Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Produced by:
Prepared By:
Table of Contents
Sections
Page
Preface
Acknowledgements
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 RAPPS QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE ..................................................................... 2
3.0 RUSLE APPROACH................................................................................................ 9
4.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES...................................................................................... 11
5.0 EFFICIENCY RATINGS......................................................................................... 15
6.0 USING THE RAPPS PROCESS ............................................................................ 17
6.1 RUSLE2 PROCESS....................................................................................... 17
6.2 DECISION TREE PROCESS ......................................................................... 17
6.2.1 DEFINE THE SLOPE OF THE AREA TO BE DISTURBED............... 18
6.2.2 DETERMINE SITE AVERAGE RAINFALL EROSIVITY..................... 24
6.2.3 DETERMINE SOIL TYPE OF AREA TO BE DISTURBED................. 24
6.2.4 SELECTION OF RAPPS USING DECISION TREES ......................... 29
6.2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL RAPPS.................................................................. 30
6.2.6 OPERATIONAL RAPPS..................................................................... 31
6.2.7 SPECIALTY RAPPS........................................................................... 32
7.0 FINAL STABILIZATION ........................................................................................ 33
8.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 34
List of Attachments
Attachment
Page
AT-1
List of Appendixes
Appendix
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
Page
EROSIVITY (R-VALUE) TABLES ............................................ A-1
RAPPS DECISION TREES ...................................................... B-1
EXAMPLES OF RAPPS .......................................................... C-1
EXAMPLES OF SPECIALTY RAPPS...................................... D-1
List of Figures
Figure
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Page
R-value vs. Slope for various K values (A = 5 tons/acre/yr) ....... 13
Soil Loss (A) vs. Erosivity factor (R-value) for 1% Slope............ 14
Soil Loss (A) vs. Erosivity factor (R-value) for 3% Slope............ 14
Soil Loss (A) vs. Erosivity factor (R-value) for 5% Slope............ 15
Use of Pre-construction Slope for Construction Sites................ 19
Soil Textural Triangle ..................................................................... 26
Soil Texture Decision Chart........................................................... 27
Field Tests to Evaluate Soil Texture ............................................. 28
Example of RAPPS Decision Tree ................................................ 29
ii
PREFACE
Congress determined that it was appropriate to provide a limited exemption from stormwater
permitting requirements for oil and natural gas exploration and production activities due to their
unique nature (Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402(l)(2)). This exemption applies only in those
specific situations where the stormwater runoff does not result in a reportable quantity discharge
to waters under the jurisdiction of the CWA or contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard. Thus, if the stormwater runoff from oil or natural gas production activities contacts
CWA jurisdictional waters and is contaminated with materials such as oil, grease or hazardous
substances, or contains sediment that violates applicable water quality standards, the operator
is not exempt from the regulations under the CWA and must still obtain permit coverage from
EPA or from the appropriate state permitting authority under the NPDES program.
To further clarify its intent, Congress included statutory modifications in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to clarify section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, defining the term oil and
gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities to
mean all field activities or transmission facilities, including activities necessary to prepare a site
for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such field
activities or operations may be considered to be construction activities. This provision clarified
that stormwater discharges from E&P construction activities would be subject to the same
criteria as other E&P operations and therefore, would not be subject to other stormwater
construction regulations.
Consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a final rule in 2006 that exempts stormwater discharges of sediment from construction
activities at oil and gas exploration and production operations from the requirement to obtain a
NPDES stormwater permit as long as stormwater runoff to waters under the jurisdiction of the
CWA are not contaminated with oil, grease, or hazardous substances.
With this exemption, EPA specifically encouraged the oil and natural gas industry to develop
and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharges of pollutants,
including sediment, in stormwater both during and after construction activities. In an effort to
meet the expectations of EPA under this rulemaking -- to incorporate successful voluntary
stormwater management practices into our day-to-day operations the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), industry
associations, and company representatives
(referred to as the Stormwater Technical
Workgroup (SWTW)), built upon the 2004 guidance document entitled Reasonable and Prudent
Practices for Stabilization (RAPPS) of Oil and Natural Gas Construction Sites. Through field
validation of the RAPPS, gap identification, and concerted program improvements, the SWTW
developed a voluntary guidance document that if implemented correctly will serve as a readily
applicable tool for operators to use in order to efficiently and effectively maximize control of
stormwater discharges at oil and natural gas exploration and production activities throughout the
contiguous U.S.
The SWTW spent over two years developing a guidance document to aid oil and gas operators
in selecting efficient, reasonable and prudent operating practices to control erosion and
sedimentation associated with storm water runoff from oil and natural gas construction activities.
The SWTW will continue to work to make the application of this valuable and robust information
the standard to achieve in industry operations.
Many thanks for the incredible contributions of several SWTW participants who saw this effort
through to the end.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Stormwater Technical Workgroup (SWTW) would like to thank Terracon
Consultants, Inc. for conducting the field validation and revising and improving the
original RAPPS guidance document. The SWTW would also like to thank the three
storm water experts, Dr. Daniel Yoder, a professor at The University of Tennessee, Dr.
Dave Wachal, a senior consultant with ESRI and David T. Lightle, a conservation
agronomist with the United State Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, who gave many valuable
suggestions and reviewed and greatly improved this revised guidance document.
iv
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide a quick reference guide (Attachment 1) to
select efficient, reasonable and prudent operating practices for use by operators in the
oil and gas industry to control erosion and sedimentation associated with storm water
runoff from oil and gas construction sites. These construction site areas are disturbed
by clearing, grading, and excavating activities related to site preparation associated with
oil and gas exploration, production, processing, treatment, and transmission activities.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are generally presented as a broad menu of
erosion control alternatives, sometimes with specific limitations as to their use, but
rarely with specific direction as to which are best adapted to specific situations. Ideally,
all operators would be able to use United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service (USDA-ARS) Version 2.0 of Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE2) erosion control computer model, or some similar tool, allowing them to pick
out the BMPs that are economical and provide optimum protection. The problem is that
even RUSLE2 is not simple enough to use without substantial training and
implementation effort. The guidance document provides a tool to help the operator
make good planning decisions based on easily-available information and minimal effort.
It does not provide a detailed examination of the RUSLE2 computer model, but will aid
in the selection of practices that will be effective for a specific situation which we will call
Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization (RAPPS).
This guidance document is divided into a quick reference guide for ease of use by field
personnel followed by supporting technical information. The quick reference guide
located in the following section is provided as a six-step tool to evaluate slope, erosivity
and erodibility and subsequently use decision tree flow charts to select efficient RAPPS
to meet management goals at a given construction site. Attachment 1 consists of a
complete RAPPS quick reference guide including the decision trees, soil texture
decision chart and photographs that may be detached from the document, copied and
laminated for use in the field. The technical information supporting the quick reference
guide including the RUSLE approach, sensitivity analyses, efficiency ratings, the
decision tree process, final stabilization and references are documented in
Sections 3.0 7.0.
This document anticipates that the user will exercise good judgment in evaluating site
conditions and deciding which RAPPS or combination of RAPPS is to be used at a
specific site. Subsequent to the installation of the suggested RAPPS, the RAPPS
should be inspected, evaluated and modified to reduce soil loss from the site (i.e.
sediment deposited off-site), if necessary. If the RAPPS selected are not effective at
preventing discharges of potentially undesirable quantities of sediment, operators
should use good engineering judgment, and select different or additional RAPPS. Sitespecific conditions should be considered in conjunction with federal, state or local
regulatory requirements to ensure that RAPPS are implemented, if necessary, to
achieve regulatory compliance.
Step 1)
Slope =
Rise
Run
Z
X
x100 =
x100
Percent Slope is not equivalent to slope angle. The following formula can be used to
convert the slope in degrees to the slope in percent.
Percent Slope = Tan * 100
The user may choose to evaluate the slope by their own method. However, several
methods to determine the rise (Z), run (X) and slope angle () are described in
Section 6.2.1 (Page 18).
Step 2)
The average annual erosivity factor (R-value) is an index of rainfall erosivity for a
geographic location. The R-value is a rainfall and runoff factor that represents the effect
of both rainfall intensity and rainfall amount.
The R-values for each county in the United States have been included in Appendix A.
The county-specific R-values listed in Appendix A are to be used to select your
construction sites R-value. In the example below, the R-value for Harding County in
New Mexico is 69.94.
State Name
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
Step 3)
County
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
R Factor US
69.94
99.81
87.71
110.20
A) Use existing soil surveys located at your local USDA/ Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) office
OR
B) Look-up the soil type from the following online Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
database or the NRCS database links:
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
OR
C) Use the Soil Texture Decision Chart:
Use the Soil Texture Decision Chart in Attachment 1 and follow the steps to
determine the predominate soil type to be disturbed at your site (i.e. clay, sand, or
silt/loam).
Step 4)
Step 5)
Select the appropriate path of the decision tree based on soil type to
evaluate the efficiency of RAPPS.
Each decision tree path includes a list of RAPPS (abbreviated) and its corresponding
efficiency rating listed in order of highest to lowest efficiency. The efficiency rating (ER)
represents the proportion of sediment kept on-site by the erosion control practice that
would have otherwise been transported off-site. For example, an ER of 0.80 represents
the percentage (80%) of sediment that would have been transported off-site had the
erosion control practice not been in place.
Example Decision Tree-5 illustrates RAPPS nomenclature (CS 0.68) (2CS 0.72), which
indicates that a compost sock exhibits an efficiency of 68%, and a combination of two
3
compost socks exhibit an efficiency of 72%. Example Decision Tree-5 also illustrates
RAPPS nomenclature (SF 0.56) (SF/SBB 0.72) which indicates that a silt fence exhibits
an efficiency of 56% and a combination of a silt fence with a straw bale barrier exhibits
an efficiency of 72%. A detailed discussion of efficiency ratings is provided in Section
5.0 (Page 15).
Example of RAPPS Decision Tree
Step 6)
Compare each RAPPS ER for the appropriate soil type path to management goals to
evaluate if erosion control methods removed a sufficient amount of sediment for a
particular site. The site management goal represents a measure of the acceptable
amount of sediment removed by the erosion control method under site-specific
conditions. A management goal of 0.60 indicates that an erosion control method must
reduce the sediment yield by 60% compared to the sediment yield that would occur if no
erosion control methods were in place. Sediment yield is the amount of eroded soil. In
north central Texas, a management goal of 0.70 has been suggested as a minimum
4
guideline to achieve adequate design of erosion and sediment control plans (NCTCOG
ISWM Manual, 2003). For example, if selection of a specific RAPPS indicated a sitespecific efficiency of 0.75 and the management goal was 0.70, then the goal has been
met, and the RAPPS should be sufficient to prevent undesirable quantities of sediment
from leaving the construction site assuming RAPPS are designed, constructed and
maintained properly. If the RAPPS efficiency does not meet the default management
goal of 70%, then additional combinations of RAPPS with corresponding efficiencies are
listed in the decision tree.
Management goals may vary depending on the sensitivity of the site. Based on the
literature, a general management goal of 0.70 is suggested for construction in nonsensitive areas. However, if the local agency suggests a region-specific management
goal, the user should utilize that goal. The county USDA NRCS office or regional council
of governments should be contacted to evaluate the region-specific management goal.
Based on soil loss modeling data, sites with silt/loam and clay soils and low (<2%)
slopes exhibit special conditions using this method and it is appropriate to lower the
management goal to 0.60 compared to a default management goal of 0.70 for the other
decision tree paths. A detailed discussion of management goal selection is provided in
Section 5.0 (Page 16).
In addition to RAPPS documented in the decision trees, other types of RAPPS including
Supplemental RAPPS, Operational RAPPS and Specialty RAPPS are discussed below.
Supplemental RAPPS
Under certain circumstances, such as steep slopes or a region with high erosivity (Rvalues), alternate or additional RAPPS should be employed to prevent discharges of
potentially undesirable quantities of sediment. In those cases, one or a combination of
two RAPPS documented in the decision trees will not provide adequate protection
above a specified slope, R-Value or combination of slope and R-value. This specific
situation is noted in the soil type decision box in the decision tree paths. The RAPPS
used for these situations are referred to as Supplemental RAPPS and are expected to
achieve the intent of the efficiency goal as a combined system of RAPPS.
Supplemental RAPPS are a combination of two or more listed RAPPS or Specialty
RAPPS and are required if a site has high risk attributes that exceed the values
prescribed in the decision trees (Appendix B Decision trees 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9). A detailed
discussion on Supplemental RAPPS is provided in Section 6.2.5 (Page 30).
In the case of a site with a steep pre-construction slope (Decision Trees 7, 8 & 9),
the user should employ Supplemental RAPPS that will:
1) reduce the amount of stormwater reaching the site by redirecting the upgradient run-on flow of stormwater around the construction site by means of a
diversion structure (i.e., a diversion dike, interceptor swale, ditches, slope
drains);
2) protect disturbed soil on the slope with a form of cover (i.e., mulch and/or
erosion control mat); and
3) protect the base of the slope with a runoff-velocity barrier (i.e., rock berm,
compost sock, brush piles, fiber rolls/logs). It should be noted that soil loss
modeling data indicate that silt fences and straw hay bales should not be
used at the bottom of steep slopes as they do not function well in high runoffvelocity conditions.
In the case of a site with a high Erosivity (R value - Decision Trees 3, 6 or 9), the
user should employ Supplemental RAPPS that will:
1) protect disturbed soil on the slope with roughening and a form of cover (i.e.,
mulch, straw, compost and/or erosion control mat); and
2) protect the base of the slope with runoff-velocity barriers (i.e., silt fence, straw
bales, fiber rolls/logs, rock berms, vegetative barrier or brush piles).
In the case of a construction site adjacent to a drainage feature or a water way, the
use of sediment basins or other sediment capturing containment structures (i.e. silt
trap, dewatering structure, filter bag) are recommended.
The above-referenced scenarios are not an exhaustive list of the site-specific situations
that could be encountered during oil and gas construction activity. It should be noted
that other combinations of RAPPS in site specific situations should be installed using
good judgment, if required to prevent undesirable quantities of sediment being
transported off the site. If these situations exist, operators may want to consider
retaining a certified professional in erosion and sediment control (CPESC) to design
RAPPS, inspect constructed RAPPS and provide periodic inspection of the site during
operations.
Operational RAPPS
Under certain circumstances including low slopes and/or low erosivity, a minimal
erosion control effort may be utilized. Operational RAPPS reflect a minimal effort of
erosion control including installation of an inexpensive sediment barrier (i.e., compost
sock, compost berm, vegetative barrier, brush pile, interceptor swale, soil berm, straw
bale barriers or silt fence) near the downgradient boundary of the construction site along
with the following practices that operators are commonly using as part of normal
operations:
Planning the site location to choose low-slope sites away from waterways;
Minimizing the footprint of the disturbed area;
Phasing/scheduling projects to minimize soil disturbance;
Timing the project during dry weather periods of the year;
Managing slopes to decrease steepness;
Maintaining the maximum amount of vegetative cover as possible;
Cutting vegetation above ground level and limiting removal of vegetation, root zones
and stumps, where possible;
6
Specialty RAPPS
During construction of oil and gas sites, an operator may encounter special
circumstances including crossing a regulated water body or construction near a
roadway that requires Specialty RAPPS to divert or reduce the velocity of surface water
flow. Specialty RAPPS near roadways are also constructed to limit the amount of
sediment leaving the site via truck traffic. Site-specific conditions should be considered
in conjunction with federal, state or local regulatory requirements to ensure that RAPPS
are implemented to achieve regulatory compliance, if necessary. Specialty RAPPS are
documented in Appendix D and include:
It should be noted that most of the RAPPS combinations were modeled with the
RAPPS located near the base of the slope and 75% down the slope.
Step 9)
Step 10)
Step 11)
Complete construction;
Step 12)
3.0
RUSLE Approach
In the preparation of this document, emphasis was placed on the selection and practical
application of RAPPS, given a set of physical parameters included in the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) soil erosion model. RUSLE was derived from
the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), and predicts the long term average annual
rate of erosion based on rainfall pattern, soil type, topography, and management
practices. The model is well validated, and its empirical equation is based on over
10,000 plot years of natural runoff data and 2,000 plot years of simulated runoff data
(Foster et al., 2003). The erosion model was created for agricultural conservation
planning, but is also applicable in non-agricultural settings including construction sites
(Yoder, 2007). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the
rainfall erosivity factor of RUSLE to evaluate the applicability of a waiver from the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II construction storm
water permit program, thereby providing additional rationale for using the RUSLE
approach. The RUSLE method uses the following computation:
A = R * K * LS * C * P
where:
A represents the potential long term average annual soil loss per unit area (commonly
expressed as tons/acre/year).
R is the rainfall-runoff erosivity factor that is a rainfall erosion index plus a factor for any
significant runoff from snowmelt. R is based on geographic location and varies from
approximately 10 to 700 in the United States.
K is the soil erodibility factor that represents the effect of soil properties on soil loss. K
is a measure of the susceptibility of soil particles to erosion by rainfall and runoff and is
primarily a function of soil type. K is defined under worst-case conditions of continuous
bare soil, and does not account for soil-altering management practices such as the
addition of organic matter.
LS is the slope length-steepness factor. Longer and steeper slopes typically result in
higher erosion. Slope length (L) is defined as the horizontal distance from the origin of
overland flow to the point where runoff becomes concentrated in a defined channel
(USDA-ARS, 2008). In earlier versions of USLE and RUSLE (Wischmeier and Smith
1978; Renard et al., 1997) the slope length stopped when deposition occurred, but
inclusion of process-based sediment transport code in later versions of RUSLE
removed that restriction, thereby allowing for modeling of deposition caused by
sediment control practices or by decreasing slope steepness. Slope steepness (S)
reflects the influence of slope gradient on erosion.
C is the cover-management factor and represents the ratio of soil loss from land under
the desired cover and management condition to the soil loss under nearly worst-case
conditions of continuous bare and loosened soil. In other words, the C factor represents
the fraction by which the current management practice reduces erosion. Cover9
management (e.g., re-seeding bare soil) reduces erosion by reducing the impact of
raindrops and runoff.
P is the supporting practice factor and represents practices (i.e. RAPPS) that reduce
soil loss by diverting runoff or reducing its transport capacity. This factor is also
expressed as a ratio of the sediment delivery with the current practice to the worst-case
situation with no special practices in place.
This document uses the RUSLE2 computer model, which was developed by the USDAARS and is a hybrid of its empirical predecessors (USLE/RUSLE) and a number of
process-based soil erosion equations. A comprehensive discussion of RUSLE2, which
includes a variation of the USLE computation and deposition, transport capacity and
sediment load equations, is provided in Foster et al. (2003) and in USDA-ARS (2008a,
2008b).
As explained in these documents, the erosion science has evolved from USLE through
RUSLE1 and RUSLE2, with one of the main results being that the independence of the
USLE factors has been diminished. For example, research has shown that the
effectiveness of surface cover is greater for situations where small gullies are likely to
form, as the residue tends to stop the small gully/rill formation. The conditions that lead
to rill formation include highly erodible soils (high K), highly disturbed soils (high C
values), and soils on steep slopes (high S value). This interdependence is also clearly
evident in the transport relationships, where the soil type controls the size of the eroded
aggregates (controlling the tendency to settle), and both soil and management
properties control the relative runoff rates, which govern transport. This means that it is
no longer possible to define a simple C factor for a practice, as it will now depend on the
specifics of the situation.
The RUSLE2 computer program used for evaluating soil loss in this document is a
version of RUSLE2 currently being developed for construction sites by the USDA-ARS
and includes additional erosion control practices commonly used in the construction
industry (Lightle, personal communication, 2008). This version of RUSLE2 for
construction sites will be available to the public in 2009.
Based on sensitivity analyses, a stream-lined approach using three variables (R, K and
S) and decision tree flow charts to select suggested RAPPS is described in Section 6.2.
It should be noted that erosion control experts recommend minimizing the
window of bare, untreated soil, and treating the source of the erosion is preferred,
rather than trapping the sediment after erosion has occurred. This is known as
source reduction and is relatively easy to achieve when compared to capturing
transportation soil off the site.
10
Slope
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
* Palouse refers to a large farming region in the Pacific Northwest and is primarily an area of very
steep, silty soils. Erosion is caused by rainfall as well as by melting snow on frozen soils.
11
The length-slope (LS) factors were determined using a table developed by the USDA
and documented in USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 703 (1997) that lists LS factors for
a unique combination of length (ft.) and steepness (%) of the slope. The algorithm used
in the table is the same as that used subsequently in RUSLE2.
Table 1- LS Values for Construction Sites (Source: USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 703)
50
0.05
0.08
0.13
0.21
0.3
0.38
0.46
0.54
0.7
0.91
1.15
1.4
1.64
2.1
2.67
3.22
4.24
5.16
5.97
75
0.05
0.08
0.14
0.25
0.36
0.47
0.58
0.69
0.91
1.2
1.54
1.87
2.21
2.86
3.67
4.44
5.89
7.2
8.37
100
0.05
0.09
0.15
0.28
0.41
0.55
0.68
0.82
1.1
1.46
1.88
2.31
2.73
3.57
4.59
5.58
7.44
9.13
10.63
150
0.05
0.09
0.17
0.33
0.5
0.68
0.86
1.05
1.43
1.92
2.51
3.09
3.68
4.85
6.3
7.7
10.35
12.75
14.89
200
0.06
0.1
0.18
0.37
0.57
0.79
1.02
1.25
1.72
2.34
3.07
3.81
4.56
6.04
7.88
9.67
13.07
16.16
18.92
250
0.06
0.1
0.19
0.4
0.64
0.89
1.16
1.43
1.99
2.72
3.6
4.48
5.37
7.16
9.38
11.55
15.67
19.42
22.78
300
0.06
0.1
0.2
0.43
0.69
0.98
1.28
1.6
2.24
3.09
4.09
5.11
6.15
8.23
10.81
13.35
18.17
22.57
26.51
400
0.06
0.11
0.22
0.48
0.8
1.14
1.51
1.9
2.7
3.75
5.01
6.3
7.6
10.24
13.53
16.77
22.95
28.6
33.67
In the initial sensitivity analyses, the importance of slope in RUSLE was evaluated by
plotting slope percent versus rainfall erosivity (R) for various soil types where tolerable
soil loss equaled 5 tons/acre/year. The critical slopes were identified by examining the
level of convergence between the trend lines.
12
y)
450
400
412
350
300
250
200
150
K=0.15 (Sand)
K=0.32 (Clay)
K=0.43 (Silt Loam)
193
144
130
100
86
61
45
50
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
40
30
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Slope (%)
As shown in Figure1, the R values that yield the target A = 5 tons/acre/yr for varying soil
types and K values including sand (K=0.15), clay (K=0.32) and silt loam (K=0.43) tend
to vary greatly at a slope of 1% and converge at a slope of approximately 3%. The R
values further converge at a slope of approximately 5%. This analysis indicates that at
sites with slopes steeper than 5%, the soil types begin to behave in a similar fashion.
The importance of the erosivity factor in RUSLE was evaluated by plotting erosivity
versus soil loss with the above-referenced soil types at slopes of 1%, 3% and 5%
(Figures 2, 3, and 4). The following graphs indicate that soil loss increases from sand to
clay to silt loam for a given rainfall erosivity (R) value for the different slopes. Figures 2,
3 and 4 indicate the significant R values for each soil type where soil loss equals 5
tons/acre/year at 1%, 3% and 5% slopes used in the decision trees, except for steeper
slopes. Steeper slopes (>5%) were also modeled to evaluate their effect on soil loss.
13
Figure 2. Soil Loss (A) vs. Erosivity factor (R-value) for 1% Slope
40
K=0.15 (Sand)
K=0.32 (Clay)
K=0.43 (Silt/Loam)
35
30
20
15
10
R=144
R=193
R=412
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Figure 3. Soil Loss (A) vs. Erosivity factor (R-value) for 3% Slope
30
K=0.15 (Sand)
K=0.32 (Clay)
K=0.43 (Silt/Loam)
25
20
Soil Loss (A)
25
15
10
R=45
R=61
R=130
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
14
Figure 4. Soil Loss (A) vs. Erosivity factor (R-value) for 5% Slope
30
K=0.15 (Sand)
K=0.32 (Clay)
K=0.43 (Silt/Loam)
25
20
15
10
R=30
R=40
R=86
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
15
Soil
Type
Erodibility
Value
R
Value
Length of
Slope (ft.)
Slope
(%)
Supporting
Practices
Sediment Yield
(A,tons/acre/yr)
Efficiency
Rating
TexasScurry
Silt Loam
0.43
145
200
Silt fence
1.9
0.67
TexasReagan
Silt Loam
0.43
120
200
Sediment
Basin
4.8
0.80
Additionally, soil loss modeling data indicated soil loss tolerance levels below
5 tons/acre/year for an efficiency rating of 0.60 with low slopes and silt/loam and clay
soils.
16
Step 5) Select the appropriate path of the decision tree based on soil type
to evaluate the efficiency of RAPPS;
Step 6) Compare ER to Management Goal
Subsequent to selection of a RAPPS or a combination of RAPPS, the following
sequential tasks should be employed until the construction site is re-vegetated or
stabilized:
Step 7)
It should be noted that most of the RAPPS combinations were modeled with the
RAPPS located near the base of the slope and 75% down the slope.
18
Slope is defined as the amount of elevation gain over a given distance (vertical rise to
horizontal run). Slope is determined by measuring the elevation change over a linear
distance. The slope percentage is calculated by dividing the elevation change by the
linear distance. For example, Figure 5 illustrates a hill with 6 feet of elevation gain over
a distance of 200 feet, which represents a 3% slope. A common engineering practice
consists of evaluating slope on increments of 100 feet for the purpose of practicality. It
should be noted that slope percent and slope angle are not the same, and a table has
been included in this section to assist in the conversion from slope angle to percent
slope.
The elevation change can be determined utilizing several methods including field
methods, trigonometric methods, the use of aerial photographs or a site-specific
topographic survey, if available. Field methods to determine elevation gain include the
use of an altimeter commonly found on GPS units, surveyors line-of-sight level, Abney
level, a clinometer (also found on a Brunton compass), a digital level, or other surveying
equipment (e.g., a total station).
The Slope Of The Area To Be Disturbed can be determined using the following equation:
Slope =
Difference in Elevation
Difference in Lateral Position
19
Rise
Run
Z
x100
X
x100 =
Percent Slope is not equivalent to slope angle. The following formula can be used to
convert the slope in degrees to the slope in percent.
Percent Slope = Tan * 100
Several methods to determine the rise (Z), run (X) and slope angle () are described
below:
A) Use the Existing Topographic Survey:
Read the plan view lateral distance X from the survey plat.
Read the change in elevation Z from the contour lines on the survey.
The slope (in percent) can be determined by using Z and X values in the slope
Z
formula
x100
X
B) Evaluate Difference in Elevation using an Altimeter with an accuracy of 1foot:
Standing on Station A, hold the altimeter firmly in your hand and read the altitude
of Station A.
Similarly, standing on Station B, hold the altimeter firmly in your hand and read
the altitude of Station B.
The change in elevation Z can be calculated by taking the difference in
altitudes of Station A and Station B.
Horizontal distance X can be scaled from an aerial photograph or a survey
map. X can also be determined by using trigonometric methods or other
acceptable methods.
The slope (in percent) can be determined by using Z and X values in the slope
Z
formula
x100
X
20
C) Use a GPS unit with elevation capabilities and a resolution of at least 1 sq. ft.:
Set the unit to UTM coordinates.
Record the coordinates (X1, Y1) and elevation (Z1) at the base of the slope you
wish to measure.
Record the elevation (Z2) and coordinates (X2, Y2) at the top of the slope you
wish to measure.
The Elevation Rise Z = Z2 Z1
The slope (in percent) can be determined by using Z and X values in the slope
Z
formula
x100
X
Use the following formula to convert the slope in degrees to the slope in percent:
Percent Slope = Tan * 100
It should be noted that this method should only be used for steep slopes.
The Tan values can be determined using the tangent table as shown below.
Tangent Table
Angle
Tangent
Angle
Tangent
Angle
Tangent
Angle
Tangent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0175
0.0349
0.0524
0.0699
0.0875
0.1051
0.1228
0.1405
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0.1944
0.2125
0.2309
0.2493
0.2679
0.2867
0.3057
0.3249
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0.3838
0.404
0.4244
0.4452
0.4663
0.4877
0.5095
0.5317
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
0.6008
0.6248
0.6493
0.6744
0.7001
0.7265
0.7535
0.7812
21
Angle
Tangent
Angle
Tangent
Angle
Tangent
Angle
Tangent
9
10
0.1584
0.1763
19
20
0.3443
0.3639
29
30
0.5543
0.5773
39
40
0.8097
0.839
F) Measure the elevation difference (Z) using a Brunton Compass or Abney Level:
Start at the lower point (Station A) and sight the uphill point (Station B) using a
Brunton compass.
Record angle M on the Brunton compass or Abney level.
Horizontal distance X can be scaled from an aerial photograph or a survey
map. X can also be determined by using trigonometric methods or other
acceptable methods.
Z = {X tan (angle M)} + Height of the instrument h
22
(i)
(ii)
The following formula can be used to convert the slope in degrees to the slope in
percent.
Percent Slope = Tan * 100
23
Based on the sensitivity analyses, slope is an important factor in soil loss, and slopes
steeper than 5 percent result in significant potential soil loss regardless of the other
factors in RUSLE. Subsequent to the determination of the construction sites slope, a
group of three decision trees are selected based on slopes representing <2%, 2-4% and
>4%. Slope values of 1%, 3% and 5% were used as parameters in RUSLE2 as an
evaluation of soil loss and preparation of the decision trees. Additionally, very steep
slopes (>7 to 25%) were modeled to evaluate soil loss and are included in the decision
trees where appropriate.
6.2.2 DETERMINE SITE AVERAGE RAINFALL EROSIVITY
The average annual erosivity factor (R-value) is an index of rainfall erosivity for a
geographic location. The R-value is a rainfall and runoff factor that represents the effect
of both rainfall intensity and rainfall amount. Soil losses from cultivated fields are directly
proportional to a rain storm parameter consisting of the total storm energy (E) times the
maximum 30-minute intensity (I30) (Wischmeier, 1959; Wischmeier and Smith, 1958).
The average annual total of the storm EI values for a particular geographic area is the
rainfall erosion index (R) for that geographic location. R-values are available for each
county in the United States and included in the RUSLE2 computer program database.
The R-values for each county in the United States have been included in Appendix A.
The county-specific R-values listed in Appendix A are to be used to select your
construction sites R-value and appropriate decision tree. In the example below, the Rvalue for Harding County in New Mexico is 69.94.
State Name
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
County
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
Luna
R Factor US
69.94
99.81
87.71
110.20
55.10
the general textural class. However, if the well pad construction involves removing
several feet of soil, then the topsoil or subsoil horizon that will have the most area of
exposure subsequent to the construction activities should be evaluated.
Soil texture represents the relative proportion of silt-, sand-, and clay-sized particles in a
soil. This document uses the USDA soil texture classification system, and the USDA soil
textural triangle is shown in Figure 6. The mineral particles in the soil are divided into
the following size classes: gravel (greater than 2mm), sand (0.05 - 2mm), silt (0.002 0.05mm) and clay (smaller than 0.002 mm). The textural triangle specifies 12 different
textural classes of soil based on particle-size distribution. The textural class may be
determined by evaluating the percentages of any two particle size groupings. Figure 6
has been color coded to illustrate the three general soil textural classifications.
The texture of a soil and the associated K factor for a given site may be determined or
estimated using several different methods. The K factors for most cropland soils and
some rangelands and forestlands may be obtained from USDA-NRCS soil surveys,
available at most county NRCS offices. K factors are also included in the Soil Survey
Geographic (SSURGO) database (http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/) and the Web Soil
Survey database (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). These databases allow the
user to find their proposed construction site on aerial photographs and evaluate the soil
series and associated K factor.
A field-method approach may also be used to evaluate the texture of a soil and the
associated K factor. This document simplifies the determination of texture and groups
the 12 textural classes into three general groups including sand, clay and silt/loam,
which are designated by different color codes in the textural triangle (Figure 6).
Percentages of clay, silt and sand are also included on Figure 6 for the 12 textural
classes grouped into the three general textural classifications.
The field-method approach to evaluate soil texture is described in the Soil Texture
Decision Chart illustrated in Figure 7. This method will help users classify the soil at
their site into one of three general soil textural classes. It should be noted that silt has
been grouped with the loams, and its occurrence is rare in nature compared to the other
textural classes (Ponte, 2003). The RAPPS decision trees only require the user to
determine if the soil is sand, clay or silt/loam. This field method approach to evaluate
general soil texture is illustrated with photographs in Figure 8.
25
26
27
28
29
The RAPPS listed in the decision trees represent the majority of the options in the
RUSLE2 computer program for construction sites. A few erosion control methods in
RUSLE2 have several variations, and this guidance document typically evaluates the
most cost-effective and prevalent erosion control method currently available. For
example, three variations of erosion control blankets including rolled material, rolled
material with quick decay and rolled material with single net straw may be evaluated
with RUSLE2 model; however, the generic erosion control blanket was used to model
erosion control blankets because of its common use in the construction industry.
Each decision tree path includes a list of RAPPS (abbreviated) and its corresponding
efficiency rating listed in order of highest to lowest efficiency. If the RAPPS efficiency
does not meet the default management goal, then additional combinations of RAPPS
with corresponding efficiencies are listed in the decision tree.
Figure 9 is an example Decision Tree that illustrates RAPPS nomenclature (CS 0.68)
(2CS 0.72), which indicates that a compost sock exhibits an efficiency of 68%, and a
combination of two compost socks exhibit an efficiency of 72%. Figure 9 also illustrates
RAPPS nomenclature (SF 0.56) (SF/SBB 0.72) which indicates that a silt fence exhibits
an efficiency of 56% and a combination of a silt fence with a straw bale barrier exhibits
an efficiency of 72%. If a combination of specific RAPPS did not meet a management
goal of 70%, then the RAPPS combination was not listed in the decision trees. The
combinations of RAPPS that were selected are not an exhaustive list of RAPPS
combinations, but represent a number of RAPPS that are efficient, economical,
commonly used and/or relatively easy to install that meet the default management goal
of at least 70%. It should be noted that most of the RAPPS combinations were modeled
with the RAPPS located near the base of the slope and 75% down the slope.
6.2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL RAPPS
Under certain circumstances, such as steep slopes or a region with high erosivity (Rvalues), alternate or additional RAPPS should be employed to prevent discharges of
potentially undesirable quantities of sediment. In those cases, one or a combination of
two RAPPS documented in the decision trees will not provide adequate protection
above a specified slope, R-Value or combination of slope and R-value. This specific
situation is noted in the soil type decision box in the decision tree paths. The RAPPS
used for these situations are referred to as Supplemental RAPPS and are expected to
achieve the intent of the efficiency goal as a combined system of RAPPS.
Supplemental RAPPS are a combination of two or more listed RAPPS or Specialty
RAPPS and are required if a site has high risk attributes that exceed the values
prescribed in the decision trees (Appendix B Decision trees 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9).
Supplemental RAPPS were employed in situations where soil loss modeling data
consistently indicated that an efficiency rating of 70% could not be achieved with a
combination of at least two RAPPS, or potential undesirable quantities of sediment may
be transported off the site even while meeting the management goal. Installation and
maintenance of these Supplemental RAPPS in accordance with accepted construction
practices using good judgment should provide adequate erosion and sediment control.
However, other combinations of RAPPS in site-specific conditions using good judgment
30
31
32
33
8.0 References
Carleton College, Northfield Minnesota, 2008, Seven-Mile Creek Watershed Project
http://www.carleton.edu/departments/GEOL/Links/AlumContributions/Antinoro
_03/SMCwebsite/DrainageSolutions.htm
California Straw Works, 5531 State Ave, Sacramento, California 95819. 2008,
http://www.publicworks.com/storefronts/califstraw.html
Fifield, J.S., 2005. Best Management Practices for Contractors and Inspectors Field
Manual on Sediment and Erosion Control. Pp. 56, 92.
Foster, G.R., Yoder, D.C., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., McGregor, K.C., Bingner, R.L.,
2003. RUSLE 2.0 User's Guide. USDA-Agricultural Research Service,
Washington DC.
Foster, G.R. 2004. Draft User's Reference Guide. Undergoing review: currently
available in draft form at:
www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=6028. (10 February 2007).
Foster, G.R. 2005. Draft Science Documentation for RUSLE2. Undergoing review:
currently available in draft form at:
www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=6028. (10 February 2007).
Lightle,
Dave.
<dave.lightle@lin.usda.gov>
Communication. (September, 2008).
SLOPE
document.
Personal
34
35
Wachal, D.J., Banks, K.E., Hudak, P.F., Harmel, R.D. 2008. Modeling Erosion and
Sediment Control Practices With RUSLE 2.0: A Management Approach for
Natural Gas Well Sites in Denton County, TX, USA.
Wachal, D.J., Banks, K.E. 2006. Modeling and Monitoring Storm Water Impacts from
Natural Gas Well Development Activities. In: Presented at StormCon: The
North American Surface Water Quality Conference, Denver CO, July 2006.
Wachal, D.J., Banks, K.E., Hunter, D.H. 2005. Collecting Storm Water from Overland
Flow at gas Exploration and production Sites. In: Presented at Water
Environment Federation 78th Annual Conference, Washington DC, October
2005.
Wachal, D.J., Banks, K.E. 2007. Integrating GIS and Erosion Modeling: A Tool for
Watershed Management. ESRI 2007 International User Conference Paper
No. UC1038.
Wachal, D.J., Banks, K.E. 2007. The Application of WEPP to Natural Gas Exploration
and Production Sites.
Wachal, D.J., Banks, K.E. 2007. Modeling Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: A
Management Approach for Disturbed Sites.
Wischmeier, W.H., D.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to
Conservation Planning. USDA, Agricultural Handbook No. 537.
Yoder, D.C., J.S. Tyner, J.D. Balousek, J.C. Panuska, J.R. Buchanan, K.J. Kirsch, and
J.P. Lyon. 2007. Conservation planning for construction sites. Trans.
ASABE. 50(5): 1613-1618 .
36
AT-1
Rise
Run
Z
x100
X
x100 =
Percent Slope is not equivalent to slope angle. The following formula can be used to convert the slope in degrees
to the slope in percent.
Percent Slope = Tan * 100
The user may choose to evaluate the slope by their own method. However, several methods to determine the rise
(Z), run (X) and slope angle () are described in the main text of the RAPPS document Section 6.2.1 (Page
18).
Step 2)
The average annual erosivity factor (R-value) is an index of rainfall erosivity for a geographic location. The Rvalue is a rainfall and runoff factor that represents the effect of both rainfall intensity and rainfall amount.
The R-values for each county in the United States have been included in Appendix A. The county-specific Rvalues listed in Appendix A are to be used to select your construction sites R-value. In the example below, the Rvalue for Harding County in New Mexico is 69.94.
State Name
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
Step 3)
County
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
R Factor US
69.94
99.81
87.71
110.20
A) Use existing soil surveys located at your local USDA/ Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) office
OR
B) Look-up the soil type from the following online Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database or the NRCS
database links:
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
OR
C) Use the Soil Texture Decision Chart:
Use the Soil Texture Decision Chart, at the end of Attachment 1, and follow the steps below to determine the
predominate soil type to be disturbed at your site (i.e. clay, sand, or silt/loam).
AT-2
Step 4)
Select one of the nine RAPPS decision trees based on an evaluation of slope and
erosivity.
Step 5)
Select the appropriate path of the decision tree based on soil type to evaluate the
efficiency of RAPPS.
Each decision tree path includes a list of RAPPS (abbreviated) and its corresponding efficiency rating listed in
order of highest to lowest efficiency. The efficiency rating (ER) represents the proportion of sediment kept on-site
by the erosion control practice that would have otherwise been transported off-site. For example, an ER of 0.80
represents the percentage (80%) of sediment that would have been transported off-site had the erosion control
practice not been in place.
Example Decision Tree-5 illustrates RAPPS nomenclature (CS 0.68) (2CS 0.72), which indicates that a compost
sock exhibits an efficiency of 68%, and a combination of two compost socks exhibit an efficiency of 72%. Example
Decision Tree-5 also illustrates RAPPS nomenclature (SF 0.56) (SF/SBB 0.72) which indicates that a silt fence
exhibits an efficiency of 56% and a combination of a silt fence with a straw bale barrier exhibits an efficiency of
72%. A detailed discussion of efficiency ratings is provided in Section 5.0 (Page 15).
Step 6)
Compare each RAPPS ER for the appropriate soil type path to management goals to evaluate if erosion control
methods removed a sufficient amount of sediment for a particular site. The site management goal represents a
measure of the acceptable amount of sediment removed by the erosion control method under site-specific
conditions. A management goal of 0.60 indicates that an erosion control method must reduce the sediment yield
by 60% compared to the sediment yield that would occur if no erosion control methods were in place. Sediment
yield is the amount of eroded soil. In north central Texas, a management goal of 0.70 has been suggested as a
AT-3
minimum guideline to achieve adequate design of erosion and sediment control plans (NCTCOG ISWM Manual,
2003). For example, if selection of a specific RAPPS indicated a site-specific efficiency of 0.75 and the
management goal was 0.70, then the goal has been met, and the RAPPS should be sufficient to prevent
undesirable quantities of sediment from leaving the construction site assuming RAPPS are designed, constructed
and maintained properly. If the RAPPS efficiency does not meet the default management goal of 70%, then
additional combinations of RAPPS with corresponding efficiencies are listed in the decision tree.
Management goals may vary depending on the sensitivity of the site. Based on the literature, a general
management goal of 0.70 is suggested for construction in non-sensitive areas. However, if the local agency
suggests a region-specific management goal, the user should utilize that goal. The county USDA NRCS office or
regional council of governments should be contacted to evaluate the region-specific management goal.
Based on soil loss modeling data, sites with silt/loam and clay soils and low (<2%) slopes exhibit special
conditions using this method and it is appropriate to lower the management goal to 0.60 compared to a default
management goal of 0.70 for the other decision tree paths. A detailed discussion of management goal selection is
provided in Section 5.0 (Page 16).
In addition to RAPPS documented in the decision trees, other types of RAPPS including Supplemental RAPPS,
Operational RAPPS and Specialty RAPPS are discussed below.
Supplemental RAPPS
Under certain circumstances, such as steep slopes or a region with high erosivity (R-values), alternate or
additional RAPPS should be employed to prevent discharges of potentially undesirable quantities of sediment. In
those cases, one or a combination of two RAPPS documented in the decision trees will not provide adequate
protection above a specified slope, R-Value or combination of slope and R-value. This specific situation is noted
in the soil type decision box in the decision tree paths. The RAPPS used for these situations are referred to as
Supplemental RAPPS and are expected to achieve the intent of the efficiency goal as a combined system of
RAPPS. Supplemental RAPPS are a combination of two or more listed RAPPS or Specialty RAPPS and are
required if a site has high risk attributes that exceed the values prescribed in the decision trees (Appendix B
Decision trees 3, 6, 7, 8 & 9). A detailed discussion on Supplemental RAPPS is provided in Section 6.2.5 (Page
30).
In the case of a site with a steep pre-construction slope (Decision Trees 7, 8 & 9), the user should employ
Supplemental RAPPS that will:
1) reduce the amount of stormwater reaching the site by redirecting the up-gradient run-on flow of
stormwater around the construction site by means of a diversion structure (i.e., a diversion dike,
interceptor swale, ditches, slope drains);
2) protect disturbed soil on the slope with a form of cover (i.e., mulch and/or erosion control mat); and
3) protect the base of the slope with a runoff-velocity barrier (i.e., rock berm, compost sock, brush piles,
fiber rolls/logs). It should be noted that soil loss modeling data indicate that silt fences and straw hay
bales should not be used at the bottom of steep slopes as they do not function well in high runoffvelocity conditions.
In the case of a site with a high Erosivity (R value - Decision Trees 3, 6 or 9), the user should employ
Supplemental RAPPS that will:
1) protect disturbed soil on the slope with roughening and a form of cover (i.e., mulch, straw, compost
and/or erosion control mat); and
2) protect the base of the slope with runoff-velocity barriers (i.e., silt fence, straw bales, fiber rolls/logs,
rock berms, vegetative barrier or brush piles).
In the case of a construction site adjacent to a drainage feature or a water way, the use of sediment
basins or other sediment capturing containment structures (i.e. silt trap, dewatering structure, filter bag)
are recommended.
The above-referenced scenarios are not an exhaustive list of the site-specific situations that could be encountered
during oil and gas construction activity. It should be noted that other combinations of RAPPS in site specific
situations should be installed using good judgment, if required to prevent undesirable quantities of sediment being
transported off the site. If these situations exist, operators may want to consider retaining a certified professional
AT-4
in erosion and sediment control (CPESC) to design RAPPS, inspect constructed RAPPS and provide periodic
inspection of the site during operations.
Operational RAPPS
Under certain circumstances including low slopes and/or low erosivity, a minimal erosion control effort may be
utilized. Operational RAPPS reflect a minimal effort of erosion control including installation of an inexpensive
sediment barrier (i.e., compost sock, compost berm, vegetative barrier, brush pile, interceptor swale, soil berm,
straw bale barriers or silt fence) near the downgradient boundary of the construction site along with the following
practices that operators are commonly using as part of normal operations:
Planning the site location to choose low-slope sites away from waterways;
Minimizing the footprint of the disturbed area;
Phasing/scheduling projects to minimize soil disturbance;
Timing the project during dry weather periods of the year;
Managing slopes to decrease steepness;
Maintaining the maximum amount of vegetative cover as possible;
Cutting vegetation above ground level and limiting removal of vegetation, root zones and stumps, where
possible;
Limiting site disturbance to only clear what is necessary;
Practicing good housekeeping including proper material storage and
Practicing operation and maintenance procedures to limit sediment yield (i.e. maintaining silt fence).
Specialty RAPPS
During construction of oil and gas sites, an operator may encounter special circumstances including crossing a
regulated water body or construction near a roadway that requires Specialty RAPPS to divert or reduce the
velocity of surface water flow. Specialty RAPPS near roadways are also constructed to limit the amount of
sediment leaving the site via truck traffic. Site-specific conditions should be considered in conjunction with federal,
state or local regulatory requirements to ensure that RAPPS are implemented to achieve regulatory compliance, if
necessary. Specialty RAPPS are documented in Appendix D and include:
Subsequent to selection of a RAPPS or a combination of RAPPS, the following sequential tasks should be
employed until the construction site is re-vegetated or stabilized:
Step 7)
It should be noted that most of the RAPPS combinations were modeled with the RAPPS located near the
base of the slope and 75% down the slope.
AT-5
It should be noted that a consensus of erosion control experts and regulatory agencies recommend
preserving existing vegetation and re-establishing vegetation (i.e. seeding, sodding, or hydroseeding) on the
disturbed slope as the preferred method of stabilization. Therefore, preserving and re-establishing vegetation
should always be encouraged regardless of the particular RAPPS chosen.
Step 8)
Step 9)
Step 10)
Step 11)
Complete construction;
Step 12)
AT-6
AT-7
AT-8
A-1
County Name
ALABAMA
Autauga
Baldwin
Barbour
Bibb
Blount
Bullock
Butler
Calhoun
Chambers
Cherokee
Chilton
Choctaw
Clarke
Clay
Cleburne
Coffee
Colbert
Conecuh
Coosa
Covington
Crenshaw
Cullman
Dale
Dallas
De Kalb
Elmore
Escambia
Etowah
Fayette
Franklin
Geneva
Greene
Hale
Henry
Houston
Jackson
Jefferson
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lee
Limestone
Lowndes
Macon
Madison
Marengo
Marion
Marshall
Izard
Jackson
R Factor US
State Name
416.86
668.30
429.05
423.50
364.96
422.21
475.04
338.38
392.93
337.99
411.78
503.55
539.06
394.00
354.70
531.18
373.57
567.69
407.98
547.34
496.98
372.27
499.78
434.72
343.49
410.44
613.36
337.73
433.70
391.58
543.36
411.99
419.53
463.34
520.13
332.18
380.78
420.03
363.18
368.51
402.79
347.76
442.41
416.53
339.73
454.52
417.90
337.60
279.02
311.26
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Alabama
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
Arkansas
A-1
County
ALABAMA
Montgomery
Morgan
Perry
Pickens
Pike
Randolph
Russell
St. Clair
Shelby
Sumter
Talladega
Tallapoosa
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Washington
Wilcox
Winston
ARKANSAS
Arkansas
Ashley
Baxter
Benton
Boone
Bradley
Calhoun
Carroll
Chicot
Clark
Clay
Cleburne
Cleveland
Columbia
Conway
Craighead
Crawford
Crittenden
Cross
Dallas
Desha
Drew
Faulkner
Franklin
Fulton
Garland
Grant
Greene
Hempstead
Hot Spring
Howard
Independence
R Factor US
435.61
362.14
430.07
418.79
453.94
362.40
388.24
370.15
390.83
444.54
380.46
410.56
412.57
393.34
577.31
480.62
391.61
357.31
425.18
264.44
284.49
274.94
413.00
394.04
263.87
405.46
389.54
286.64
325.36
388.25
400.20
319.22
300.37
312.32
337.70
323.20
384.01
382.09
399.03
331.63
300.94
268.73
392.70
371.52
297.44
397.31
393.02
397.24
308.53
County
ARKANSAS
Jefferson
Johnson
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lee
Lincoln
Little River
Logan
Lonoke
Madison
Marion
Miller
Mississippi
Monroe
Montgomery
Nevada
Newton
Ouachita
Perry
Phillips
Pike
Poinsett
Polk
Pope
Prairie
Pulaski
Randolph
St. Francis
Saline
Scott
Searcy
Sebastian
Sevier
Sharp
Stone
Union
Van Buren
Washington
White
Woodruff
Yell
ARIZONA
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa
R Factor US
State Name
361.80
307.56
390.52
289.27
351.47
380.84
375.51
315.18
334.77
296.57
269.28
372.01
309.94
347.85
393.61
398.34
300.01
391.35
350.43
370.22
410.15
311.13
406.86
315.25
339.11
343.04
284.47
339.56
374.90
339.43
288.90
302.45
385.36
283.30
304.11
410.17
324.69
310.58
334.39
332.92
331.06
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
85.81
153.64
80.75
87.30
143.00
90.08
43.70
71.96
A-2
County
ARIZONA
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
SantaCruz
Yavapai
Yuma
CALIFORNIA
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
ContraCosta
DelNorte
El dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen
LosAngeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
SanBenito
SanBernardino
SanDiego
SanFrancisco
SanJoaquin
SanLuisObispo
SanMateo
R Factor US
38.01
74.97
118.70
122.43
153.64
79.49
28.08
78.90
162.98
118.79
208.84
121.84
157.67
66.73
307.26
153.53
115.48
183.66
226.26
50.86
80.64
80.20
50.46
146.38
86.80
129.77
104.07
145.62
108.26
266.31
237.86
46.19
70.69
124.24
161.27
143.22
159.45
91.06
158.82
195.88
116.38
62.75
61.23
141.06
86.95
61.37
58.54
132.56
111.60
County
CALIFORNIA
SantaBarbara
SantaClara
SantaCruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
COLORADO
Adams
Alamosa
Arapahoe
Archuleta
Baca
Bent
Boulder
Chaffee
Cheyenne
ClearCreek
Conejos
Costilla
Crowley
Custer
Delta
Denver
Dolores
Douglas
Eagle
Elbert
ElPaso
Fremont
Garfield
Gilpin
Grand
Gunnison
Hinsdale
Huerfano
Jackson
Jefferson
Kiowa
KitCarson
R Factor US
139.25
155.27
156.20
53.67
177.20
339.99
105.91
186.62
46.27
53.63
229.72
172.16
100.39
115.34
117.00
107.76
156.82
31.79
67.45
33.58
51.98
76.62
61.72
47.08
35.88
65.28
49.46
47.07
61.52
39.38
56.82
30.39
35.26
47.15
47.90
29.33
42.48
70.44
47.33
28.62
32.50
36.60
36.51
46.46
74.36
36.86
35.16
65.06
59.68
A-3
State Name
County
R Factor US
COLORADO
Colorado
Lake
35.16
Colorado
LaPlata
47.52
Colorado
Larimer
43.52
Colorado
LasAnimas
52.68
Colorado
Lincoln
52.60
Colorado
Logan
64.52
Colorado
Mesa
29.12
Colorado
Mineral
51.21
Colorado
Moffat
32.28
Colorado
Montezuma
42.40
Colorado
Montrose
25.75
Colorado
Morgan
49.06
Colorado
Otero
48.31
Colorado
Ouray
32.26
Colorado
Park
34.23
Colorado
Philips
65.51
Colorado
Pitkin
37.30
Colorado
Prowers
69.91
Colorado
Pueblo
79.86
Colorado
RioBlanco
27.82
Colorado
RioGrande
44.93
Colorado
Routt
38.88
Colorado
Saguache
57.84
Colorado
SanJuan
48.71
Colorado
SanMiguel
42.63
Colorado
Sedgwick
64.45
Colorado
Summit
29.12
Colorado
Teller
62.53
Colorado
Washington
54.72
Colorado
Weld
59.69
Colorado
Yuma
61.02
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut
Fairfield
171.56
Connecticut
Hartford
157.40
Connecticut
Litchfield
153.89
Connecticut
Middlesex
177.59
Connecticut
New Haven
175.41
Connecticut
New London
179.48
Connecticut
Tolland
163.56
Connecticut
Windham
170.44
DELAWARE
Delaware
Kent
185.32
Delaware
New Castle
172.62
Delaware
Sussex
204.26
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dist. of Columbia
Washington
176.48
FLORIDA
Florida
Alachua
509.89
Florida
Baker
504.91
Florida
Bay
649.74
County
FLORIDA
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Clay
Collier
Columbia
Dade
De Soto
Dixie
Duval
Escambia
Flagler
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Indian River
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Lake
Lee
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Martin
Monroe
Nassau
Okaloosa
Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk
R Factor US
State Name
507.57
541.11
640.73
612.27
579.20
553.56
504.55
603.33
514.28
660.25
573.74
567.77
477.28
665.96
498.63
591.88
540.95
543.56
554.40
648.82
496.55
566.11
576.49
562.34
549.00
555.35
576.25
584.00
532.64
532.19
545.55
512.66
613.05
581.80
563.92
612.66
502.15
598.41
524.80
576.29
617.52
471.75
660.17
536.51
528.33
543.27
613.12
566.86
547.84
545.67
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
A-4
County
FLORIDA
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Lucie
Santa Rosa
Sarasota
Seminole
Sumter
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Volusia
Wakulla
Walton
Washington
GEORGIA
Appling
Atkinson
Bacon
Baker
Baldwin
Banks
Barrow
Bartow
Ben Hill
Berrien
Bibb
Bleckley
Brantley
Brooks
Bryan
Bulloch
Burke
Butts
Calhoun
Camden
Candler
Carroll
Catoosa
Charlton
Chatham
Chattahoochee
Chattooga
Cherokee
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Clinch
Cobb
Coffee
Colquitt
R Factor US
508.49
482.85
558.76
668.51
601.27
525.72
533.04
510.08
558.09
509.98
515.77
588.98
637.23
594.87
391.87
423.99
398.31
444.58
303.69
308.59
296.05
304.11
363.35
414.04
311.99
333.45
451.26
463.71
387.57
359.21
314.81
310.51
425.16
452.13
358.44
342.47
299.22
467.11
410.53
377.45
319.13
318.92
298.73
439.72
309.03
463.78
322.55
404.79
437.18
County
GEORGIA
Columbia
Cook
Coweta
Crawford
Crisp
Dade
Dawson
Decatur
De Kalb
Dodge
Dooly
Dougherty
Douglas
Early
Echols
Effingham
Elbert
Emanuel
Evans
Fannin
Fayette
Floyd
Forsyth
Franklin
Fulton
Gilmer
Glascock
Glynn
Gordon
Grady
Greene
Gwinnett
Habersham
Hall
Hancock
Haralson
Harris
Hart
Heard
Henry
Houston
Irwin
Jackson
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson
Jones
Lamar
R Factor US
State Name
295.77
432.25
336.05
333.83
363.26
339.76
353.73
501.72
312.92
349.36
347.84
418.01
334.10
464.59
483.11
378.69
286.18
334.55
383.30
349.75
325.50
309.73
328.84
298.76
317.54
359.46
312.20
443.05
298.95
486.25
298.48
320.05
358.24
324.86
302.79
334.55
376.51
291.50
349.44
319.83
332.02
381.79
298.48
305.36
365.54
309.60
329.24
328.74
311.75
326.46
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
A-5
County
GEORGIA
Lanier
Laurens
Lee
Liberty
Lincoln
Long
Lowndes
Lumpkin
McDuffie
McIntosh
Macon
Madison
Marion
Meriwether
Miller
Mitchell
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Murray
Muscogee
Newton
Oconee
Oglethorpe
Paulding
Peach
Pickens
Pierce
Pike
Polk
Pulaski
Putnam
Quitman
Rabun
Randolph
Richmond
Rockdale
Schley
Screven
Seminole
Spalding
Stephens
Stewart
Sumter
Talbot
Taliaferro
Tattnall
Taylor
Telfair
Terrell
R Factor US
444.44
335.57
390.38
399.20
290.59
398.06
462.80
366.80
308.30
433.30
340.43
292.25
369.79
343.23
471.58
453.70
321.40
339.25
296.11
318.16
371.25
305.08
296.85
295.19
326.81
322.52
339.54
422.52
336.56
315.48
342.92
302.25
416.52
396.03
412.87
300.70
309.91
358.14
343.90
504.36
325.18
317.37
386.92
365.23
369.79
300.89
371.62
341.19
359.62
394.75
County
GEORGIA
Thomas
Tift
Toombs
Towns
Treutlen
Troup
Turner
Twiggs
Union
Upson
Walker
Walton
Ware
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wheeler
White
Whitfield
Wilcox
Wilkes
Wilkinson
Worth
IDAHO
Ada
Adams
Bannock
BearLake
Benewah
Bingham
Blaine
Boise
Bonner
Bonneville
Boundary
Butte
Camas
Canyon
Caribou
Cassia
Clark
Clearwater
Custer
Elmore
Franklin
Fremont
Gem
Gooding
Idaho
R Factor US
State Name
471.26
400.12
354.98
366.62
335.93
358.99
381.83
321.72
349.03
339.71
322.16
292.38
444.47
311.41
319.28
424.02
381.43
335.74
376.20
305.61
363.98
294.42
316.66
394.80
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
17.33
29.44
29.09
36.99
35.55
23.99
28.93
25.34
54.34
21.75
40.46
18.93
29.98
6.59
27.59
21.15
23.97
48.38
27.53
26.69
28.70
37.12
27.31
10.76
39.70
A-6
County
IDAHO
Jefferson
Jerome
Kootenai
Latah
Lemhi
Lewis
Lincoln
Madison
Minidoka
NezPerce
Oneida
Owyhee
Payette
Power
Shoshone
Teton
TwinFalls
Valley
Washington
ILLINOIS
Adams
Alexander
Bond
Boone
Brown
Bureau
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Champaign
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Cook
Crawford
Cumberland
De Kalb
De Witt
Douglas
Du Page
Edgar
Edwards
Effingham
Fayette
Ford
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
R Factor US
11.40
5.97
35.72
34.64
25.66
17.38
8.66
28.81
7.65
19.31
19.50
33.21
15.44
22.09
48.34
31.45
17.33
31.87
20.91
196.52
260.51
192.40
154.53
194.09
172.02
191.62
160.65
188.97
183.07
188.06
194.83
200.15
196.71
189.23
158.29
197.37
188.07
165.41
189.17
188.85
161.64
197.17
209.50
195.79
192.52
171.04
219.23
185.24
219.36
County
ILLINOIS
Greene
Grundy
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Henderson
Henry
Iroquois
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Jo Daviess
Johnson
Kane
Kankakee
Kendall
Knox
Lake
La Salle
Lawrence
Lee
Livingston
Logan
McDonough
McHenry
McLean
Macon
Macoupin
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Mason
Massac
Menard
Mercer
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Moultrie
Ogle
Peoria
Perry
Piatt
Pike
Pope
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Richland
R Factor US
State Name
186.93
165.10
211.57
187.91
239.26
179.22
177.10
176.71
232.55
195.92
207.24
189.80
157.00
248.19
164.42
181.23
165.89
178.99
146.13
170.25
204.17
170.11
169.50
181.80
183.29
153.33
178.28
191.86
189.50
191.26
204.07
176.41
180.52
251.95
178.54
176.93
203.10
192.79
193.50
188.85
160.25
176.22
214.08
188.39
197.84
247.38
260.41
174.89
214.71
202.74
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
A-7
County
ILLINOIS
Rock Island
St. Clair
Saline
Sangamon
Schuyler
Scott
Shelby
Stark
Stephenson
Tazewell
Union
Vermilion
Wabash
Warren
Washington
Wayne
White
Whiteside
Will
Williamson
Winnebago
Woodford
INDIANA
Adams
Allen
Bartholomew
Benton
Blackford
Boone
Brown
Carroll
Cass
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crawford
Daviess
Dearborn
Decatur
De Kalb
Delaware
Dubois
Elkhart
Fayette
Floyd
Fountain
Franklin
Fulton
Gibson
Grant
R Factor US
176.24
198.30
227.09
179.93
191.40
190.20
190.96
174.02
152.07
180.63
254.15
182.69
210.52
179.97
202.80
207.73
207.36
167.39
168.14
233.89
152.38
175.29
137.47
137.31
184.53
173.13
157.01
175.45
189.83
168.64
164.90
203.98
198.32
172.30
212.60
208.13
181.50
180.56
134.99
156.45
215.40
145.45
173.23
202.47
180.78
178.07
160.07
216.63
158.15
County
INDIANA
Greene
Hamilton
Hancock
Harrison
Hendricks
Henry
Howard
Huntington
Jackson
Jasper
Jay
Jefferson
Jennings
Johnson
Knox
Kosciusko
Lagrange
Lake
La Porte
Lawrence
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Martin
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Newton
Noble
Ohio
Orange
Owen
Parke
Perry
Pike
Porter
Posey
Pulaski
Putnam
Randolph
Ripley
Rush
St. Joseph
Scott
Shelby
Spencer
Starke
Steuben
Sullivan
R Factor US
State Name
201.59
172.53
180.04
213.67
184.83
170.32
168.96
149.25
195.18
167.93
146.04
192.00
192.48
182.37
205.47
151.53
140.50
169.41
162.43
202.11
168.94
175.13
160.98
209.80
162.58
198.80
178.65
187.57
173.26
145.24
184.57
212.18
201.95
194.70
219.28
210.05
168.25
211.06
163.58
197.79
156.28
189.34
178.08
157.66
199.62
177.92
215.94
163.86
132.89
198.73
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
A-8
County
INDIANA
Switzerland
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Union
Vanderburgh
Vermillion
Vigo
Wabash
Warren
Warrick
Washington
Wayne
Wells
White
Whitley
IOWA
Adair
Adams
Allamakee
Appanoose
Audubon
Benton
Black Hawk
Boone
Bremer
Buchanan
Buena Vista
Butler
Calhoun
Carroll
Cass
Cedar
Cerro Gordo
Cherokee
Chickasaw
Clarke
Clay
Clayton
Clinton
Crawford
Dallas
Davis
Decatur
Delaware
Des Moines
Dickinson
Dubuque
Emmet
Fayette
Floyd
R Factor US
187.26
168.88
169.96
167.87
211.73
190.77
196.25
158.83
177.41
214.81
205.61
165.54
143.45
167.68
149.47
176.72
186.74
144.58
192.56
163.59
166.98
165.41
166.45
165.00
166.82
149.91
166.10
160.57
160.45
168.54
175.02
160.14
140.56
159.49
185.40
141.86
152.09
167.26
146.43
168.20
192.64
193.61
166.40
179.21
136.88
160.47
137.22
162.20
160.15
County
IOWA
Franklin
Fremont
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Howard
Humboldt
Ida
Iowa
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Johnson
Jones
Keokuk
Kossuth
Lee
Linn
Louisa
Lucas
Lyon
Madison
Mahaska
Marion
Marshall
Mills
Mitchell
Monona
Monroe
Montgomery
Muscatine
O'Brien
Osceola
Page
Palo Alto
Plymouth
Pocahontas
Polk
Pottawattamie
Poweshiek
Ringgold
Sac
Scott
Shelby
Sioux
R Factor US
State Name
167.40
174.92
160.26
165.86
167.33
164.54
151.90
167.99
147.31
185.85
154.95
155.67
149.39
180.60
164.08
174.03
183.97
178.58
166.58
177.14
146.81
189.23
172.81
177.43
190.27
122.30
176.17
179.66
178.53
172.57
165.71
160.53
139.07
187.37
184.27
175.11
135.54
132.31
189.13
143.65
127.59
152.87
170.94
155.95
177.91
191.01
153.23
171.82
157.68
128.02
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
A-9
County
IOWA
Story
Tama
Taylor
Union
Van Buren
Wapello
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Winnebago
Winneshiek
Woodbury
Worth
Wright
KANSAS
Allen
Anderson
Atchison
Barber
Barton
Bourbon
Brown
Butler
Chase
Chautauqua
Cherokee
Cheyenne
Clark
Clay
Cloud
Coffey
Comanche
Cowley
Crawford
Decatur
Dickinson
Doniphan
Douglas
Edwards
Elk
Ellis
Ellsworth
Finney
Ford
Franklin
Geary
Gove
Graham
Grant
R Factor US
171.86
171.79
194.58
183.18
189.17
179.30
175.59
175.62
195.99
164.68
150.92
149.98
131.06
152.24
158.62
254.05
240.97
210.55
161.42
144.84
254.16
202.32
216.51
207.89
236.75
265.67
75.57
134.58
177.26
163.92
234.73
147.98
221.67
259.41
102.46
189.14
206.41
221.25
136.20
234.31
124.13
157.97
100.26
129.82
228.85
198.89
105.09
107.94
85.49
County
KANSAS
Gray
Greeley
Greenwood
Hamilton
Harper
Harvey
Haskell
Hodgeman
Jackson
Jefferson
Jewell
Johnson
Kearny
Kingman
Kiowa
Labette
Lane
Leavenworth
Lincoln
Linn
Logan
Lyon
McPherson
Marion
Marshall
Meade
Miami
Mitchell
Montgomery
Morris
Morton
Nemaha
Neosho
Ness
Norton
Osage
Osborne
Ottawa
Pawnee
Phillips
Pottawatomie
Pratt
Rawlins
Reno
Republic
Rice
Riley
Rooks
Rush
Russell
R Factor US
State Name
118.81
73.00
229.89
74.34
182.21
191.68
101.68
116.76
211.03
222.08
143.35
227.64
85.50
174.94
141.72
263.35
106.24
223.08
150.85
246.34
86.44
224.03
179.36
203.61
180.85
120.64
231.96
143.62
253.55
203.52
85.04
191.35
254.38
113.68
107.98
217.86
127.85
164.92
133.34
116.55
200.38
153.74
91.37
177.16
158.54
161.66
187.86
117.36
125.83
140.79
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
A-10
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
County
KANSAS
Saline
Scott
Sedgwick
Seward
Shawnee
Sheridan
Sherman
Smith
Stafford
Stanton
Stevens
Sumner
Thomas
Trego
Wabaunsee
Wallace
Washington
Wichita
Wilson
Woodson
Wyandotte
KENTUCKY
Adair
Allen
Anderson
Ballard
Barren
Bath
Bell
Boone
Bourbon
Boyd
Boyle
Bracken
Breathitt
Breckinridge
Bullitt
Butler
Caldwell
Calloway
Campbell
Carlisle
Carroll
Carter
Casey
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Crittenden
R Factor US
173.15
95.38
195.26
106.73
209.99
100.24
76.35
126.82
144.90
76.25
96.30
203.59
85.28
110.28
208.29
75.98
169.80
82.12
246.36
249.88
221.23
260.11
269.94
210.16
264.36
269.59
203.55
243.23
182.44
194.88
164.43
227.48
186.69
203.71
230.45
219.65
251.50
257.04
295.79
179.51
277.59
195.31
175.97
248.34
261.52
207.83
219.93
262.15
247.29
County
KENTUCKY
Cumberland
Daviess
Edmonson
Elliott
Estill
Fayette
Fleming
Floyd
Franklin
Fulton
Gallatin
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grayson
Green
Greenup
Hancock
Hardin
Harlan
Harrison
Hart
Henderson
Henry
Hickman
Hopkins
Jackson
Jefferson
Jessamine
Johnson
Kenton
Knott
Knox
Larue
Laurel
Lawrence
Lee
Leslie
Letcher
Lewis
Lincoln
Livingston
Logan
Lyon
McCracken
McCreary
McLean
Madison
Magoffin
Marion
R Factor US
State Name
258.22
223.15
255.70
184.67
214.55
200.74
194.14
185.00
200.50
292.97
185.96
224.15
189.86
293.91
250.44
254.11
162.88
227.03
237.57
224.61
191.23
249.75
218.69
204.15
292.97
241.76
223.63
208.55
214.42
186.34
181.98
188.16
231.85
240.23
218.80
175.70
209.87
214.02
186.38
175.13
237.61
258.27
265.28
260.38
255.23
248.43
225.98
218.23
193.27
240.11
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
A-11
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
County
KENTUCKY
Marshall
Martin
Mason
Meade
Menifee
Mercer
Metcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Muhlenberg
Nelson
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Owsley
Pendleton
Perry
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Robertson
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Simpson
Spencer
Taylor
Todd
Trigg
Trimble
Union
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Whitley
Wolfe
Woodford
LOUISIANA
Acadia
Allen
Ascension
Assumption
Avoyelles
Beauregard
Bienville
R Factor US
271.64
184.17
187.62
225.09
213.32
218.50
266.37
272.64
201.52
198.23
251.80
227.03
192.62
241.80
205.27
196.17
211.45
188.17
200.54
182.53
209.96
245.14
186.89
234.69
198.66
256.61
192.40
210.29
269.52
213.89
255.24
265.16
266.06
197.20
226.66
263.44
222.80
248.75
229.84
234.58
207.29
206.31
593.77
602.71
640.85
652.59
575.41
552.20
443.25
County
LOUISIANA
Bossier
Caddo
Calcasieu
Caldwell
Cameron
Catahoula
Claiborne
Concordia
De Soto
East Baton Rouge
East Carroll
East Feliciana
Evangeline
Franklin
Grant
Iberia
Iberville
Jackson
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Lafayette
LaFourche
La Salle
Lincoln
Livingston
Madison
Morehouse
Natchitoches
Orleans
Ouachita
Plaquemines
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
Red River
Richland
Sabine
St. Bernard
St. Charles
St. Helena
St. James
St. John the Baptist
St. Landry
St. Martin
St. Mary
St. Tammany
Tangipahoa
Tensas
Terrebonne
Union
Vermilion
R Factor US
State Name
399.71
386.15
564.36
482.54
587.64
532.31
419.39
561.08
414.12
620.07
454.73
618.32
596.75
470.31
522.15
640.26
619.17
458.44
675.29
589.50
618.09
683.17
537.41
432.37
667.63
468.13
427.77
484.61
625.15
435.64
685.02
607.82
562.41
425.06
447.83
460.25
659.09
665.48
656.10
648.17
650.02
599.05
625.14
690.43
637.24
652.17
479.46
693.78
422.06
625.16
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
A-12
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
County
R Factor US
LOUISIANA
Vernon
530.95
Washington
636.06
Webster
404.70
West Baton Rouge
621.48
West Carroll
435.59
West Feliciana
608.24
Winn
514.46
MAINE
Androscoggin
108.52
Aroostook
71.98
Cumberland
109.89
Franklin
104.10
Hancock
105.40
Kennebec
101.79
Knox
115.56
Lincoln
107.89
Oxford
100.36
Penobscot
92.37
Piscataquis
84.10
Sagadahoc
110.26
Somerset
88.08
Waldo
106.59
Washington
99.55
York
120.64
MARYLAND
Allegany
120.80
Anne Arundel
172.59
Baltimore
176.31
Calvert
192.56
Caroline
188.49
Carroll
154.43
Cecil
174.75
Charles
184.69
Dorchester
200.70
Frederick
155.92
Garrett
137.28
Harford
175.57
Howard
176.29
Kent
176.65
Montgomery
166.89
Prince Georges
179.74
Queen Annes
180.01
St. Marys
195.84
Somerset
202.98
Talbot
187.72
Washington
134.95
Wicomico
208.50
Worcester
212.37
Baltimore City
172.69
County
R Factor US
MASSACHUSETTS
Barnstable
161.98
Berkshire
140.74
Bristol
163.11
Dukes
177.67
Essex
133.84
Franklin
126.19
Hampden
145.30
Hampshire
134.44
Middlesex
137.18
Nantucket
167.90
Norfolk
154.87
Plymouth
168.85
Suffolk
137.31
Worcester
135.22
MICHIGAN
Alcona
73.19
Alger
73.14
Allegan
129.98
Alpena
67.36
Antrim
80.61
Arenac
79.30
Baraga
81.22
Barry
120.15
Bay
85.52
Benzie
91.38
Berrien
146.86
Branch
130.38
Calhoun
122.34
Cass
142.97
Charlevoix
77.70
Cheboygan
70.65
Chippewa
61.95
Clare
89.39
Clinton
102.10
Crawford
86.24
Delta
79.61
Dickinson
83.71
Eaton
110.86
Emmet
71.69
Genesee
89.95
Gladwin
87.55
Gogebic
96.05
Grand Traverse
86.15
Gratiot
94.63
Hillsdale
127.79
Houghton
73.36
Huron
80.72
Ingham
101.72
Ionia
111.11
Iosco
76.16
A-13
State Name
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Minnesota
County
MICHIGAN
Iron
Isabella
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Kalkaska
Kent
Keweenaw
Lake
Lapeer
Leelanau
Lenawee
Livingston
Luce
Mackinac
Macomb
Manistee
Marquette
Mason
Mecosta
Menominee
Midland
Missaukee
Monroe
Montcalm
Montmorency
Muskegon
Newaygo
Oakland
Oceana
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Osceola
Oscoda
Otsego
Ottawa
Presque Isle
Roscommon
Saginaw
St. Clair
St. Joseph
Sanilac
Schoolcraft
Shiawassee
Tuscola
Van Buren
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wexford
MINNESOTA
Aitkin
R Factor US
90.78
94.25
106.24
132.04
87.17
114.08
62.63
102.76
86.38
86.83
117.15
93.90
65.61
65.26
94.68
96.09
81.12
100.14
100.54
89.28
88.51
85.87
110.66
103.38
71.14
104.92
105.44
93.55
107.05
79.91
86.86
95.57
76.43
79.19
118.28
67.48
81.78
89.95
86.70
136.14
82.76
71.59
94.92
85.00
137.60
101.40
101.47
91.38
103.79
County
MINNESOTA
Anoka
Becker
Beltrami
Benton
Big Stone
Blue Earth
Brown
Carlton
Carver
Cass
Chippewa
Chisago
Clay
Clearwater
Cook
Cottonwood
Crow Wing
Dakota
Dodge
Douglas
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Grant
Hennepin
Houston
Hubbard
Isanti
Itasca
Jackson
Kanabec
Kandiyohi
Kittson
Koochiching
Lac Qui Parle
Lake
Lake of the Woods
Le Sueur
Lincoln
Lyon
McLeod
Mahnomen
Marshall
Martin
Meeker
Mille Lacs
Morrison
Mower
Murray
R Factor US
State Name
121.14
90.18
82.23
113.82
89.26
134.09
122.46
105.23
124.46
95.83
103.50
119.20
79.49
83.20
78.66
121.34
103.33
128.32
138.91
98.12
145.99
148.33
146.49
134.63
90.15
122.53
148.31
91.80
116.86
88.92
133.31
113.71
115.75
58.22
81.54
97.33
85.54
71.56
131.66
105.50
108.27
118.79
82.35
66.32
137.95
117.23
114.88
104.07
147.46
115.59
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
A-14
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
County
R Factor US
MINNESOTA
Nicollet
128.31
Nobles
126.17
Norman
76.20
Olmsted
140.89
Otter Tail
93.67
Pennington
72.95
Pine
112.45
Pipestone
110.24
Polk
72.45
Pope
99.40
Ramsey
125.05
Red Lake
77.54
Redwood
113.89
Renville
114.89
Rice
132.72
Rock
118.09
Roseau
66.10
St. Louis
86.83
Scott
126.74
Sherburne
120.17
Sibley
125.66
Stearns
109.39
Steele
137.76
Stevens
93.86
Swift
102.35
Todd
101.80
Traverse
85.37
Wabasha
139.64
Wadena
96.89
Waseca
138.36
Washington
125.45
Watonwan
128.88
Wilkin
84.88
Winona
147.23
Wright
119.80
Yellow Medicine
104.91
MISSISSIPPI
Adams
562.30
Alcorn
374.04
Amite
595.35
Attala
441.32
Benton
388.09
Bolivar
391.27
Calhoun
415.75
Carroll
434.73
Chickasaw
401.47
Choctaw
431.67
Claiborne
504.51
Clarke
497.73
Clay
421.84
County
MISSISSIPPI
Coahoma
Copiah
Covington
De Soto
Forrest
Franklin
George
Greene
Grenada
Hancock
Harrison
Hinds
Holmes
Humphreys
Issaquena
Itawamba
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Jones
Kemper
Lafayette
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Leake
Lee
Leflore
Lincoln
Lowndes
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Monroe
Montgomery
Neshoba
Newton
Noxubee
Oktibbeha
Panola
Pearl River
Perry
Pike
Pontotoc
Prentiss
Quitman
Rankin
Scott
Sharkey
R Factor US
State Name
383.25
527.14
543.99
350.87
583.66
568.24
650.89
613.58
417.78
660.11
687.68
466.33
446.56
437.45
451.53
401.78
683.10
488.58
527.81
542.34
531.09
438.25
402.22
588.81
470.64
540.59
448.78
398.73
418.89
540.79
425.73
447.21
596.90
373.66
407.72
433.12
451.83
470.84
426.88
424.91
397.95
618.65
597.63
605.05
416.62
398.62
385.16
470.27
478.76
446.55
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
Mississippi
A-15
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
County
R Factor US
MISSISSIPPI
Simpson
515.27
Smith
511.36
Stone
649.54
Sunflower
409.57
Tallahatchie
407.93
Tate
374.06
Tippah
383.01
Tishomingo
378.39
Tunica
366.51
Union
410.61
Walthall
607.25
Warren
464.28
Washington
402.11
Wayne
537.80
Webster
421.17
Wilkinson
603.82
Winston
449.19
Yalobusha
410.08
Yazoo
460.64
MISSOURI
Adair
201.67
Andrew
201.81
Atchison
181.85
Audrain
208.96
Barry
272.38
Barton
261.31
Bates
237.09
Benton
233.25
Bollinger
251.78
Boone
210.72
Buchanan
210.75
Butler
272.42
Caldwell
204.18
Callaway
206.40
Camden
231.89
Cape Girardeau
252.47
Carroll
212.52
Carter
266.28
Cass
232.42
Cedar
249.75
Chariton
213.71
Christian
263.75
Clark
195.79
Clay
220.31
Clinton
211.65
Cole
209.48
Cooper
217.01
Crawford
223.07
Dade
261.92
Dallas
243.82
County
MISSOURI
Daviess
De Kalb
Dent
Douglas
Dunklin
Franklin
Gasconade
Gentry
Greene
Grundy
Harrison
Henry
Hickory
Holt
Howard
Howell
Iron
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Johnson
Knox
Laclede
Lafayette
Lawrence
Lewis
Lincoln
Linn
Livingston
McDonald
Macon
Madison
Maries
Marion
Mercer
Miller
Mississippi
Moniteau
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
New Madrid
Newton
Nodaway
Oregon
Osage
Ozark
Pemiscot
Perry
Pettis
R Factor US
State Name
198.28
200.46
232.01
252.22
290.41
208.82
213.95
197.44
250.19
196.13
195.66
241.29
236.16
194.96
215.06
252.35
238.55
226.32
267.03
201.49
233.98
194.65
237.54
221.90
263.69
193.98
194.05
205.33
198.16
274.47
203.54
244.48
223.76
197.54
197.49
225.37
275.47
216.85
208.93
206.10
227.29
279.12
268.81
190.68
265.83
213.00
253.59
301.12
233.55
227.44
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
A-16
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
County
R Factor US
MISSOURI
Phelps
229.28
Pike
196.91
Platte
218.80
Polk
246.00
Pulaski
232.79
Putnam
199.02
Ralls
202.44
Randolph
213.01
Ray
216.27
Reynolds
243.20
Ripley
278.25
St. Charles
193.08
St. Clair
240.48
Ste. Genevieve
218.51
St. Francois
221.02
St. Louis
197.01
Saline
212.11
Schuyler
196.03
Scotland
193.30
Scott
261.26
Shannon
250.80
Shelby
199.00
Stoddard
270.46
Stone
269.38
Sullivan
201.71
Taney
261.48
Texas
241.23
Vernon
259.13
Warren
198.33
Washington
223.33
Wayne
256.73
Webster
248.95
Worth
191.59
Wright
245.50
St. Louis City
194.04
MONTANA
Beaverhead
37.29
BigHorn
25.82
Blaine
28.43
Broadwater
28.01
Carbon
30.01
Carter
36.30
Cascade
27.82
Chouteau
27.06
Custer
27.01
Daniels
26.84
Dawson
32.75
DeerLodge
33.49
Fallon
35.85
Fergus
51.92
County
MONTANA
Flathead
Gallatin
Garfield
Glacier
GoldenValley
Granite
Hill
Jefferson
JudithBasin
Lake
LewisandClark
Liberty
Lincoln
McCone
Madison
Meagher
Mineral
Missoula
MusselShell
Park
Petroleum
Phillips
Pondera
PowderRiver
Powell
Prairie
Ravalli
Richland
Roosevelt
Rosebud
Sanders
Sheridan
SilverBow
Stillwater
Sweetgrass
Teton
Toole
Treasure
Valley
Wheatland
Wibaux
Yellowstone
YellowstonePark
NEBRASKA
Adams
Antelope
Arthur
Banner
Blaine
Boone
R Factor US
State Name
53.67
32.15
24.54
61.77
50.17
24.64
28.30
23.40
27.16
45.22
33.32
26.50
45.83
30.03
32.77
26.29
56.04
40.25
21.96
33.64
19.85
28.36
39.84
26.43
35.92
31.56
39.70
32.81
33.65
26.55
46.61
35.27
23.74
30.04
27.75
45.45
21.16
21.34
24.61
26.93
36.30
17.70
30.19
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
132.65
113.23
74.59
45.74
101.67
129.32
A-17
County
NEBRASKA
Box Butte
Boyd
Brown
Buffalo
Burt
Butler
Cass
Cedar
Chase
Cherry
Cheyenne
Clay
Colfax
Cuming
Custer
Dakota
Dawes
Dawson
Deuel
Dixon
Dodge
Douglas
Dundy
Fillmore
Franklin
Frontier
Furnas
Gage
Garden
Garfield
Gosper
Grant
Greeley
Hall
Hamilton
Harlan
Hayes
Hitchcock
Holt
Hooker
Howard
Jefferson
Johnson
Kearney
Keith
Keya Paha
Kimball
Knox
Lancaster
Lincoln
R Factor US
53.66
99.05
98.74
118.81
136.53
138.60
157.09
113.28
76.06
80.23
60.24
136.11
134.99
131.62
110.52
124.85
52.84
106.26
63.60
121.76
138.87
142.64
77.15
137.97
125.81
98.60
109.80
164.29
62.72
109.14
109.07
74.92
118.81
127.09
131.86
116.57
87.85
92.73
104.55
85.60
119.91
161.20
168.63
124.52
72.00
92.11
50.70
108.29
149.21
88.62
County
NEBRASKA
Logan
Loup
McPherson
Madison
Merrick
Morrill
Nance
Nemaha
Nuckolls
Otoe
Pawnee
Perkins
Phelps
Pierce
Platte
Polk
Red Willow
Richardson
Rock
Saline
Sarpy
Saunders
Scotts Bluff
Seward
Sheridan
Sherman
Sioux
Stanton
Thayer
Thomas
Thurston
Valley
Washington
Wayne
Webster
Wheeler
York
NEVADA
Churchill
Clark
Douglas
Elko
Esmeralda
Eureka
Humboldt
Lander
Lincoln
Lyon
Mineral
Nye
R Factor US
State Name
94.55
106.35
84.05
123.50
128.60
55.81
128.65
173.80
141.29
162.26
176.44
74.62
115.76
116.21
131.57
135.39
100.79
186.58
101.54
145.88
148.06
142.74
42.43
139.17
65.28
118.97
42.21
127.53
151.03
93.55
129.08
111.65
141.98
123.18
136.02
113.32
137.08
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
21.48
43.51
61.17
28.05
21.76
29.33
25.39
20.84
27.56
32.36
33.70
29.52
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
A-18
County
R Factor US
NEVADA
Pershing
20.88
Storey
29.83
Washoe
89.75
WhitePine
35.15
CarsonCity
52.41
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Belknap
103.88
Carroll
115.03
Cheshire
112.94
Coos
108.19
Grafton
110.32
Hillsborough
117.32
Merrimack
107.46
Rockingham
123.53
Strafford
117.30
Sullivan
103.72
NEW JERSEY
Atlantic
184.83
Bergen
180.31
Burlington
190.42
Camden
185.52
Cape May
181.31
Cumberland
179.14
Essex
189.80
Gloucester
182.54
Hudson
174.32
Hunterdon
177.05
Mercer
183.52
Middlesex
187.54
Monmouth
189.46
Morris
185.24
Ocean
193.84
Passaic
177.96
Salem
177.00
Somerset
182.20
Sussex
164.73
Union
187.64
Warren
173.89
NEW MEXICO
Bernalillo
58.35
Catron
110.09
Chaves
82.57
Cibola
67.00
Colfax
82.57
Curry
88.89
DeBaca
79.11
DonaAna
85.35
Eddy
99.49
Grant
117.02
Guadalupe
77.05
County
NEW MEXICO
Harding
Hidalgo
Lea
Lincoln
LosAlamos
Luna
McKinley
Mora
Otero
Quay
RioArriba
Roosevelt
Sandoval
SanJuan
San Miguel
SantaFe
Sierra
Socorro
Taos
Torrance
Union
Valencia
NEW YORK
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
R Factor US
State Name
69.94
99.81
87.71
110.20
61.14
55.10
34.75
105.27
130.78
90.48
78.39
89.21
66.73
25.53
102.34
80.11
78.98
66.79
84.45
68.82
69.76
56.86
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
105.30
96.05
174.37
104.12
108.55
89.97
118.92
93.98
106.60
78.27
130.58
99.69
121.90
140.51
94.03
92.04
90.17
110.54
82.49
115.73
113.76
112.32
83.97
174.51
105.26
82.37
96.89
A-19
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
County
R Factor US
NEW YORK
Monroe
73.66
Montgomery
100.92
Nassau
173.07
New York
178.04
Niagara
81.04
Oneida
112.00
Onondaga
95.48
Ontario
81.11
Orange
154.55
Orleans
75.56
Oswego
98.24
Otsego
104.90
Putnam
169.71
Queens
167.01
Rensselaer
114.16
Richmond
182.53
Rockland
177.26
St. Lawrence
86.80
Saratoga
103.06
Schenectady
101.85
Schoharie
104.82
Schuyler
91.10
Seneca
82.81
Steuben
86.19
Suffolk
177.28
Sullivan
143.29
Tioga
99.06
Tompkins
96.18
Ulster
146.07
Warren
99.09
Washington
97.62
Wayne
84.12
Westchester
172.76
Wyoming
95.10
Yates
83.49
NORTH CAROLINA
Alamance
248.21
Alexander
246.42
Alleghany
220.92
Anson
290.39
Ashe
232.41
Avery
259.52
Beaufort
333.24
Bertie
285.33
Bladen
321.84
Brunswick
394.61
Buncombe
234.35
Burke
266.89
Cabarrus
257.05
Caldwell
245.90
County
R Factor US
NORTH CAROLINA
Camden
288.68
Carteret
386.25
Caswell
226.20
Catawba
250.77
Chatham
263.78
Cherokee
326.02
Chowan
294.49
Clay
350.22
Cleveland
260.80
Columbus
341.04
Craven
361.11
Cumberland
297.00
Currituck
286.95
Dare
333.80
Davidson
239.03
Davie
229.64
Duplin
353.26
Durham
246.52
Edgecombe
270.45
Forsyth
226.93
Franklin
249.67
Gaston
251.01
Gates
280.87
Graham
351.47
Granville
233.83
Greene
310.73
Guilford
231.99
Halifax
250.53
Harnett
286.33
Haywood
293.21
Henderson
300.40
Hertford
270.81
Hoke
293.64
Hyde
342.17
Iredell
234.02
Jackson
375.85
Johnston
278.37
Jones
360.55
Lee
279.88
Lenoir
340.28
Lincoln
256.81
McDowell
258.19
Macon
367.15
Madison
218.64
Martin
293.31
Mecklenburg
252.32
Mitchell
246.98
Montgomery
273.19
Moore
280.42
Nash
257.65
A-20
State Name
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
County
R Factor US
NORTH CAROLINA
New Hanover
413.13
Northampton
254.14
Onslow
388.68
Orange
246.76
Pamlico
368.13
Pasquotank
285.81
Pender
382.17
Perquimans
297.44
Person
232.86
Pitt
299.53
Polk
303.93
Randolph
258.00
Richmond
289.27
Robeson
310.41
Rockingham
219.20
Rowan
239.82
Rutherford
275.48
Sampson
323.61
Scotland
300.11
Stanly
270.61
Stokes
229.82
Surry
224.88
Swain
321.36
Transylvania
411.56
Tyrrell
323.06
Union
280.13
Vance
233.90
Wake
254.62
Warren
237.25
Washington
314.96
Watauga
261.66
Wayne
307.71
Wilkes
237.84
Wilson
277.47
Yadkin
229.25
Yancey
255.91
NORTH DAKOTA
Adams
50.68
Barnes
68.52
Benson
56.86
Billings
40.43
Bottineau
50.28
Bowman
41.71
Burke
43.70
Burleigh
58.17
Cass
71.54
Cavalier
57.44
Dickey
71.67
Divide
37.24
Dunn
47.06
County
NORTH DAKOTA
Eddy
Emmons
Foster
Golden Valley
Grand Forks
Grant
Griggs
Hettinger
Kidder
La Moure
Logan
McHenry
McIntosh
McKenzie
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Mountrial
Nelson
Oliver
Pembina
Pierce
Ramsey
Ransom
Renville
Richland
Rolette
Sargent
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Steele
Stutsman
Towner
Traill
Walsh
Ward
Wells
Williams
OHIO
Adams
Allen
Ashland
Ashtabula
Athens
Auglaize
Belmont
Brown
Butler
R Factor US
State Name
62.29
57.82
63.99
36.34
64.30
55.96
68.61
50.24
60.77
71.11
64.97
52.19
65.37
39.32
53.28
52.12
55.92
46.72
63.59
55.50
59.00
53.93
57.81
73.45
47.57
78.99
54.92
74.21
56.04
54.95
42.97
49.12
68.32
64.75
55.89
69.03
59.27
50.07
58.68
36.67
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
171.14
132.20
135.73
123.70
141.32
132.87
132.06
181.41
168.11
A-21
County
OHIO
Carroll
Champaign
Clark
Clermont
Clinton
Columbiana
Coshocton
Crawford
Cuyahoga
Darke
Defiance
Delaware
Erie
Fairfield
Fayette
Franklin
Fulton
Gallia
Geauga
Greene
Guernsey
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Highland
Hocking
Holmes
Huron
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lake
Lawrence
Licking
Logan
Lorain
Lucas
Madison
Mahoning
Marion
Medina
Meigs
Mercer
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery
Morgan
Morrow
R Factor US
127.57
148.11
153.17
176.67
165.42
120.53
135.63
137.05
119.40
147.96
128.35
143.66
121.37
145.56
152.07
148.30
121.45
157.80
130.67
155.73
127.79
176.52
131.31
134.63
129.97
126.28
169.25
147.62
132.79
128.62
154.57
127.81
143.17
116.48
166.01
145.11
138.40
117.42
115.14
145.31
118.33
135.84
122.18
146.16
136.74
145.30
137.83
152.75
143.14
142.78
County
OHIO
Muskingum
Noble
Ottawa
Paulding
Perry
Pickaway
Pike
Portage
Preble
Putnam
Richland
Ross
Sandusky
Scioto
Seneca
Shelby
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Van Wert
Vinton
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Williams
Wood
Wyandot
OKLAHOMA
Adair
Alfalfa
Atoka
Beaver
Beckham
Blaine
Bryan
Caddo
Canadian
Carter
Cherokee
Choctaw
Cimarron
Cleveland
Coal
Comanche
Cotton
Craig
Creek
Custer
R Factor US
State Name
139.92
131.53
115.54
129.04
145.85
151.18
156.55
123.73
160.54
129.62
138.31
154.08
121.24
156.87
128.79
139.36
123.94
123.63
116.92
130.09
138.65
134.73
152.10
165.99
138.56
126.51
125.53
121.12
132.39
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
304.06
180.02
309.52
124.27
163.60
191.24
309.81
203.56
218.26
256.99
296.70
331.29
79.84
249.15
292.60
211.07
218.02
265.96
253.93
188.19
A-22
County
OKLAHOMA
Delaware
Dewey
Ellis
Garfield
Garvin
Grady
Grant
Greer
Harmon
Harper
Haskell
Hughes
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnston
Kay
Kingfisher
Kiowa
Latimer
Le Flore
Lincoln
Logan
Love
McClain
McCurtain
McIntosh
Major
Marshall
Mayes
Murray
Muskogee
Noble
Nowata
Okfuskee
Oklahoma
Okmulgee
Osage
Ottawa
Pawnee
Payne
Pittsburg
Pontotoc
Pottawatomie
Pushmataha
Roger Mills
Rogers
Seminole
Sequoyah
Stephens
Texas
R Factor US
285.82
170.09
141.11
208.92
257.36
235.40
196.24
168.20
154.22
145.57
313.90
283.96
171.06
231.08
290.62
219.30
209.17
188.11
343.88
342.52
251.32
223.05
267.74
249.96
367.27
290.74
175.27
289.66
281.95
274.08
282.70
227.55
252.73
270.93
236.05
274.40
233.26
274.43
239.80
235.28
311.67
283.55
262.40
353.19
155.71
263.31
265.57
299.24
237.78
100.36
County
OKLAHOMA
Tillman
Tulsa
Wagoner
Washington
Washita
Woods
Woodward
OREGON
Baker
Benton
Clackamas
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Crook
Curry
Deschutes
Douglas
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
HoodRiver
Jackson
Jefferson
Josephine
Klamath
Lake
Lane
Lincoln
Linn
Linn
Malheur
Marion
Morrow
Multnomah
Polk
Sherman
Tillamook
Umatilla
Union
Wallowa
Wasco
Washington
Wheeler
Yamhill
PENNSYLVANIA
Adams
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
R Factor US
State Name
194.35
259.69
278.30
243.44
188.58
157.01
151.38
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
32.50
291.07
160.83
327.37
118.05
267.10
22.65
403.82
114.79
236.53
11.88
28.16
30.23
155.11
74.73
110.45
365.36
83.32
43.58
267.15
363.60
120.50
121.07
15.29
140.88
21.77
185.42
361.34
14.14
405.23
31.43
48.54
44.79
97.14
219.17
22.74
321.43
145.86
118.53
123.47
118.01
A-23
County
R Factor US
PENNSYLVANIA
Bedford
121.80
Berks
165.88
Blair
124.55
Bradford
100.62
Bucks
176.63
Butler
125.41
Cambria
139.40
Cameron
122.32
Carbon
166.20
Centre
125.31
Chester
175.02
Clarion
128.99
Clearfield
123.46
Clinton
127.77
Columbia
138.16
Crawford
126.62
Cumberland
137.65
Dauphin
146.23
Delaware
176.28
Elk
125.13
Erie
124.30
Fayette
135.72
Forest
122.67
Franklin
142.02
Fulton
127.49
Greene
130.10
Huntingdon
125.06
Indiana
136.39
Jefferson
125.37
Juniata
134.21
Lackawanna
137.02
Lancaster
155.75
Lawrence
120.16
Lebanon
157.15
Lehigh
163.18
Luzerne
144.18
Lycoming
122.18
McKean
117.37
Mercer
125.16
Mifflin
129.19
Monroe
162.55
Montgomery
173.47
Montour
134.26
Northampton
165.37
Northumberland
140.06
Perry
136.28
Philadelphia
178.26
Pike
141.33
Potter
113.05
Schuylkill
168.51
County
R Factor US
PENNSYLVANIA
Snyder
138.62
Somerset
132.25
Sullivan
127.12
Susquehanna
117.92
Tioga
95.78
Union
139.49
Venango
128.94
Warren
123.74
Washington
124.59
Wayne
130.22
Westmoreland
128.56
Wyoming
117.29
York
148.92
RHODE ISLAND
Bristol
163.63
Kent
173.47
Newport
166.73
Providence
162.65
Washington
179.01
SOUTH CAROLINA
Abbeville
284.59
Aiken
318.68
Allendale
350.80
Anderson
278.76
Bamberg
342.75
Barnwell
325.33
Beaufort
411.07
Berkeley
385.99
Calhoun
318.89
Charleston
399.73
Cherokee
270.30
Chester
282.24
Chesterfield
296.66
Clarendon
330.08
Colleton
386.58
Darlington
304.44
Dillon
309.97
Dorchester
373.99
Edgefield
298.15
Fairfield
296.21
Florence
318.20
Georgetown
396.18
Greenville
317.09
Greenwood
284.06
Hampton
370.18
Horry
359.81
Jasper
397.23
Kershaw
287.03
Lancaster
286.27
Laurens
282.14
A-24
State Name
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
South Dakota
County
R Factor US
SOUTH CAROLINA
Lee
301.43
Lexington
316.46
McCormick
292.44
Marion
334.13
Marlboro
299.34
Newberry
285.85
Oconee
331.91
Orangeburg
334.99
Pickens
332.14
Richland
306.14
Saluda
295.71
Spartanburg
284.33
Sumter
318.82
Union
285.19
Williamsburg
352.05
York
274.83
SOUTH DAKOTA
Aurora
87.00
Beadle
78.13
Bennett
68.93
Bon Homme
105.77
Brookings
100.68
Brown
73.26
Brule
83.45
Buffalo
73.18
Butte
43.84
Campbell
61.34
Charles Mix
96.93
Clark
83.54
Clay
113.86
Codington
89.93
Corson
57.78
Custer
57.02
Davison
90.62
Day
81.17
Deuel
98.22
Dewey
60.83
Douglas
95.27
Edmunds
68.56
Fall River
48.73
Faulk
68.48
Grant
87.85
Gregory
97.98
Haakon
59.30
Hamlin
95.05
Hand
71.19
Hanson
93.34
Harding
43.55
Hughes
67.74
Hutchinson
100.30
County
SOUTH DAKOTA
Hyde
Jackson
Jerauld
Jones
Kingsbury
Lake
Lawrence
Lincoln
Lyman
McCook
McPherson
Marshall
Meade
Mellette
Miner
Minnehaha
Moody
Pennington
Perkins
Potter
Roberts
Sanborn
Shannon
Spink
Stanley
Sully
Todd
Tripp
Turner
Union
Walworth
Yankton
Ziebach
TENNESSEE
Anderson
Bedford
Benton
Bledsoe
Blount
Bradley
Campbell
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Cheatham
Chester
Claiborne
Clay
Cocke
Coffee
R Factor US
State Name
70.92
61.93
80.70
66.22
93.20
98.17
62.72
111.58
72.49
100.07
66.66
77.10
52.86
70.20
90.48
105.51
103.13
59.70
52.63
65.62
82.66
83.19
57.78
76.08
62.98
66.57
75.42
86.68
106.42
119.62
63.27
106.65
57.51
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
271.01
315.69
319.99
304.06
271.68
301.08
257.65
316.51
329.35
215.39
285.81
346.56
235.05
271.48
225.64
325.37
A-25
County
TENNESSEE
Crockett
Cumberland
Davidson
Decatur
De Kalb
Dickson
Dyer
Fayette
Fentress
Franklin
Gibson
Giles
Grainger
Greene
Grundy
Hamblen
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardeman
Hardin
Hawkins
Haywood
Henderson
Henry
Hickman
Houston
Humphreys
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
Knox
Lake
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lewis
Lincoln
Loudon
McMinn
McNairy
Macon
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Maury
Meigs
Monroe
Montgomery
Moore
Morgan
Obion
R Factor US
327.54
297.03
278.71
340.05
304.15
303.16
309.61
353.77
272.77
333.47
324.44
343.93
225.07
203.46
338.89
201.39
303.40
210.90
355.08
362.07
196.41
329.21
334.05
308.13
319.97
299.72
318.60
281.77
203.66
212.72
246.81
298.79
315.86
351.50
335.29
327.62
272.38
294.21
365.20
284.51
336.10
328.87
333.65
323.53
285.01
297.84
275.29
324.68
282.69
316.60
County
TENNESSEE
Overton
Perry
Pickett
Polk
Putnam
Rhea
Roane
Robertson
Rutherford
Scott
Sequatchie
Sevier
Shelby
Smith
Stewart
Sullivan
Sumner
Tipton
Trousdale
Unicoi
Union
Van Buren
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Weakley
White
Williamson
Wilson
TEXAS
Anderson
Andrews
Angelina
Aransas
Archer
Armstrong
Atascosa
Austin
Bailey
Bandera
Bastrop
Baylor
Bee
Bell
Bexar
Blanco
Borden
Bosque
Bowie
Brazoria
R Factor US
State Name
281.68
341.86
264.13
315.81
296.32
297.30
272.70
268.70
311.11
265.47
323.16
261.01
345.53
281.86
286.63
183.74
276.10
326.46
283.40
231.02
243.22
308.94
307.04
199.69
366.44
312.77
298.67
303.01
294.26
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
335.10
88.75
388.00
346.87
198.99
127.97
227.91
352.96
94.37
224.32
289.31
184.28
299.18
263.11
245.42
244.31
126.79
247.96
365.61
478.11
A-26
County
TEXAS
Brazos
Brewster
Briscoe
Brooks
Brown
Burleson
Burnet
Caldwell
Calhoun
Callahan
Cameron
Camp
Carson
Cass
Castro
Chambers
Cherokee
Childress
Clay
Cochran
Coke
Coleman
Collin
Collingsworth
Colorado
Comal
Comanche
Concho
Cooke
Coryell
Cottle
Crane
Crockett
Crosby
Culberson
Dallam
Dallas
Dawson
Deaf Smith
Delta
Denton
De Witt
Dickens
Dimmit
Donley
Duval
Eastland
Ector
Edwards
Ellis
R Factor US
326.09
89.33
129.51
246.46
200.72
311.64
229.37
280.12
380.63
183.40
270.67
342.89
123.81
361.37
100.51
498.24
355.39
138.76
218.98
99.77
153.27
191.85
297.26
140.30
353.06
267.22
212.41
176.38
267.43
242.95
142.10
77.89
126.48
129.39
64.44
80.29
272.76
112.90
95.14
332.01
275.78
303.08
138.30
180.61
135.52
232.03
200.52
79.12
186.68
273.05
County
TEXAS
El Paso
Erath
Falls
Fannin
Fayette
Fisher
Floyd
Foard
Fort Bend
Franklin
Freestone
Frio
Gaines
Galveston
Garza
Gillespie
Glasscock
Goliad
Gonzales
Gray
Grayson
Gregg
Grimes
Guadalupe
Hale
Hall
Hamilton
Hansford
Hardeman
Hardin
Harris
Harrison
Hartley
Haskell
Hays
Hemphill
Henderson
Hidalgo
Hill
Hockley
Hood
Hopkins
Houston
Howard
Hudspeth
Hunt
Hutchinson
Irion
Jack
Jackson
R Factor US
State Name
39.01
224.34
276.20
323.35
319.75
158.98
126.95
158.62
401.81
338.41
314.84
209.27
97.99
463.53
129.45
227.57
115.78
312.40
296.39
134.88
296.43
365.74
359.62
275.71
114.42
129.95
222.37
105.23
161.46
511.52
435.78
375.43
87.21
174.40
266.09
134.14
313.31
240.42
264.80
108.70
229.97
344.01
350.89
123.53
51.61
316.01
114.01
138.40
224.06
383.17
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
A-27
County
TEXAS
Jasper
Jeff Davis
Jefferson
Jim Hogg
Jim Wells
Johnson
Jones
Karnes
Kaufman
Kendall
Kenedy
Kent
Kerr
Kimble
King
Kinney
Kleberg
Knox
Lamar
Lamb
Lampasas
La Salle
Lavaca
Lee
Leon
Liberty
Limestone
Lipscomb
Live Oak
Llano
Loving
Lubbock
Lynn
McCulloch
McLennan
McMullen
Madison
Marion
Martin
Mason
Matagorda
Maverick
Medina
Menard
Midland
Milam
Mills
Mitchell
Montague
Montgomery
R Factor US
495.30
86.81
541.24
219.69
263.93
250.76
170.45
258.09
295.60
258.51
261.02
139.41
218.13
188.68
150.46
173.96
273.62
168.80
339.18
104.18
223.77
196.35
334.29
296.49
324.24
479.33
294.05
129.91
250.26
212.70
57.51
115.88
118.39
188.44
259.20
215.41
344.50
364.09
105.31
202.09
425.47
178.17
218.96
180.25
92.58
279.91
201.56
138.63
241.29
408.72
County
TEXAS
Moore
Morris
Motley
Nacogdoches
Navarro
Newton
Nolan
Nueces
Ochiltree
Oldham
Orange
Palo Pinto
Panola
Parker
Parmer
Pecos
Polk
Potter
Presidio
Rains
Randall
Reagan
Real
Red River
Reeves
Refugio
Roberts
Robertson
Rockwall
Runnels
Rusk
Sabine
San Augustine
San Jacinto
San Patricio
San Saba
Schleicher
Scurry
Shackelford
Shelby
Sherman
Smith
Somervell
Starr
Stephens
Sterling
Stonewall
Sutton
Swisher
Tarrant
R Factor US
State Name
99.71
353.68
132.89
387.37
288.63
513.71
162.89
291.16
116.75
92.03
559.83
221.81
392.80
234.33
91.03
87.25
422.57
110.75
81.26
323.27
112.16
119.74
209.80
348.12
62.64
351.63
123.36
293.73
298.82
174.98
368.45
458.16
431.00
425.26
318.52
200.94
157.30
144.22
187.83
416.50
94.34
336.82
235.79
221.89
200.13
131.84
151.69
163.39
116.82
252.95
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
A-28
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
County
TEXAS
Taylor
Terrell
Terry
Throckmorton
Titus
Tom Green
Travis
Trinity
Tyler
Upshur
Upton
Uvalde
Val Verde
Van Zandt
Victoria
Walker
Waller
Ward
Washington
Webb
Wharton
Wheeler
Wichita
Wilbarger
Willacy
Williamson
Wilson
Winkler
Wise
Wood
Yoakum
Young
Zapata
Zavala
UTAH
Beaver
BoxElder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Juab
Kane
Millard
Morgan
R Factor US
175.50
96.42
106.85
189.60
355.62
150.71
257.26
374.95
467.31
346.36
93.12
197.83
142.70
316.71
348.25
380.49
367.80
64.78
339.04
198.22
388.36
142.10
196.57
177.49
270.86
261.80
245.82
70.26
249.55
323.99
98.58
209.68
200.82
177.40
42.55
46.28
32.87
18.23
24.75
37.24
28.45
25.38
32.79
26.75
37.64
27.78
36.49
26.66
40.93
County
UTAH
Piute
Rich
SaltLake
SanJuan
Sanpete
Sevier
Summit
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
Weber
VERMONT
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
VIRGINIA
Accomack
Albemarle
Alleghany
Amelia
Amherst
Appomattox
Arlington
Augusta
Bath
Bedford
Bland
Botetourt
Brunswick
Buchanan
Buckingham
Campbell
Caroline
Carroll
Charles City
Charlotte
R Factor US
State Name
42.55
26.75
50.29
34.09
30.36
34.96
37.56
45.99
28.02
42.11
37.37
40.70
26.79
46.28
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
93.46
131.23
98.81
90.99
100.77
95.97
72.13
105.65
91.71
97.62
108.38
99.42
126.56
103.12
205.76
189.88
145.02
202.67
178.84
189.90
177.60
151.24
151.25
177.86
148.06
160.76
224.15
174.53
185.34
193.77
189.79
194.45
220.14
202.68
A-29
County
R Factor US
VIRGINIA
Chesterfield
208.96
Clarke
145.41
Craig
156.54
Culpeper
179.01
Cumberland
185.48
Dickenson
186.19
Dinwiddie
219.80
Essex
204.28
Fairfax
168.12
Fauquier
164.51
Floyd
195.63
Fluvanna
180.24
Franklin
203.31
Frederick
135.55
Giles
150.31
Gloucester
220.34
Goochland
195.01
Grayson
190.46
Greene
186.90
Greensville
235.45
Halifax
209.27
Hanover
197.19
Henrico
206.66
Henry
221.25
Highland
138.78
Isle of Wight
258.17
James City
231.64
King and Queen
212.59
King George
185.08
King William
210.25
Lancaster
208.33
Lee
224.99
Loudoun
157.35
Louisa
191.89
Lunenburg
215.60
Madison
178.60
Mathews
226.68
Mecklenburg
219.46
Middlesex
215.65
Montgomery
158.62
Nelson
190.35
New Kent
214.39
Northampton
209.81
Northumberland
202.31
Nottoway
208.94
Orange
187.86
Page
151.42
Patrick
229.82
Pittsylvania
203.01
Powhatan
193.85
County
VIRGINIA
Prince Edward
Prince George
Prince William
Pulaski
Rappahannock
Richmond
Roanoke
Rockbridge
Rockingham
Russell
Scott
Shenandoah
Smyth
Southampton
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Surry
Sussex
Tazewell
Warren
Washington
Westmoreland
Wise
Wythe
York
WASHINGTON
Adams
Asiton
Benton
Chelan
Clallam
Clallam
Clark
Columbia
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Franklin
Garfield
Grant
GraysHarbor
Island
Jefferson
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Klickitat
Lewis
Lincoln
R Factor US
State Name
204.82
226.45
166.61
145.28
170.69
206.85
161.81
160.38
135.19
185.25
197.80
131.14
179.73
252.83
184.50
175.55
236.73
237.17
166.07
151.86
184.37
195.57
195.48
140.08
243.55
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
9.08
25.47
8.60
212.16
409.46
177.33
191.25
38.55
211.27
21.36
24.36
7.26
32.70
9.22
414.51
47.12
495.03
157.52
237.15
97.63
199.35
74.38
208.04
10.67
A-30
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
County
R Factor US
WASHINGTON
Mason
382.51
Okanogan
85.82
Pacific
257.76
Pacific
170.72
PendOreille
39.69
Pierce
244.01
Skagit
184.67
Skamania
191.51
Snohomish
232.10
Spokane
24.25
Stevens
39.56
Thurston
150.81
Wahkiakum
209.41
Wahkiakum
151.79
WallaWalla
27.75
Whatcom
156.02
Whitman
19.39
Yakima
121.15
WEST VIRGINIA
Barbour
150.34
Berkeley
134.54
Boone
167.61
Braxton
157.15
Brooke
126.77
Cabell
158.31
Calhoun
148.53
Clay
160.47
Doddridge
143.69
Fayette
162.60
Gilmer
149.65
Grant
124.74
Greenbrier
162.46
Hampshire
121.57
Hancock
121.87
Hardy
125.02
Harrison
137.89
Jackson
146.08
Jefferson
137.22
Kanawha
157.83
Lewis
150.91
Lincoln
166.87
Logan
174.65
McDowell
159.93
Marion
138.35
Marshall
134.22
Mason
150.73
Mercer
139.80
Mineral
115.69
Mingo
177.88
Monongalia
136.09
County
WEST VIRGINIA
Monroe
Morgan
Nicholas
Ohio
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Putnam
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Wayne
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
WISCONSIN
Adams
Ashland
Barron
Bayfield
Brown
Buffalo
Burnett
Calumet
Chippewa
Clark
Columbia
Crawford
Dane
Dodge
Door
Douglas
Dunn
Eau Claire
Florence
Fond Du Lac
Forest
Grant
Green
Green Lake
Iowa
R Factor US
State Name
139.72
123.07
171.17
126.77
125.13
140.60
165.35
156.70
152.96
153.32
170.41
141.78
150.99
138.97
137.83
161.11
143.03
158.77
170.35
178.98
144.56
145.88
138.77
164.89
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
129.91
103.75
128.37
103.36
102.54
141.45
117.05
110.93
129.00
133.01
130.01
142.85
134.57
125.21
93.91
108.51
130.11
133.51
91.13
116.61
100.33
150.88
148.94
120.80
143.96
A-31
Wyoming
Wyoming
County
WISCONSIN
Iron
Jackson
Jefferson
Juneau
Kenosha
Kewaunee
La Crosse
Lafayette
Langlade
Lincoln
Manitowoc
Marathon
Marinette
Marquette
Menominee
Milwaukee
Monroe
Oconto
Oneida
Outagamie
Ozaukee
Pepin
Pierce
Polk
Portage
Price
Racine
Richland
Rock
Rusk
St. Croix
Sauk
Sawyer
Shawano
Sheboygan
Taylor
Trempealeau
Vernon
Vilas
Walworth
Washburn
Washington
Waukesha
Waupaca
Waushara
Winnebago
Wood
WYOMING
BigHorn
Campbell
R Factor US
101.54
140.00
133.42
134.71
142.89
97.73
143.23
154.26
108.23
111.42
105.54
122.51
94.10
124.69
105.86
123.97
140.99
100.80
106.05
108.40
119.27
134.41
133.63
125.39
122.90
113.87
139.91
140.06
145.01
124.97
128.77
134.85
118.25
110.21
122.09
122.83
139.48
141.60
99.88
145.43
117.62
124.80
128.43
117.16
120.08
113.77
129.88
37.76
32.70
County
WYOMING
Carbon
Converse
Crook
Fremont
Goshen
HotSprings
Johnson
Laramie
Lincoln
Natrona
Niobrara
Park
Platte
Sheridan
Sublette
Sweetwater
Teton
Uinta
Washakie
Weston
R Factor US
38.18
30.29
63.55
21.72
40.31
21.03
39.83
32.40
27.50
39.98
37.43
35.13
38.18
28.70
28.62
14.83
33.84
20.48
31.08
69.62
A-32
B-1
Decision Tree-1
SLOPE < 2%
R Factor 145
Silt/Loam Soils
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
- (WFM 0.91)
- (WFM 0.90)
- (VB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.85)
- (ECM 0.83)
- (SB 0.98)
- (VB 0.80)
- (VB 0.75)
- (BP 0.95)
- (BP 0.73)
- (RB 0.73)
- (CS 0.95)
- (CS 0.73)
- (SB 0.73)
- (RB 0.95)
- (RB 0.73)
- (BP 0.73)
- (WFM 0.93)
-(SB 0.72)
- (CS 0.73)
- (ECM 0.86)
- (SF0.67)
- (SF 0.72)
- (SF 0.82)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-2
SLOPE
2%
SLOPE <<2%
145 R Factor 300
Silt/Loam Soils*
Clay Soils*
- (WFM 0.90)
- (WFM 0.88)
Sand/Gravel Soils
If R < 185, use Operational RAPPS
- (SB 0.98)
- (ECM 0.81)
- (ECM 0.80)
- (VB 0.98)
- (VB 0.77)
- (VB 0.71)
- (BP 0.96)
- (SB 0.69)
- (SB 0.68)
- (CS 0.96)
- (RB 0.69)
- (RB 0.68)
- (RB 0.96)
- (WFM 0.90)
- (SF 0.84)
- (ECM 0.82)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-3
SLOPE < 2%
R Factor > 300
Silt/Loam Soils*
Clay Soils*
- (WFM 0.88)
Sand/Gravel Soils
If R > 550, use Supplemental RAPPS
in addition to Operational RAPPS
- (WFM 0.87)
- (VB 0.97)
- (ECM 0.79)
- (ECM 0.78)
- (SB 0.97)
- (RB 0.63)
- (BP 0.96)
- (CS 0.96)
- (RB 0.96)
- (WFM 0.85)
- (RB 0.66)
- (SF 0.84)
- (ECM 0.73)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-4
Silt/Loam Soils
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
If R < 45, use Operational RAPPS
- (WFM 0.94)
- (WFM 0.93)
- (VB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.93)
- (ECM 0.92)
- (SB 0.99)
- (VB 0.90)
- (VB 0.87)
- (WFM 0.95)
- (SB 0.80)
- (RB 0.86)
- (ECM 0.94)
- (BP 0.70)
- (SB 0.86)
- (RB 0.92)
- (CS 0.70)
- (BP 0.86)
- (BP 0.92)
- (RB 0.70)
- (CS 0.86)
- (CS 0.92)
- (SF 0.77)
- (SF 0.71)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-5
Silt/Loam Soils
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
If R < 60, use Operational RAPPS
- (WFM 0.94)
- (WFM 0.93)
- (SB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.91)
- (ECM 0.89)
- (VB 0.99)
- (VB 0.88)
- (VB 0.87)
- (WFM 0.94)
- (SB 0.79)
- (RB 0.86)
- (RB 0.94)
- (RB 0.68)
- (SB 0.86)
- (BP 0.94)
- (BP 0.86)
- (CS 0.94)
- (CS 0.86)
- (ECM 0.91)
- (SF 0.83)
- (SF 0.79)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-6
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
- (WFM 0.92)
- (WFM 0.87)
- (VB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.87)
- (VB 0.81)
- (SB 0.99)
- (VB 0.84)
- (SB 0.80)
- (BP 0.96)
- (SB 0.79)
- (RB 0.79)
- (CS 0.96)
- (RB 0.62)
- (BP 0.79)
- (RB 0.96)
- (CS 0.79)
- (WFM 0.87)
- (SF 0.79)
- (SF 0.84)
- (ECM 0.76)
- (ECM 0.77)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-7
SLOPE > 4%
R Factor 30
Silt/Loam Soils
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
If R < 30, use Operational RAPPS
- (WFM 0.95)
- (WFM 0.94)
- (SB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.94)
- (ECM 0.93)
- (VB 0.98)
- (VB 0.90)
- (VB 0.87)
- (WFM 0.95)
- (SB 0.81)
- (SB 0.86)
- (ECM 0.94)
- (RB 0.64)
- (RB 0.84)
- (RB 0.82)
- (BP 0.84)
- (BP 0.82)
- (CS 0.84)
- (CS 0.82)
- (SF 0.51)
- (SF 0. 51)
- (SBB 0.38)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-8
SLOPE > 4%
30 < R Factor 90
Silt/Loam Soils
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
If R < 40, use Operational RAPPS
- (WFM 0.95)
- (WFM 0.93)
- (VB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.93)
- (ECM 0.92)
- (SB 0.99)
- (VB 0.89)
- (VB 0.87)
- (WFM 0.95)
- (SB 0.80)
- (RB 0.86)
- (ECM 0.94)
- (RB 0.63)
- (SB 0.86)
- (RB 0.93)
- (BP 0.86)
- (BP 0.93)
- (CS 0.86)
- (CS 0.93)
- (SF 0.80)
- (SF 0.73)
-(SF 0.54)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
Decision Tree-9
SLOPE > 4%
R Factor > 90
Silt/Loam Soils
Clay Soils
Sand/Gravel Soils
- (WFM 0.94)
- (WFM 0.89)
- (VB 0.99)
- (ECM 0.90)
- (VB 0.86)
- (SB 0.99)
- (VB 0.87)
- (RB 0.85)
- (RB 0.96)
- (SB 0.80)
- (SB 0.85)
- (BP 0.96)
- (BP 0.85)
- (CS 0.96)
- (RB 0.60)
- (CS 0.85)
- (WFM 0.9)
- (BP 0.60)
- (SF 0.84)
- (SF 0.84)
- (CS 0.60)
- (ECM 0.81)
- (ECM 0.83)
- (SBB/SF 0.93)
- (SBB/SF 0.96)
Index
VB Vegetative Buffer
SB Sediment Basin
IS Interceptor Swale
RB Rock Berm
CS Compost Sock
C-1
A 20-foot wide vegetated buffer strip between a creek and disturbed bare land.
Source: Carleton College Seven-Mile Creek Watershed Project
RAPPS V2
C-2
Vegetative Buffer
Straw
1 - 2 tons
Dry, unchopped,
unweathered; avoid
weeds
Notes
Spread by hand or machine; must
be tacked or tied down
RAPPS- V2
C-3
3) Roughening (RGHN)
Description:
Soil roughening is a temporary erosion control measure often used during grading/excavation
activity. Tracked construction vehicles drive up and down the slope parallel to the flow of water
leaving tracks or grooves that are perpendicular to the flow of water down the slope. These
horizontal grooves created along the disturbed slope will reduce the runoff flow velocity. In
addition, the compaction of the soil provides resistance to erosion. Slopes that are not finegraded and left in a roughened condition can also reduce erosion. Soil roughening reduces
runoff velocity, increases infiltration, reduces erosion and traps sediment.
Installation:
Use a tracked vehicle to drive up and down the slope with the goal of creating tracks that are
parallel to the flow of runoff stormwater. The result should be treads that look like minidiversion berms. Attempt to overlap the edges of each pass so as not to create ruts or channels
between the tracks. Seeding often accompanies roughening as a means of establishing a more
erosion resistant surface when vegetation is established. If roughening is washed away in a
heavy storm event, the surface should be re-roughened and reseeded, if necessary.
Limitations:
Soil roughening is not appropriate for rocky or sandy slopes.
Sufficient clay content is necessary to form a hard surface under compaction.
Tracked machinery can excessively compact the soil, creating less than favorable
conditions for re-establishing vegetation.
Typically, soil roughening is effective only for gentle or shallow depth rains.
Since there are limits to the percent slope that can be safely navigated, strictly adhere to
the safety documentation for your particular tracked vehicle.
Maintenance:
Inspect roughened areas after storm events to assess if re-roughening is needed. Regular
inspections should indicate where additional erosion and sediment control measures are
needed. If small gulliesrills and channels with steep sides appear, fill, re-grade, and re-seed the
affected areas.
C-4
Roughening
RAPPS V2
C-5
Brush Piles
Source: Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 3rd Edition, 1992
RAPPS V2
C-6
Brush Piles
RAPPS V2
C-7
RAPPS V2
C-8
RAPPS V2
C-9
Silt Fence
Properly installed silt fence along a disturbed slope. Note the use of vegetated buffer and the
tight spacing of posts.
Source: EPA Storm Water - Menu of BMPs, 2004
RAPPS V2
C-10
Silt Fence
RAPPS V2
C-11
Rock Berm
RAPPS V2
C-12
Rock Berm
RAPPS V2
C-13
Diversion Dikes
RAPPS V2
C-14
Diversion Dikes
RAPPS V2
C-15
Interceptor Swale
RAPPS V2
C-16
Interceptor Swale
RAPPS V2
C-17
RAPPS V2
C-18
RAPPS V2
C-19
Fiber Rolls/Logs
RAPPS V2
C-20
Fiber Rolls/Logs
Fiber rolls along a newly-vegetated hillside. Note the disturbed slope at the top of the hill
Source: EPA Storm Water.Menu of BMPs, 2004
RAPPS V2
C-21
Fiber Rolls/Logs
RAPPS V2
C-22
Compost Sock
RAPPS V2
C-23
Compost Sock
RAPPS V2
C-24
Sediment Basin
RAPPS V2
C-25
Sediment Basin
D-1
RAPPS V2
D-2
Source: Best Management Practices for Contractors and Inspectors, Fifield, 2005
RAPPS V2
D-3
D-4
RAPPS V2
D-5
Drainage Dips
RAPPS V2
D-6
Road-Side Ditches
RAPPS V2
D-7
RAPPS V2
D-8
D-9
Sediment Traps
RAPPS V2
D-10
Construction Mats
RAPPS V2
D-11
Filter Bags
Source: Best Management Practices for Contractors and Inspectors, Fifield, 2005
RAPPS V2
D-12
Filter Bags
D-13
Trench Dewatering
And Discharge
Limitations:
Not effective for large flows or heavy silt-laden water ;
Straw bales will clog eventually causing ponding and submerged discharge pipe;
Straw bales must be replaced very regularly to prevent rotting or clogging.
Maintenance:
Inspect weekly or after each discharge event.
D-14
Dewatering Structure
12) Typical Open Cut Flowing Stream Crossing Flume Pipe: (SCFP)
Description:
Usually consisting of a flume pipe that drains moving water over an open trench. It is meant as a
temporary measure and is dangerous to the life of personnel if they are to be working in the
trench. Take extreme precaution in the use of this measure to prevent cave-ins and the escape
of the flumed water.
Installation:
See drawing and adjust to site conditions
Limitations:
Temporary;
Dangerous to personnel working in the trench, especially if rain events increase the
water flow above the capacity of the flume.
Maintenance:
Inspect daily and after rain events.
RAPPS V2
D-15
13) Typical Open Cut Minor Flowing Stream Crossing Dam and Pump: (SCDP)
Description:
A method usually consisting of a diversion dike or berm made up of: sand bags, compacted
earth or base material dike. A pump and discharge hose are used to convey water downstream.
Installation:
See drawing and adjust to site conditions
Limitations:
Temporary;
Personnel must be protected from overflows.
Maintenance:
Inspect daily and after each rain event.
D-16
D-17
RAPPS V2
D-18
D-19
Temporary Equipment
Crossing of Flowing
Creek