically display all identified authorities and programs
which relate to that activity sector. Plotted along the side are the
functions of government; along the top are the governmental organizations
involved in some aspect of runoff and erosion control in Nevada.
At appropriate intersections on the matrix where an agency has a program
or authority which impacts that activity sector a symbol shows whether
the intervention is primary or secondary. An example of a primary
intervention is the issuance by BLM of allotment permits on lands within
its jurisdiction. An example of a secondary intervention is the assistance
provided by SCS to cooperators in the preparation of site-specific
plans.
Development of a complete set of charts, one for each activity sector,
provides a compendium of authorities and programs dealing with erosion
control in Nevada. These charts are shown on Pages 223 through232.
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
The final step in the process of evaluating existing authorities and
programs is to determine the apparent deficiencies in the existing
structure. This analysis of deficiencies is necessarily done individually
for each activity sector.
Using the process discussed in the evaluation system section, three
aspects of existing authorities and programs are analyzed:
o Are they there?
o Are they good?
o Are they enough?
Through this procedure it is possible to make observations and develop
an in-depth understanding of existing authorities and programs, and then
to derive the apparent deficiencies or gaps in existing authorities and
programs. The procedure was followed for each of the activity sectors,
and resulted in a set of charts showing the existing authorities and
programs by governmental function, together with the apparent deficiencies
for each functional category. A series of charts, one for each activity
sector, was developed and is shown on Pages233 through242.
221
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: AGRICULTURE-GRAZING
Federal
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE
PERMITS LAND OPERATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAL
MONITORING
ENFORCEMENT
GRANTS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC AWARENESS
uj o
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
H Primary
Regional/Local
Secondary
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
Federal
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: AGRICULTURE IRRIGATION
POLICY
STANDARDS PIHFORMANCh
SPECIFICATION
V
PLAN SITESPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE
..Hill
>-
PtRMITS LAND OPERATIONS
a:
o
h-
<
3
C3
STREAM OPERATIONS
WA1 LH USE
LU
cc
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAL
MONITOHING
r
ENFORCEMENT
J
<
GRANTS
r
V
o
z
<
LOANS
z
uT
INCENTIVES
2
O
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1
V
r
EDU
CAT
PUBLIC AWARENESS
r
o o
CONSTRUCTION
r
"1
o. s
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
r
Reuional/Locat
«? /«-
/
(
/ o
/ k
/ <<1 / 3?
—
r_._
r
r
—
—
—
—
r
¦f
B Primary
H Secondary
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: CONSTRUCTION BUILDING
Federal
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE
PERMITS LAND OPERATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAL
MONITORING
ENFORCEMENT
GRANTS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC AWARENESS
ui
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: CONSTRUC ION ROADS
Federal
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE
PERMITS LAND OPERATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAL
MONITORING
ENFORCEMENT
GRANTS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC AWARENESS
ui u
O «?
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Regional/Local
E Primary
Secondary
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: RECREATION TRAILS
Federal
POL CY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
COMPRFHENSIVE
PERMITS LAND OPERATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
At LOTMENT
BUILDING
PI AN APPROVAl
MONITORING
ENFORCEMENT
(.RANTS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
IHIRLIC AWARf Nf ss
Hi u
u tn
CONSTRUCTION
OP( HA1IONS ft MAIN FT NANCI
B Primary
3 Secondary
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: STREAM MODIF JATIONS
Stale
Regional/Local
Federal
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE
PE RMITS LAN D OPE RATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILD NG
PLAN APPROVAL
MONITORING
ENFORCFMENi
GRANIS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC AWARENESS
uj (j
O M
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
E Primary
3 Secondary
-------
AGENCY / AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: URBANIZATION
Federal
POt ICY
STANDARDS PI RFORMANCf
SPTCIF tCAT ION
, PLAN SITF. SHXIFtC
COMPRFlIf NSIVE
JPFRMITS LAND OPFRATIONS
>
oc
o
o
STRFAM OPERATIONS
WA1 1 R USF
DISCHARGE
Al I OTMENT
MUlLDINCi
I HAN APPROVAL
MONITORING
[ NFORCFMt NT
I GRANTS
j r
Z |LOANS
Z
" INCLNTIVFS
g | TfOHNICAl ASSIS1ANCF
Z) P
O < I PUBLIC AWAR! NV SS
UJ O
| CONST RUCTION
rf DC
CO
£ 5 | orr RAT KINS & MAIN 11 Ni\NC(
J!
B Primary
Q Secondary
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: FORESTRY
bi.ile
reilerdl
Reuioiuil.' Local
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
ailiil
COMPREHENSIVE
PERMITS LAND OPERATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAL
MONITORING
ENFORCEMENT
till
GRANTS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC AWARENESS
O CO
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
E Primary
H Secondni y
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: MINING HARD ROCK
& OPEN PIT
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
dlili
PLAN SITF SPECIFIC
COMPRFHCNSIVE
PFRMIrS I AND OPERATIONS
STRF AM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
O'SCn A nCifc
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAI
MONITORING
F NTORCF.MFNT
grants
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANOf
PUR I IC AWARFNFS!
ui
O «/)
(X)NSf HUC1 ION
OPERATIONS ft MAINTENANCE
B Primary
Secondary
-------
AGENCY /AUTHORITY
INTERVENTION
ACTIVITY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION ROADS
Reyioiidl/Locdl
bialu
r edefdJ
POLICY
STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATION
PLAN SITE SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE
PERMITS LAND OPERATIONS
STREAM OPERATIONS
WATER USE
DISCHARGE
ALLOTMENT
BUILDING
PLAN APPROVAL N/A
MONITORING
ENFORCEMENT
GRANTS
LOANS
INCENTIVES
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PUBLIC AWARENESS
CONSTRUCTION N/A
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
iniary
3 Second;
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
AGRICULTURE - GRAZING
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
o CPA - Best management practices to control to ex-
tent possible
o BLM, FS - Multiple land use consistent with environ
mental concerns and public welfare
o BLM, FS - Goals are not primarily concerned with
~ quality of receiving waters
STANDARDS
o BLM, FS - Performance standards concerning forage
o EPS - Water quality standards
o No forage standards for non-federal lands
o BLM, FS - Standards are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving waters
o EPS - Standards do not consider preventative or
source control techniques, do not adequately con-
sider economic factors
PLANS
o BLM, FS - Multiple land use plans for wide areas
o EPS - Comprehensive water quality plans for wide
areas using EPA guidelines
o BLM, FS - Develqp grazing allotment plans (site-
specific)
o Cooperators develop site-specific plans with con-
servation district assistance
o BLM, FS - Multiple land use plans are not primarily
concerned with quality of receiving waters
o Allotment plans don't factor in water quality
o Conservation plans are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving waters, and do not include
public participation
o No site-specific plans for much of the private graz-
ing lands
o Most plana do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
REGULATORY
o WR - Water use and place of use permits
o BLM, FS - Permits for land operations and allotments
o Irrigation districts issue informal allotments
o SCS, F&G monitor erosion statewide
o BLM, FS monitor and enforce permit users
o EPS monitors and enforces water quality on major
streams
5
FINANCIAL
o ASCS has limited 30-502 grants for range management
on private lands
o AG has a small loan program
©Except EPS - Interventions are not primarily con-
cerned with quality of receiving waters
o EPS - Difficult to relate water quality problems to
source
o BLM, FS - Allotment procedures are complex
o Public works not primarily concerned with water
quality
o SCS, F&G - Monitor but have no intervention
mechanisms other than education
o There is no plan approval
o Interventions are not rapid and simple
o Interventions do not adequately consider social
and economic factors
GC
O
o
s
a.
EDUCATION
o EPA, SCS, F&G, CES offer technical assistance
o BLM, SCS, FS, F£G, Div. Cons. Dist.,
Cons. Dist., CES - Public awareness
t/i (
*
cc
Z
o
3
s BLM, FS, Irrig. Dists. do public work on their
lands
> Cons. Dists. provide equipment to cooperators for
public works
3
& J
233
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
AGRICULTURE - IRRIC-ATIOH
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
<
8
a 3
j >
2 *•
s °
_i ^
< 5
EPA - But management practices to control to extent
possible
CoE, SCS - Indirectly set policies through water
resource developaenc
> F&G, US - Availability of water for all banaflclal
usaa
» SCS, CoE, F&G, MR - Goals are not primarily con-
cerned with quellty of receiving waters
STANDARDS
o EPS - Water quality standards
o SCS - Specification standards for erosion control
and ditch aeintenance
o EPS - Standards do not consider preventative or
source control techniques and do not adequately
consider economic factors
o SCS - Standards only apply to SCS-assisted proj-
ects, end are not primarily concerned with quality
of receiving watere
| PLANS
o CoE, U& - Comprehensive water resource plans
o EPS - Comprehensive water quality plans for wide
area* using EPA guidelines
o F&G - Site-specific plans for their lands
o Ire. Diets. - Site-specific plana for irrigation
districts
o Cons,Dlst*., SCS - Site-epeciflc plans for
cooper*tor*
o Except EPS, plane *r» not primarily concerned with
^quality of receiving waters
o No site-specific plane for.some Irrigated land*
o Most plana do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
regulatory
o MR - Water use and place of use permits
o EPS - Discharge permits
o SCS, EPS, F&G - Monitor erosion and stream condi-
tions statewide
o EPS - Monitor* and enforces water quality on major
streams
FINANCIAL
o SCS, RC&D and 566 grants for designated projects
o ASCS, AG, Irr. Dlst - Limited financial assistance
for irrigation, operators
o EPS - Difficult to relete water quality problem to
' source
o Irrlg. Discs., W8 - Are not primarily concerned
with quality of receiving waters
o CoE, Irrlg. Dlsts., Cone. Dlsts. - Public works not
primarily concerned with water quality
o There is no plan approval
o SCS, F&G - Monitor but have no intervention mecha-
nisms other than education
c
s
cc
CL
1 EDUCATION j
o EPA, SCS, ?&G, vm, CES - Technical aaslatance
o SCS, F4G, Div. Cons. Diets., UK, Cons. Dlst., CES -
Public awareneea
o Intervention* era not rapid end simple
o Interventions do not adequately consider social and
economic factors
PUBLIC WORKS
o CoE, Irr. Dlst. - Public works
Cons. Dlsts. - Provide equipment to cooperators for
public works
234
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
CONSTRUCTION - BUILDIMG
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
o EPA - Best management practices to control to ex-
tent possible
o Counties, Cities set policy through adoption of com
prehenslve plans
° Counties, Cities - Goals are not primarily con-
cerned with quality of receiving waters
STANDARDS
o EPS - Water quality standards
o Counties, Cities - Subdivision and grading standard
o EPS standards relate to discharge and water quality
while cities, counties relate to land use
o Cities, counries set own standards - no statewide
consistency
o EPS - Standards do not consider preventative or
source control techniques
PLANS
o SPA, BLM, CoE, FS, Era, Counties, Cities - Com-
prehensive plans cover most of the area or the
state
o Cona. Dists. - Assist In preparation of site-
specific plans for cooperstors
o EPA, BLM, CoE, FS, Counties, Cities — Flans are not
primarily concerned with quality of receiving
waters
o Most plans do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
o No site-specific plans for much of the building
construction activity
REGULATORY
o Forestry, FS - Land use permits
o CoE - Discharge permits
o Counties, Cities - Subdivision approvals and build-
ing and grading permits
o Counties, Cities, Forestry - Plan approval
o Forestry, FS, CoE, Counties, Cities - Monitor and
enforce permit compliance
o EPS - Subdivision approval
o SCS, F&G - Monitor erosion statewide
FINANCIAL
o SCS - Grants under RC&D
o Counties. Cities - Interventions are not primarily
concerned with quality of receiving waters
o Forestry, FS - Land use permits without standards
o Interventions are not rapid and simple
o Counties, Cities - Do not consider preventative or
source control techniques
o Counties, Cities - Public works not primarily con-
cerned with water quality
o EPS - Difficult to relate water quality problems
EDUCATION
EPA, SCS - Technical assistance
SCS, Cons. Dists., CES - Public awareness
o SCS, F&G - Monitor but have no Intervention
mechanisms other then education
o Intervention* do not adequately consider social
and economic factors
0
S?
ce
§
o
Counties, Cities - Public works within their juris-
dictions
mi
1
235
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR MHsnmrTTnM - nmns
OBSERVATIONS '
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
3 EPA - Beat management practice to control co extent
possible
9 BLM, PS - Multiple land use consistent with environ-
mental concerns and public welfare
o FHWA, Highways - Construct roads consistent with
good engineering design practices
o Only EPA concsrned with water quality
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
STANDARDS
o FHWA, Highways - Specification standards on high-
way design and construction
o EPS - Standards for subdivision approval
o EPS - Hater quality standards
o FHWA, Highways - Standards are not primarily con-
cerned with quality of receiving waters
o FHWA, Highways - Standards deal only with road
right-of-way
o EPS - Standards do not adequately consider economic
factors
o EPS - Standards do not consider preventative or
source control techniques
PLANS
o BLM, FS, Highways - Statewide comprehensive planning
o Counties, Cities - Comprehensive planning Including
road locations
o Highways, Counties. Cities - Site-specific plans
for new roeds and improvements
o BLM, FS, Highways, Counties, Cities - Plana are not
primarily concerned with quality of receiving
waters
o Most plans do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
REGULATORY
o BLM, FS, Forestry, Highways - Land use permits
o CoE - Discharge permits
o Counties, Cities — Street and road ordinances
o EPS - Subdivision approval
o Highways - Plan approval for highway encroachments
o SCS, F&G - Monitor erosion statewide
o BLM, CoE, FS, Highways, Forestry, Counties, Cities
Monitor and enforce permit compliance
5
i i
FINANCIAL
o FHWA, Highways - Construction grants
o Interventions are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving waters
o Runoff concerns limited to right-of-way
o SCS, F&G - Monitor but have no Intervention mecha-
nisms other than education
o Public works not primarily concerned with weter
quality
o Interventions are not rapid and simple
o Interventions do not adequately consider social
X
o
o
X
a.
EDUCATION
o EPA, SCS, FS, Highways - Provide technical assis-
tance
o SCS, Highways, Cons. Dlsts., CES - Public awareness
PUBLIC WORKS
o SCS, CoE, Highways, Counties, Cities - Public
works
236
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
RECREATION - TRAILS
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
o EPA - Best management practices to control to the
extent possible
o BLM, FS - Multiple use consistent with environ-
mental concerns and public welfare
o Forestry - Management and protection of state
Forestry-administered lands
o No goals on non-federal lands (except state Forestry
who regulates only a snail percentage)
o BLM, FS - Goals are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving water
STANDARDS
o No specification standards relating to construction
or maintenance of trails or the operation of ORV's
o EPS - Water quality standards
o EPS - Standards do not consider preventative or
source control techniques, and do not adequately
consider economic factors
o Except for EPS, no standards exist
PLANS
o BLM, FS - Multiple land use plans for wide areas
o SCS - Site-specific plans for RC&D and 566 projects
o Counties - Comprehensive plans include recreation
trails in some counties
o BLM, FS, SCS, Counties - Plans are not primarily
concerned with quality of receiving waters
o Most plans do not consider preventative or source
control technique
o No site-specific plans for some recreation trails
REGULATORY
o BLM, FS - Land use permits
o Forestry - Land use permits for development; use
regulation for fire control
o BLM - Plan approval
o FSG - Monitors stream conditions
o BLM, FS, Forestry - Monitor and enforce permit com-
pliance
FINANCIAL
o SCS - Limited grants under RC&D and PL 566
Except EPS
0 Difficult to relate water quality problems to
source
o Interventions are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving waters
o BLM and FS do not exercise control on ORV's, except
for organized ORV events
o F&G - Monitors but has no intervention mechanisms
other than education
o Public works not primarily concerned with weter
<
c
8
cc
a.
EDUCATION
o BLM, FS, SCS, F&G, Forestry - Offer technical
assistance
o BLM, FS F&G, Forestry, Cons. Dists., CES - Public
awareness
quality
o Interventions are not rapid and simple
o Interventions do not adequetely consider preventa-
tive or source control techniques
o Interventions do not edequately consider social
and economic factors
10
a
a BLM, FS, SCS, Counties, Cities, NPS, State Parks -
Public works
t
u
3
1
237
-------
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
EPA - Bast management practlcas Co control to
extent possible
CoE - Maintain navigable likters, flood control,
water resource development
F&G, WR - Availability of watar for all banaflclal
uaaa
F&G - Protact wlldllf« habitat
> Forestry, FS - Watarahad management
3 CoE, TO, Forestry, FS - Goals are not primarily con-
cerned with quality of receiving waters
S
ec
<
o
5
S
3 CoE, Highways - Specification* on stream operations
and modifications
o EPS - Water quality standard*
o WR - Channal maintenance and dan construction spec-
ifications
o EPS - Standards do not consider preventative or
source control techniques, and do not adequately
consider economic factora
o CoE, Highways, WR - Relate to erosion, but not to
quality of receiving waters
PLANS
o CoE - Comprehensive water resource plans
o EPS - Comprehensive water quality plans for wide
areas using EPA guidelines
o CoE, Irr. Slats., SCS, Counties, Cities - Site-
specific plans
o Except EPS - Plan* are not primarily concerned
with quality of receiving waters
o Most plan* do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
REGULATORY
o 8LM, FS, Forestry - Permits for land operations
o CoE, WR, F&G - Permits for stream operations
o F&G, WR - Plan approval
o SCS - Monitors erosion statewide
o BUI, CoE, FS, EPS, F&G, WR, Forestry - Monitor and
enforce permit compliance
o EPS - Monitors and enforces watar quality and major
streams
iMS
FINANCIAL |
o ASCS — Liilttd 30-50X grants for pTlvatt ptrtlts
o Except EPS, F&G - Interventions are not primarily
concerned with quality of receiving waters
o F&G - Dredging permits without standards
o F&G doesn't use habitat protection authority
o SCS - Monitors but has no intervention mechanisms
other than education
o EPS - Difficult to relate water quality problem*
to source
o Public works not primarily concerned with water
PROGRA
EDUCATION
o SCS, EPA, CoE - Technical assistance
o SCS, F&G, Cons. Mats., CES - Public awareness
o Interventions do not adequately consider preventa-
tive or source control techniques
o Intervention* do not adequately conalder social and
economic factors
PUBLIC WORKS
o CoE, Counties, Cities, Irr. Dists. - Public works
238
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
URBANIZATION
a uJ
9 C
8
o EPA - But management practices to control to the
extent possible
o Cities, Counties - Set policy through adoption of
comprehensive plans
OBSERVATIONS
o EPS - Watar quality standard*
o Foraatry - Standards for development In foraat
araas undar thair Juriedlction
CoE - Flood plain studlas, flood control planning
Citlaa, Countlas - Master plana, araa development
plana
EPS - Comprehensive watar quality plana for vide
araaa using EPA guidelines
UK - Comprehensive water raaourca plana
Con*. Dista., SCS - Site-specific plana for
cooperatora
F4G - Penults for wildlife habitat and flood control!
dredging 1
o Foraatry - Paralts for land uaa
jo UR - Uatar uaa and place of uaa permits
|o EPS, CoE - Discharge permits for cltlea, counties
o EPS, Citlaa, Counties - Subdivision approvals
lo CoE, EPS, Countlaa - Monitor and enforce permit
coapliance
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
No statewide consistency with raapact to water
quality pollclaa of cities/counties
Citlaa, Countlaa - Coals not primarily concerned
with quality of receiving waters
EPS, Foraatry - Standarda do not adequately conalder
economic factora
EPS - Standarda do not conalder preventative or
aource control tachnlquaa
Foraatry - Standarda ara not priaarily concerned
with quality of receiving watara
o Except EPS - Plana ara not priaarily concerned with
quality of receiving watara
o Moat plana do not consldsr preventative or aource
control tachnlquaa
>•
ff
O
3
a
UI
tc
j
<
o Countlaa - Incentives In tha form oY graanbalt laws
to maintain open specs
o EPA, SCS - Limited financial assistance undar PC
566, 208 programs
[o EPA, SCS, CoE, F4G, Highways, Foraatry, Cons. Discs
stats landa, CES - Technical assistance and public
awareneas
Except EPS, FtC - Interventions are not priaarily
concerned vith quality of receiving watara
EPS - Difficult to relate water quality problaaa to
aource
EPS, F6G - Permit authority exists without stan-
dards; authorities ars not uaed
Interventions ara iy>t enough with raapact to
increased velocities and quantity
Authorities are vary open-ended
o Public worka not priaarily concerned with water
quality
o Intervention# are not rapid and alapla
o Interventions do not adequately consider preventa-
tive or source control techniques
Intarvantlona do not adequately conalder aoclal
and economic factora
o CoE, Countlas, Cities - Public worka
I
239
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
FORESTRY
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
o EPA - But management practical to control to ex-
tant possible
o PS, BLM - Multiple uaa comlatent with environ-
mental concern* and public welfare
o Forestry - Propar management of atata foraat
raaourcaa
o FS, BLM - Coal* ara not prlaarlly concerned with
quality of receiving watara
STANDARDS
o BLM, FS, Foraatry - Sat specification atandarda
for foraatry oparatlona
a EPS - Watar quality aeandarda
o BLM, FS, Foraatry - Standarda ara not prlaarlly
concerned with quality of receiving waters
o EPS - Standards do not conalder preventative or
source control technlquea and do not adequately
consider economic factors
o No source control technique stendarda for existing
problems
PLANS
o BLM, FS, Foraatry - Slta-apaciflc plana for araaa
undar chair jurladlctlon
o BLM, FS, Foraatry, Countlaa - Coaprahenalve plana
for araaa undar.thalr jurladlctlon
o EPS - Coaprahanalva watar quality plana for wida
araaa ualng EPA guldallnaa
o BLM, FS, Forestry - Plana are not prlaarlly con-
cerned with quality of receiving wacera
PROGRAMS
REGULATORY
o BLM, FS - Land uaa parmlta
o Foraatry - Land uaa parmlta and logging plan
approval
o EPS, CoE - Dlacharga parmlta
o EPS, BLM, FS, CoE, Foraatry - Monitor and anforea
permit compliance
o F&G - Monitors atraaa condition!
o Except EPS - Interventions are not prlaarlly con-
cerned with quality of receiving watara
o Apparent overlap between Corpa permit* and other
peralta
o F&G - Monitor* but hae no Intervention aechasiaaa
other than education
o EPS - Difficult to relate water quality problasw
to source
o Public works not prlaarlly concerned with water
<
£
<
z
uT
o ASCS - Grant! for prlvata land*
o Foraatry - Fraa traa prograa
education
o EPA, SCS, FS, FSG, CIS, Foraatry - Technical aaala-
tanca on raquaat
o SCS, FS, CES, Cona. Dlats. - Public awaranaaa edu-
catlon
quality
o Interventions ara not rapid and alaple
o Intervention* do not adequately consider pre-
ventative or aource control technlquea
o Intervention* do not adequately consider aoclal
and econoalc factora
PUBLIC WORKS
o BLM, FS, Foraatry - Public worka on thalr landa
240
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
MIKING - HARD ROCK AND OPES PIT
OBSERVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
GOALS/POLICIES
/OBJECTIVES
o EPA - But management practice* to control to
extent poulble
o FS, BLM - Goal to better Control mining on land*
they admlniater
o Mo goal* for hard rock mining
o Ho goal* for non-federal land
o FS, BLM - Goal* are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving water*
STANDARDS
o EPS - Water quality «tand»rd*
o FS, BLM, Rlglnny* - Specification etandard* for opei
pit aand and gravel
o BLM, FS - No authority to aet etandard* on hard
rock mining and little authority in other areas
o EPS - Standard* do not conalder preventatives or
source control techniques, and do not adequately
conalder economic factors
o Except EPS - Standards are not primarily concerned
with quality of receiving waters
PLANS
o BLM, FS - Some *it«-* pacific plana
o BUI, FS, EPS, Countiea, WS - Soae mining actlvitee
covered by comprehensive plana and Miter plan*
o Except EPS - Plans are not primarily concerned with
quality of receiving water*
o Most plans do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
o No site-specific plana for aome mining lands
REGULATORY
o Countle*. BLM, FS - land uae pernlt* for some type*
of mining
o CoE, F4G - Son* control* on *trean operation*
o UK - Hater u*e and place of uae pernlt*
o EPS, CoE - Discharge permit*
o F&G - Monitor* stream condition*
o BLM, FS, CoE, EPS, Countle* - Monitor and enforce
permit compliance
o SCS - Monitor* eroaion (tatewlde
FINANCIAL
o EPA, FS - Demonstration grants
o Except CoE, EPS, F&G - Interventions are not pri-
marily concerned with quality of receiving waters
o Federal, atate, and local intervention authorltiea
are very limited
o No plan approvala exlat
o BLM, FS - Mining claim patent procedures are not
rapid and elmple
o No public work* program*
o Interventions do not adequately consider preventa-
tlve or source control techniques
o Interventions do not edequately consider *ocial and
economic factor*
9 SCS - Monitor* but has no Intervention mechanlsma
other than education
EPS - Difficult to relate water quality problem* to
•ource
a
g
K
A.
EDUCATION
EPA, BLM, SCS, FS, F&G, CES - Technical a**l*tancc
BLM, SCS, FS, Con*. Di«t*., CES - Public awarene**
program*
PUBLIC WORKS
None
241
-------
ACTIVITY SECTOR
TBAMSPOltTATIOH - ROADS
OMCRVATIONS
APPARENT DEFICIENCIES
"
<1
1
a 0A - lest esnsgsaent practices to control to
•stmt poeelble
o am, TS, Coimtlaa, CI tlea, Highways - Maintenance
•ad optrttloail goals
o Highway* - Soae erosion control pollclee and goal*
o Except for EPA, goala ara not prlaarlly eoncarnad
with quality o( receiving waters
8
e
o'M, forestry, Highway*, Counties, Cities - Specifi-
cation standards (or aalatenanee
o BPS - Hater quality standard*
o Except EPS - Ho staadarda exist for controlling the
water quality lapacta of axlating roads
o load adalnlaterlng agencies do not set standards for
erosion or watar quality outside the rlght-of-aay
o Except EPS - Staadarda are not prlaarlly concerned
with quality of receiving watera
o EPS - Staadarda do not conalder preventative or
source control techniques do not adequately conalder
econoalc factors
PLANS
o BUt, FS, Couatias, Citiaa, Highways - Site-specific
planing (or road maintenance
o Most plans do not consider preventative or source
control techniques
o Plane ere not prlaarlly concerned with quality of
receiving Vetera
o Alaoat no "planning" far existing roada other than
maintenance
o Ho public Input
REGULATORY
o BLM, PS - Land uaa peralta
a BUt, IS, Highways, Couatias, Citiaa - Site-epeclfic
pXso*
a PUS, BLM, PS, Highways - Monitor agisting roada
financial
!
> KUL - Grants to stata
o Intervontione are not prlaarlly concerned with qual-
ity of receiving waters
o There Is alaoat no regulatory Intervention
o Very little aoney available for anything other than
routine maintenance
o PKS, Hlghwaya - Monitor but heva no Intervention
aechsnlsas other then education
o Public worka not prlaarlly concerned with watar
quality
cc
i
EDUCATION
> EPA, BUI, SCS, VS. ra«A, PtO. OS, Highways - Tech-
nical asslstanea
i BUf, PS, Cons. Dlsts., CSS - Public awareness
o Intarventlone do not adequately conalder preventative
or source control techniques
3
ce
2
> BLM, PS, Highways, Counties, Citias - Road mainten-
ance
s
i
242
-------
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The preceeding set of charts identifies the apparent deficiencies in
existing authorities and programs as they relate to each activity sector.
In addition, there are some observations and conclusions that can be made
relative to the aggregate of existing authorities and programs.
1. There is essentially no financial assistance available for controlling
runoff and erosion at any level of government other than federal.
2. Regional and local governments have broad legal authority under which
reasonably effective regulatory programs to control runoff and erosion
may be developed. However, most do not have adequate resources nor
sufficient cause to implement such programs.
3. From the perspective of persons involved in land-disturbing activities
there are several activity sectors with a proliferation of authorities.
(Nine separate agencies have some regulatory authority over stream
modifications.) However, most authorities either are not concerned
with water quality, or are not effective or appropriate for controlling
water quality impacts of runoff and erosion.
4. It is difficult for a state to significantly alter existing federal
programs or authorities to meet specific state requirements. Through
the use of memoranda of understanding, however, it is possible to
derive maximum advantage from available programs, and to gain sub-
stantive compliance by federal agencies with state programs.
5. Not many agencies include water quality considerations in developing
their plans and programs.
6. Although many state agencies have statewide authority, few really
have an impact over more than one activity sector.
7. There are many potential sources of educational information and
technical assistance on the subject of controlling runoff and
erosion. In most instances, however, persons conducting land-
disturbing activities must request assistance.
243
-------
Alternative
Solutions
-------
The collection and analysis of data on runoff and erosion in Nevada,
and on the existing institutional structure dealing with the runoff
and erosion problem provides four components of information:
1. An identification of the non-point waste problems, with a general
classification of the contribution made by each activity sector to
runoff and erosion in Nevada.
2. A determination of control techniques which have been developed
for the control of accelerated erosion which are appropriate for
use in the State of Nevada.
3. An understanding of the capabilities of the agencies presently or
potentially involved in the control of runoff and erosion, together
with an assessment of their ability to assume an expanded role.
4. A compendium of existing authorities and programs dealing with the
control of runoff and erosion in Nevada, and an identification of
the apparent deficiencies.
This information provides the basis on which to develop possible
alternatives for controlling runoff and erosion on a statewide basis.
Several other considerations provided further direction in development
of alternative solutions. These included:
1. Three of the key assumptions on which the project is based:
o with any newly regulated entity, inertia and stress exist, in
terms of attainment of the goal of the regulation;
o due to limited administrative and other resources, implementation
must be on a priority basis, in terms of geographical area and
the particular land disturbing activity;
o The solution lies predominantly in management practices, as
opposed to capital-intensive structures.
2. Inputs from interviewed agencies and the Project Sounding Board.
o The lowest level of government which can effectively perform a
function is the best level to place that responsibility.
o There is essentially no additional state money to implement an
erosion control program.
o A combination of education, financial assistance and regulations
is required to effectively control erosion.
245
-------
3. The general knowledge and understanding of Nevada and its state
regional and local agencies. This "feel" is based on experience,
the interview process, and discussions of the project with inter-
ested groups, officials and the general public.
4. The 8 generalized ideal authority characteristics outlined in the author
ity evaluation section.
One of the most significant authority characteristics is that the total
of all authorities or programs should cover the entire state. There are
surprisingly few agencies whose authority allows this coverage. Most
state agencies have authority over only a portion of the area of the
state even though their jurisdiction is statewide. The Highway Depart-
ment, for example, is only concerned with highway rights-of-way, and
State Forestry exercises control over specific, designated forest areas.
Agencies which do cover the entire state in their particular activity
sectors include Water Resources, Environmental Protection Services,
State Lands and Fish and Game. In addition, an aggregation of cities
and counties, or of Conservation Districts provides statewide coverage.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Using the institutional evaluations and all the other information
generated to date, five alternative solutions were developed. These
alternatives provide a wide range of general approaches to solving
the accelerated erosion problems. Specific details were not developed
until after a recommended alternative was selected.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICES - STANDARDS & PERMITS
Under this alternative, the State Environmental Commission and Environ-
mental Protection Services (EPS) would establish a permit program to
control non-point sources. Specification standards for land disturbing
activities would be prepared by Environmental Protection Services with
the help of the Conservation Districts, the Soil Conservation Service,
and other appropriate agencies. Water quality monitoring and enforce-
ment would remain the responsiblity of EPS. Except for forest practices
and state highways, which are already regulated at the state level,
certain counties could be delegated the enforcement responsibility under
this alternative. Environmental Protection Services would enter into
memoranda of understanding with State Forestry, State Highways and
Fish and Game to assure cooperation in the area of erosion sensitivity and
water quality orientation of their existing programs and regulations.
Technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service and others would
be used by both the regulators and the regulated. The State Environ-
mental Commission would have the power under this alternative to hear
appeals and grant variances.
It is anticipated that the enabling legislation of the State Environ-
mental Commission would not require change for the Commission to adopt
new regulations in this area. If this is the case, no legislative
246
-------
changes would be required. The anticipated cost would be the addition
of about 3 persons to the staff of Environmental Protection Services.
ALTERNATIVE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY PROGRAMS
Under this alternative a separate program would be created for each of the
activity sectors of major concern in the control of runoff and erosion.
The activity sectors considered significant for this purpose are: agri-
culture-grazing, agriculture-irrigation, construction-buildings, construc-
tion-roads, recreation trails, stream modifications, urbanization,
forestry, mining, and transportation-roads. In developing this alternative,
examples of individual activity programs were created for two activities.
The first related to stream modifications. Under this activity program, no
stream modifications would be allowed without a permit from Water
Resources. For dredging activities, Fish and Game would be required
to issue the permit, and for forest practices the Division of Forestry
would be required to issue the permit. Specification standards would
be established by the Division of Water Resources and Fish and Game.
These standards would be reviewed by the irrigation districts, the
counties, improvement districts, and other interested parties and would
be approved by Environmental Protection Services, and where appropriate,
State Forestry. If the irrigation districts adopt state standards, no
permits would be required for stream modifications. Variances could be
issued by the Division of Water Resources with the consent of Environmental
Protection Services, Fish and Game, and where appropriate, State Forestry.
This particular activity program would require legislative changes,
primarily NR.S 533. Estimated additional cost would be one staff
person with Water Resources.
A second individual activity program was developed for irrigated agriculture.
Under this plan adjustments would be made in the state water law and the
state environmental commission law to include new water quality consider-
ations. The Division of Water Resources, with Environmental Protection
Services, would establish pollution source control regulations in
conjunction with all new water rights. For existing water rights two
types of incentives would be established. The first would provide a
conservation incentive by eliminating the acreage limitation and allowing
water saved through conservation and good farming practices to be used
on new lands or sold as excess by the water right owner. The second
would remove the present disincentive so that a water right owner would
not use more water than necessary solely to protect his water right.
This activity program would also include specification standards adopted by
Environmental Protection Services and the State Environmental Commission.
These standards would be prepared by the Conservation Districts with
the assistance of the University of Nevada, irrigation districts, Water
Resources, the farm bureau, and others. Monitoring and enforcement under
this concept would be primarily by the Division of Water Resources, the
247
-------
irrigation districts, and Fish and Game. Also, a part of this program
could be tax incentives to irrigators who make improvements for water
conservation or who meet specification standards.
Anticipated legislation would be changes in NRS 533 and NRS 445. The
cost is estimated to be an additional 4 staff for the Division of Water
Resources, one person for the Environmental Protection Services, and an
additional cost associated with metering equipment for on-farm water uses.
ALTERNATIVE 3 - COUNTY CONSERVATION PLANS
In Alternative 3 each county would prepare a master plan which includes
a conservation plan element with water quality considerations. Planning
guidelines for the county master plans would be established by State
Lands with assistance from Environmental Protection Services and the
Soil Conservation Service. These same agencies would provide assistance
to the counties in plan preparation. The plans would be approved by
the County Planning Commission, the counties themselves and the State
Environmental Commission. Working with the counties, Environmental Pro-
tection Services, Soil Conservation Service, Conservation Districts, and
other interested parties would develop activity specification standards.
The counties would also develop ordinances and issue permits to control
water quality effects of activities which were not otherwise controlled,
such as mining or irrigated agriculture.
Monitoring of water quality would be done by Environmental Protection
Services. Enforcement of the permits would be by the counties. If
the county requested, or failed to enforce the permits, the state could
assume responsibility. The state would provide financial assistance to
the counties for developing the conservation plans.
Changes in the existing legislation would be required to amend NRS 278.
Additional costs under this alternative would include the monies provided
by the state to the counties for developing conservation plans. Also
additional manpower would be required by EPS as a result of the increasing
need for water quality monitoring.
ALTERNATIVE 4 - SITE SPECIFIC CONSERVATION PLANS
Under this alternative no land-disturbing activities would be permitted
in certain specified areas without a conservation plan which included
water quality considerations. The land disturber would be responsible
for preparation of the plan. If he requested, Conservation Districts,
the Soil Conservation Service, Environmental Protection Services, and
others, would provide assistance in the plan preparation. After review
and comment, the plan would be approved by the conservation district and
the State Conservation Commission as well as EPS. If the activity were
already covered by a permit program, such as subdivision requirements or
building permits, approval of the conservation plan would become a
prerequisite for permit issuance. Water quality in this alternative
248
-------
would be monitored by Environmental Protection Services. In some
cases the counties would monitor and enforce the program, but the
primary permit agency would be the Conservation District and Environ-
mental Protection Services jointly. Appeals on the water quality
element would be heard by the State Environmental Commission.
Legislative changes required to implement this alternative would be
amending NRS 548. Estimated costs include additional staff of approxi-
mately 3 persons to the Conservation District staff and approximately 2
persons to the staff of EPS.
ALTERNATIVE 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENTS
Under this alternative an environmental and economic impact statement
would be required for all proposed actions having significant impact on
the environment. Proposed actions would include projects of public
agencies, projects receiving financial assistance from public agencies,
and projects involving issuance of permits, entitlements, etc., from
public agencies. The primary responsibility for the environmental
impact statement would be by the involved public agency. The State
Planning Coordinator would be responsible for issuance of guidelines
and providing overall coordination.
A new NRS statute would be required which would set forth the topics
to be covered including the water quality impacts from erosion and
runoff. Costs are estimated to be one additional staff member in
the State Planning Coordinator's office as well as additional staff
in other state and local agencies involved in preparing the environmental
impact statements.
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
As the alternatives were developed, a test for alternatives was created
to insure that all met the general criteria established by the study
as well as other factors. The test included:
1. The alternative must satisfy the 8 generalized authority
characteristics discussed in the Authority Evaluation section.
2 The alternative should create no new agencies, and give any
new programs or authorities to existing agencies consistent
with the agency evaluation.
3. The alternative should satisfy EPA's requirement to develop
effective controls for non-point pollution sources in Nevada.
4. The alternative should be politically acceptable within Nevada.
5. The alternative should satisfy the major apparent deficiencies
which were determined in the Authority Evaluation. (Many of
249
-------
the deficiencies are minor in^^^te^ative0^1 developed.)
further as details of the recommended alternatxve
The five alternatives were P*eS****d t^ehprojectCSo!ndingtlSoardrLide
at the meeting held on May 14, ^d eaS of the five
constructive suggestions, ,and ^ tive i provided too much
proposed alternatives. They felt that Alt consistently
control « the stete level. The Sounding
indicated that the lowest Possible level o J appeared to be
best location for a program of this type, axs , ^ - ,
some opposition to a permit program, in favor of the concept of plan
approval.
Alternative 2, the individual activity plans, was rejected
the complexity of establishing a new set of activity controls and the
required legislative changes for each of 10 separa e ac .
is no simple way to insure coordination so that each activity is regulated
both fairly and equitably. Further, there is a reluctance to make
changes in the existing water law.
Alternative 5, requiring economic and environmental impact statements,
was felt to be too cumbersome and involved to be a practical alternative.
Environmental impact statmeents are expensive and time consuming to pre-
pare. Once prepared, it is very difficult to determine the appropriate
course of action. That is, what do you do with them? How do you
translate the impact statement into some type of a control mechanism to
protect from non-point source pollution problems?
A combination of Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 was felt to be the
preferred approach. This would allow the counties to retain control
and still provide the local expertise of the Conservation Districts tor
specific locations and plan preparation.
The reactions and thoughts of the Sounding Board were utilized to develop
the recommended alternative which has previously been discussed in the
section of the report entitled "Recommendations." Details associated
with this reconnended alternative will be developed based on discussions
with impacted groups, Individuals, state agencies, conservation districts,
and others. At the present time, the recommended alternative is being
discussed with as many groups and affected agencies as possible in all
areas of the state.
250
-------
Appendix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AG - Nevada State Department of Agriculture
ASCS - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
AUM - Animal Unit Months
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
CD - Conservation District
CES - Cooperative Extension Service
CE - Corps of Engineers
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
EPS - Environmental Protection Services
F & G - Nevada Department of Fish & Game
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
FORESTRY - Nevada Division of Forestry
FS - United States Forest Service
HIGHWAYS - Nevada Highway Department
JTU - Jackson Turbidity Unit
NPS - National Park Service
pH - Measure of acidity and alkalinity
PO^ - Phosphates
rC&D - Resource Conservation & Development
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
SCS - Soil Conservation Service
TRPA - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
WR - Nevada Division of Water Resources
251
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carson River Basin. Council of Governments, "Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan for the Carson and Walker River Basins," 1975.
CH^M-Hill, Inc., "Agricultural Return Flow Management in the Sulphur
Creek Drainage Area," 1974 draft.
Economic Research Service, Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service,
University of Nevada, "Water and Related Land Resources, Central
Lahontan Basin, Nevada-California," 1975.
Environmental Protection Section: State of Nevada, "Nevada Water
Quality Inventory Report," 1975.
State of Nevada, Division of Water Resources & University of Nevada,
"Water for Nevada, Forecasts for the Future - Agriculture", 1974
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Water Resources Council,
"Watershed Management, Great Basin Region Comprehensive Framework
Study," 1971.
State of Nevada, Division of Water Resources, State Engineer's Office
"Alternatives Plans for Water Resource Use," 6 volumes, 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methods and Practices for
Controlling Water Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources," 1973
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes, Procedures and
Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from Old Construction Activity
1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes, Procedures and
Methods to Control Pollution from Mining Activities," 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Processes, Procedures and
Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from Silvicultural Activities,
1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methods for Identifying and
Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution,"
1973.
University of Nevada, "Placer Mining in Nevada," 1936.
U.S. Department of Interior, "Westwide Study Report on Critical Water
Problems Facing the Eleven Western States," 1975.
National Commission on Water Quality, "Yellowstone River Basin
Regional Impact Assessment," 1976.
252
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Interim Report on Loading Functions
for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources," 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Comparative Costs of Erosion and
Sediment Control, Construction Activities," 1975.
Dean, K.C., Havens, R., Glantz, M.W., "Methods and Costs for Stabilizing
Fine-Sized Mineral Wastes," U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Report Z/7896, 1975.
National Commission on Water Quality, "Cost and Effectiveness of
Source Pollution Control Options for Irrigated Agriculture," 1975.
National Commission on Water Quality, "Study and Assessment of the
Capabilities and Cost of Technology for Control of Pollutant Discharges
from Urban Runoff."
"United States Government Manual," 1975/1976, Revised May 1, 1975.
Nevada Revised Statutes.
State of Nevada, Division of Water Resources, "Hydrologic Atlas," 1972.
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, "Factors Affecting Sediment
Yield and Measures for the Reduction of Erosion and Sediment Yield," 1968.
Midwest Research Institute, "Cost and Effectiveness of Control of
Pollution from Selected Non-Point Sources," National Commission on Water
Quality, Washington, D.C., 1975.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, "Grading Ordinance No. 5," 1972.
"Approaches to Urban and Rural Erosion and Sediment Control, Administrative
and Legislative Actions to Extend State Programs," Mary M. Garner, 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Planning and
Standards, Washington, D.C., "Report on State Sediment Control Institutes
Program," 1975.
State of Idaho, Division of Environment, Department of Health and Welfare,
"Survey of Nonpoint Source Pollution Programs," 1975.
ASCE, "The Concept Institution in Water Management Usage," Norman Wingert,
1973.
State of Washington, Council on Environmental Policy, "SEPA Guidelines,"
1975.
Regional Environmental Management, "An Analysis of Institutional Forms,"
L. Edwin Coate, 1975.
253
-------
National Association of Conservation Districts, "Suggested Guidelines
and Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Programs," 1972.
National Association of Counties Research Foundation, "Community Action
Guidebook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control," 1970.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Standards
and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing
Areas," 1975.
State of Idaho, "The Executive Branch Reorganization Staff of Idaho State
Government," 1971.
254
~ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976- 6 26-91d/
------- |