DETERMINING COVER MANAGEMENT VALUES

(C FACTORS) FOR SURFACE COVER BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)

Kurt Kelsey
Research Scientist
American Excelsior Company
831 Pioneer Ave
Rice Lake, WI 54868

Tony Johnson
National Research Director
American Excelsior Company
831 Pioneer Ave
Rice Lake, WI 54868

319
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Kurt Kelsey

Mr. Kurt Kelsey is employed by American Excelsior Company—Earth Science

Division—Arlington, Texas, as a research scientist. Mr. Kelsey has a Bachelor of Science
degree in Water Resources with an emphasis in Watershed Science and a minor in Soil
Science from the University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, and a Masters of Science in
Natural Resources with an emphasis in Soil and Water Science from the University of
Wisconsin—Stevens Point. Mr. Kelsey was an intern at American Excelsior Company’s
ErosionLab for three years, while working on his thesis project—a soil erosion study. He has
worked on streambank stabilization projects, ground water—surface water quality and
interaction studies, and has published papers on erosion control. He is an active member of
the American Water Resources Association (AWRA), the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ATSM), and the International Erosion Control Association (IECA).

Tony Johnson

Mr. Tony Johnson is employed by American Excelsior Company—Earth Science

Division—Arlington, Texas, as the National Research Director. Mr. Johnson has a Bachelor
of Science degree in Reclamation and Environmental Management from the University of
Wisconsin—Platteville. Mr. Johnson has work experience with the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) on erosion control, streambank stabilization, and
soil survey projects. Mr. Johnson was responsible for the construction, start up, and
operation of the ErosionLab—the company’s erosion research facility. Mr. Johnson is an
active member of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Erosion Control
Technology Council (ECTC), and the International Erosion Control Association (IECA).

320
 DETERMINING COVER MANAGEMENT VALUES
(C FACTORS) FOR SURFACE COVER BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)

Kurt Kelsey

Research Scientist
American Excelsior Company
831 Pioneer Ave
Rice Lake, WI 54868

Tony Johnson

National Research Director

American Excelsior Company
831 Pioneer Ave
Rice Lake, WI 54868

ABSTRACT

Many people in the erosion control industry use the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE) to estimate soil loss caused by rainfall erosion. The equation combines
the interrelated physical and management parameters of climate, soils, topography, and land
use. These parameters, all of which influence the rate of erosion, are represented in
RUSLE’s five factors whose site-specific values can be expressed mathematically. RUSLE
was developed to estimate average annual soil loss. Site disturbances commonly do not last
an entire year, so a method of predicting soil loss from periods of less than one year is
necessary.

RUSLE has been shown to accurately predict event soil loss from sandy loam to
loam soils (Kelsey, 2002). Successful erosion control plans can be developed based on
accurate estimations from RUSLE. Linear regression can be utilized to help determine cover
management values (RUSLE C factor) for surface cover best management practices (BMPs)
when accurate event soil loss amounts are estimated by RUSLE. Properly estimated RUSLE
C factors (and the associated surface cover) can be assigned to bare soil conditions that the
product will successfully protect.

This paper summarizes four years of data collected at American Excelsior

Company’s ErosionLab. RUSLE was utilized to estimate event-based cover management
values for the BMPs studied over the course of the study.

321
 After all factors were analyzed, RUSLE was found to be a reliable tool for predicting
soil loss for a single design event, and for determining RUSLE C factor values for selected
surface BMPs.

Key Words: cover factor; slope protection; RUSLE; BMPs

INTRODUCTION one pollutant of water bodies on a volume basis by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE) (formerly the Universal Soil Loss Equation Wischmeier and Smith (1978) explain that
(USLE)) has been used in the soil erosion industry for USLE/RUSLE may be applied to periods of less than
many years. The full equation is: one year, such as construction activities. The fraction
of the average annual rainfall runoff erosivity factor
A = R*K*LS*C*P occurring over the construction activity replaces the
average annual rainfall runoff erosivity factor that is
where: traditionally used in the equation. A study by Kelsey
(2002), that supports the use of RUSLE to predict
A = Average annual soil loss event soil loss from disturbed sites, explains the
method of calculating the rainfall runoff factor for any
and unique storm. The method calculates the rainfall
energy based on the amount of rainfall received over
R = Rainfall runoff erosivity factor a particular length of time.
K = Soil erodibility factor
LS = Slope length and steepness factor Because RUSLE can be utilized to predict event
C = Cover management factor soil loss, a method of back calculating the cover
P = Support practice factor management value (RUSLE C factor) can be
accomplished. Project planners and designers can
RUSLE was originally developed to estimate soil then apply the event based cover management values
loss from agricultural fields. The equation predicts when they design erosion control plans. This paper
average annual soil loss when used in its discusses the method of determining event-based
“conventional” context. The equation has proven to RUSLE C factors for surface cover best management
help reduce agricultural erosion over the years. practices (BMPs).
Average soil erosion from modern farming practices is
estimated to be 0.8 mm/yr (0.03 in/yr), while BACKGROUND
construction activities are estimated to have an
average soil loss of 3–30 mm/yr (0.12–1.18 in/yr) RUSLE has been used in the past to determine
(Ivarson, 2002). cover management values for various erosion control
products. These values are good estimates, but these
The need for predicting and controlling event soil estimates are based on average annual conditions.
loss from construction activities is becoming more Those responsible for erosion control plans under the
important. Updated National Pollutant Discharge upcoming NPDES Permits will be held accountable for
Elimination System (NPDES) permits are coming in the success of the plans. Erosion control plans based
March 2003. The updated NPDES permits will require on average conditions may fail if “above average”
erosion and sediment control plans to be designed and rainfall events occur during the life of the project. The
implemented for disturbed sites as small as 0.405 ha ability to estimate cover management values based on
(1 acre). In addition, our land is being developed at any sized rainfall event is critical to the success of
unprecedented rates. The average annual land erosion control plans.
development rate from 1992–1997 was 1.3 million
hectares (3.2 million acres), which was more than RUSLE
double the average rate occurring over the previous 10
years (Benson, 1999). Construction sites are major RUSLE has five factors that estimate average
sources of sediment, which is considered the number annual soil loss when multiplied together.

322
Rainfall Runoff Erosivity (R) Slope Length and Steepness (LS)

The R factor represents the climatic erosivity of a Slope and length are combined into the LS factor
location. The R factor includes the two most important in RUSLE. L is the slope length factor, which is the
storm characteristics. These characteristics are the ratio of soil loss from the slope length measured in the
amount of rainfall and the peak intensity of the storm. field to that from a 22.1 m (72.6 ft) length on the same
soil type and gradient. Slope length is the distance
RUSLE R factors can be calculated for a specific from the start of overland flow to the point where
rainfall event based on rain gauge readings and storm concentrated flow or deposition occurs. The most
duration (Renard et al., 1997; Kelsey, 2002). The accurate method of determining slope length is to
product of the total kinetic energy (E) times the 30- measure the distance on the ground (Michigan State
minute maximum intensity (I30) for a particular storm University, 2001). Slope lengths greater than 305 m
equals the R factor for that event. (1000 ft) should not be used in RUSLE because
concentration usually occurs before the end of
Average annual RUSLE R factor values are also segments of this distance (Michigan State University,
presented in isoerodent maps. R factors from the 2001; Renard et al., 1997).
isoerodent maps represent average EI30 values over
many years. R factor values vary greatly from location The S portion of the LS factor incorporates the
to location. In the state of Michigan, for example, R gradient of the landscape into RUSLE. S is the ratio of
ranges from 75 to 135 (US customary units) annually soil loss from the slope found in the field to that from a
(Michigan State University, 2001). Rainfall erosivity 9% slope believed to be under the same conditions.
factors have dimensions of LFL/L²T and units of Soil particle size and vegetation density along the
MJ*mm/ha*h*y (hundreds of foot*tonf *inch/ acre*h*yr). slope influence the ratio of soil loss to slope steepness.

Soil Erodibility Factor (K) L and S = 1 under the unit plot conditions of 22.1
m (72.6 ft) long and 9% slope. LS factors for field plots
K is defined as the rate of soil loss per unit of represent how erodible the plot is relative to the
rainfall erosion index for a soil cultivated in continuous standard plot conditions (Michigan State University,
fallow on a plot having a slope length of 22.1 m (72.6 2001; Renard et al., 1997). The LS factor is unitless.
ft) and a gradient of 9% (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).
The K factor represents both susceptibility of soil to Cover Management (C)
erosion and the rate of runoff.
Cover management is considered by RUSLE
Linear regression of bare soil data sets can be through the C factor. The C factor represents the effect
used to determine event K factors (Clopper, 2001; of surface cover and roughness on soil erosion. The
Kelsey, 2002). The procedure is similar to determining cover factor is the most common factor used to assess
event cover management values of surface cover the impact of BMPs on reducing erosion because the
BMPs, which is described in detail in the Calculating C factor represents the effect of land use on soil
Event C Factors section of this paper. erosion (Renard et al., 1997). Erosion control blankets
and surface applied BMPs such as blown straw are
An annual average soil erodibility factor can be represented as C factors within RUSLE. By definition,
extrapolated from the soil erodibility nomograph when C = 1 under standard fallow conditions. As surface
soil organic matter content is 4% or less (Wischmeier cover is added to the soil, the C factor value
and Smith, 1978). K factors can also be determined approaches zero. For example, a C factor of 0.20
from equations found in Agriculture Handbook No. 703 signifies that 20% of the amount of erosion will occur
(Renard et al., 1997). The nomograph considers compared to continuous fallow conditions. C factors
texture, structure, and permeability in addition to vary from region to region because they are strongly
organic matter. A K factor may need to be adjusted by influenced by different R factors (Wischmeier and
a qualified soil scientist in situations where the subsoil Smith, 1978).
is exposed, the soil’s organic matter content has been
depleted, soil structure has been altered, or where soil The unitless cover management factor can be
compaction has decreased permeability (Michigan determined in two ways. The first method, which is
State University, 2001). Soil erodibility factors have discussed in the Calculating Event C Factors section
dimensions of ML²T/L²LFL and units of t*ha*h/ha*MJ* of this paper, involves determining event specific
mm (ton*acre*hr/hundreds of acre*foot*tonf*inch). values, which can be derived from the linear

323
regression of soil loss data. The second method
involves estimating a C value from five subfactors
(Renard et al., 1997). The five subfactors are:

1) Prior Land Use (PLU)

2) Canopy Cover (CC)
3) Surface Cover (SC)
4) Surface Roughness (SR)
5) Soil Moisture (SM)

Support Practice (P)

P is the support practice factor in RUSLE. The P

factor reflects the impact of support practices on the
average annual erosion rate. P is the ratio of soil loss Figure 1. Onsite water source in foreground with
with a support factor to that with straight row farming rainfall erosion plots in background.
up and down slope. Stripcropping, contouring, and
terracing are all activities that are considered support
practices by RUSLE (Michigan State University, 2001).
The support factor is unitless. Simulated Rainfall

Water is pumped through the rainfall simulator

OBJECTIVE from an onsite 2 ha (5 acre) pond. Raindrop size,
distribution, and quantity are measured during system
The objective of this study is to devise a method calibrations. Eleven rainfall risers surround a plot
that accurately calculates event-specific cover during simulated rainfall testing. Each riser is 3 m (10
management values (RUSLE C) for surface cover ft) tall, which gives the raindrops an approximate 4.9 m
BMPs. (16 ft) fall height when projected by the sprinkler
system. This fall height allows the raindrops to
experience terminal velocities very similar to natural
METHODS rainfall.

Study Site One simulated rainfall test includes three

sequential target intensities of 5.1, 10.2, and 15.2
Fieldwork for this study was completed at cm/hr (2, 4, and 6 in/hr) each lasting 20 minutes. The
American Excelsior Company’s ErosionLab in Rice target intensity of 5.1 cm/hr (2 in/hr) is achieved when
Lake, Wisc. The Rainfall Erosion Facility (REF) portion one sprinkler head on each of the 11 rainfall risers is
of the lab is equipped to test surface cover BMPs on turned on and the system is maintained at an operating
hillslopes under simulated rainfall. REF testing follows pressure determined through the calibration process.
procedures outlined in American Society for Testing The target intensities of 10.2 and 15.2 cm/hr (4 and 6
and Materials (ASTM) ASTM D—6459, “Standard Test in/hr) are achieved when two and three sprinkler
Method for Determination of Erosion Control Blanket heads, respectively, are turned on each of the 11 risers
(ECB) Performance in Protecting Hillslopes from and predetermined operating pressures are
Rainfall-Induced Erosion” (ASTM, 2001). REF contains maintained. Figure 2 shows the rainfall simulator
12 erosion plots that are 12.2 m (40 ft) long by 2.4 m (8 system operating during a 15.2 cm/hr (6 in/hr) event.
ft) wide and are separated from one another by a 4.9
m wide buffer of vegetated soil (see Figure 1). All 12 Erosion Plot Preparation
plots were constructed at an approximate 33 percent
grade. There are four plots each of sandy loam, Plots were tilled up and down slope using a walk-
gravelly loam, and silty clay loam materials. All behind roto-tiller to a depth of 10.2–15.2 cm (4–6 in).
contents exiting the plots are directed into buried Plots were hand-raked to a uniform smooth surface
collection tanks by v-shaped metal flashing at the end following tillage. A 31.8 kg (70 lb) rolling pin was then
of each plot. used to lightly compact the smooth plot. If a surface

324
 lb/yd²) with netting on top and bottom were the five
surface conditions tested. Each surface condition was
tested three times on each of the three soil types. The
blown straw was only tested at the 5.1 and 10.2 cm/hr
(2 and 4 in/hr) intensities lasting 20 minutes each. The
other three BMPs were subjected to the previously
stated sequential intensities of 5.1, 10.2, and 15.2
cm/hr (2, 4, and 6 in/hr) lasting 20 minutes each.

Laboratory Procedures

Homogeneous samples of the collected soil slurry

were taken following each 20-minute storm increment
Figure 2. Erosion test plot during the 20.3 cm/hr (6 to determine the moisture content of the soil lost from
in/hr) portion of the test series. the plots. The Microwave Method, ASTM #4643, was
followed (ASTM, 2000). The Microwave Method is
equivalent to oven drying the soils at 105° C for 24
hours. After the moisture content of the sample was
cover BMP was to be tested, the BMP was installed known, the ratio of dry to wet soil was used to calculate
according to manufacturer’s recommendations at that the equivalent amount of dry soil that was collected
time. The simulated rainfall series was started directly during the test. This was necessary because RUSLE
following compaction when bare soil controls were computes soil loss on a dry basis.
tested.
Data Analysis
Soil Types Tested
Ayres Associates performed the data analysis for
Three soils types were tested during the course of this project.
this study. Chetek sandy loam is the native soil on site
and contains a grain size distribution of 82.3 percent The bare soil dataset provided a control by which
sand, 2.8 percent silt, and 14 percent clay. An event-based soil erodibility factors (RUSLE K) could be
imported topsoil material with a grain size distribution determined (Clopper et. al., 2001). Linear regression of
of 43.6 percent sand, 30.4 percent silt, and 10.5 soil loss vs rainfall runoff erosivity was used to
percent clay was also tested. The topsoil material is calculate the event-specific soil erodibility values.
categorized as a gravelly loam according to the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) textural The cover management factor was the only
triangle. The third soil type tested was an imported remaining unknown event-specific RUSLE variable
“clayey” material with a grain size distribution of 1 once it was understood how the soils were eroding on
percent sand, 61.6 percent silt, and 37.4 percent clay, an event basis:
which is classified as a silty clay loam according to the
USDA textural triangle. The two imported materials are A = RKLSCP
maintained in the test plots as 45.7 cm (18 in) veneers.
Material was added to the erosion plots from on-site A = Soil loss which is collected and measured
stockpiles when needed. during simulated rainfall testing.
R = Rainfall runoff erosivity values are calculated
Surface Cover BMPs Tested based on the amount and duration of
simulated rainfall.
Five different surface conditions were tested and K = Soil erodibility determined from the baseline
cover management factors were calculated for each bare soil dataset.
except for the bare soil controls. Bare soil conditions, LS = Slope length and steepness of the test plots
blown oat straw applied at approximately 459 kg/m² are fixed.
(2500 lb/acre), a wood fiber blanket weighing C = Event specific cover management value is not
approximately 0.40 kg/m² (0.73 lb/yd²) with netting on known.
top, a straw fiber blanket weighing approximately 0.27 P = No support practice measures were used
kg/m² (0.50 lb/yd²) with netting on top, and a straw during the testing of the BMPs so P equaled
fiber blanket weighing approximately 0.27 kg/m² (0.50 one for every test performed.

325
Calculating Event C Factors single net wood fiber erosion control blanket data from
the loam soil type.
Once RUSLE A and RUSLE R were known for a
series of tests on a surface cover BMP, it was possible RESULTS
to plot A as the dependent variable and R as the
independent variable. The resulting slope m of the Cover management factors are dependent of soil
least squares regression line fitted through the origin is type because the erodibility rates (RUSLE K) of
equal to: different soils vary. Cover management factors are
also dependent on the rainfall runoff erosivity of a
m = K*LS*C*P particular event. Event cover management values were
calculated separately on each of the three soil types
solving the equation for C, for the four surface cover BMPs tested. Table 1 lists
the average event based cover management values by
C = m/K*LS*P surface cover BMP and soil type.

and no support practices were used so P = 1 and LS DISCUSSION

is fixed for all the erosion plots = 2.78
All four of the products performed very well on the
substituting the values for P and LS, sand soil. The sand soil has an inherently high
infiltration rate, which resulted in very little erosion
C = m/2.78K when a surface BMP was applied.

Figure 3 illustrates the regression of test data used The wood fiber erosion control blanket performed
to calculate event cover management factors using the best on the loam soil. The unique properties of the

Soil Loss vs R-factor (blanket tests on loam)

8.0
C=.018
p=.004
7.0

6.0
S.I. units

5.0
y = 0.001x
Soil Loss

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00

R-factor

Figure 3. Regression of soil loss vs. RUSLE R factor using single net wood fiber
erosion control blanket simulated rainfall test data from loam plots. The slope of
the regression line was used to calculate the cover management factor (C) of the
single net wood fiber erosion control blanket.

326
 Table 1. Event Based Cover Management Values by Surface Cover Bmp and Soil
Type.*

Surface Cover Soil Type

Sand Loam Clay

Wood Fiber Blanket 0.010 0.018 0.220

Blown Straw** 0.003 0.810 ***

Straw Blanket—Single Net 0.002 0.046 0.600

Straw Blanket—Double Net 0.002 0.041 0.245

* Data taken from A Quantitative Assessment of Erosion and Sediment Control Best
Management Practices, Rainfall–Runoff Erosion on Hillslopes: 1. Curlex 0.73 Erosion
Control Blanket Testing (2000). 2. Pneumatically applied straw testing (2000). 3. Premier
Straw Erosion Control Blanket Testing (2002). 4. Premier Straw Double Net Erosion
Control Testing (2002). All documents were prepared for American Excelsior Company
by Ayres Associates.

** The blown straw surface was only tested at the 5.1 and 10.2 cm/hr (2 and 4 in/hr)
intensities. The blown straw was the only surface cover tested that was not subjected to
the third sequential intensity of 15.2 cm/hr (6 in/hr).

*** The cover management value for the blown straw on the clay soil was greater than 1,
which exceeds the definition of the cover management factor for bare soil conditions.
More soil loss was measured during the blown straw tests on clay than the bare soil tests
on clay.

curled fibers allowed the product to adhere to the soil when applying blown straw to loam soils as opposed to
surface and to maintain intimate contact with the 17%. The difference between the two cover
surface. Both straw erosion control blankets performed management values is drastic.
about the same on the loam soil, but not as well as the
wood fiber blanket. The blown straw did not perform
very well on the loam soil. The non-anchored blown The wood fiber erosion control blanket also
straw was unable to adhere to the loam soil surface performed the best on the clay soil. The double net
and washed downslope during simulated rainfall straw erosion control blanket performed well too. The
testing. single net straw erosion control blanket did not perform
well. The results of this study suggest that applying
This is a scenario where determining cover blown straw to clay soils is worse than leaving the soils
management values on an event basis becomes bare. Blown straw is free to easily migrate downslope
important. Agriculture Handbook 537 (1978) provides as opposed to the materials contained within the
a cover management value for non-anchored blown erosion control blankets. The blown straw was seen to
straw of 0.17 for soils with erodibility rates less than form small dam-like structures on the erosion plots,
0.30. All three soil types tested have K factors of less which increased infiltration and caused the soil to
than 0.30, so blown straw would accordingly have a C approach saturation. When the critical moisture level of
factor of 0.17. The results of an erosion control plan the soil was achieved, large slugs of the material slid
that used the “generic” C factor of 0.17 for blown straw downslope. This phenomenon is similar to the
may be costly. Table 1 suggests that 81% of the soil landslides common to the west coast of the United
loss at bare fallow conditions would be experienced States.

327
 CONCLUSION Premier Straw Erosion Control Blanket Testing.
Fort Collins, Colo.
With the updated NPDES permits looming in the
near future and their potential fines involved with Ayres Associates. 2002. A Quantitative Assessment of
unsuccessful erosion control plans, the ability to Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management
determine site and event specific cover management Practices, Rainfall–Runoff Erosion on Hillslopes:
values for surface cover BMPs is priceless. Properly Premier Straw Double Net Erosion Control Blanket
calculated event C factors allow designers and Testing. Fort Collins, Colo.
engineers to develop erosion control plans that have a
better chance of surviving the “gully washer” in their Benson, J. 1999. The State of the Land. Conservation
particular area. Cover management factors can be Voices. Soil and Water Conservation Society.
calculated for any sized rainfall event. The main April–May.
limitation to this method of determining event-based
cover management factors is that there must by an Clopper, Paul, M. Vielleux, and A. Johnson. 2001.
established baseline bare soil dataset before C factor “Quantifying the Performance of Hillslope Erosion
calculations can be performed. Control Best Management Practices.” World Water
and Environmental Resources Congress
REFERENCES Professional Paper.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Ivarson, R. E. 2002. “Performance Based Design of
2001. “ASTM Annual Book of ASTM Standards— Erosion and Sediment Controls For Construction.”
2001: Section Four.” Construction, Vol. 04.09. In Proceedings of the International Erosion Control
ASTM, West Conshohocken, Penn. Association’s Conference 33, p 379–392.

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Kelsey, K. L. 2002. “Use of the Revised Universal Soil
2000. “ASTM Annual Book of ASTM Standards— Loss Equation on an Event-By-Event Basis.” In
2000: Section Four.” Construction, Vol. 04.08. Proceedings of the International Erosion Control
ASTM, West Conshohocken, Penn. Association’s Conference 33, p 61–69.

Ayres Associates. 2000. A Quantitative Assessment of Michigan State University. 2001. RUSLE—An Online
Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Soil Erosion Assessment Tool. Website: www.iwr.
Practices, Rainfall–Runoff Erosion on Hillslopes: msu.edu/~ouyandga/rusle/.
Curlex 0.73 Erosion Control Blanket Testing. Fort
Collins, Colo. Renard, K. G., G. R. Foster, G. A. Weesies, D. K.
McCool, and D. C. Yoder. 1997. Predicting Soil
Ayres Associates. 2000. A Quantitative Assessment of Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation
Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Practices, Rainfall–Runoff Erosion on Hillslopes: Equation—USDA Agric. Handb. 703. U.S. Gov.
Pneumatically Applied Straw Testing. Fort Collins, Print. Office, Washington, D.C.
Colo.
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978. Predicting
Ayres Associates. 2002. A Quantitative Assessment of Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide For
Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Conservation Planning—USDA Agric. Handb. 537.
Practices, Rainfall–Runoff Erosion on Hillslopes: U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.

328