Which method demonstrates final stabilization other than the 70% final cover method or the RUSLE/RUSLE2 approach?

Which method demonstrates final stabilization other than the 70% final cover method or the RUSLE/RUSLE2 approach?

• A. 70% final cover method
• B. RUSLE/RUSLE2 method
• C. Custom Method
• D. None of the above

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is that final stabilization can be shown using an approach other than the common 70% final cover rule or the RUSLE/RUSLE2 modeling. A Custom Method represents a site-specific stabilization plan that has been approved for use in the SWPPP and demonstrates stabilization with criteria different from those two standard methods. This could involve alternative ground-cover criteria, different timing, or engineered controls, as long as the method is documented, approved, and shown to meet the stabilization goals. The reason this is the best answer is that it explicitly allows for an approved, non-standard approach to verifying final stabilization, whereas the other two options are the standard methods.

The idea being tested is that final stabilization can be shown using an approach other than the common 70% final cover rule or the RUSLE/RUSLE2 modeling. A Custom Method represents a site-specific stabilization plan that has been approved for use in the SWPPP and demonstrates stabilization with criteria different from those two standard methods. This could involve alternative ground-cover criteria, different timing, or engineered controls, as long as the method is documented, approved, and shown to meet the stabilization goals. The reason this is the best answer is that it explicitly allows for an approved, non-standard approach to verifying final stabilization, whereas the other two options are the standard methods.