2016 07 21 River Road NHESP Reponse.pdfAnEqualO pportunityEmployerM /F/V/H
July21,2016
01.017265.00
M assachusettsN aturalHeritageandEndangeredS peciesP rogram
M A DivisionofFisheriesandW ildlife
O neR abbitHillR oad
W estborough,M A 01581
Attn:M r.DavidP aulson
R E: N HES P T rackingN o.14-33893(DEP W etlandsFileN o.246-0694)
R iverR oadR etainingW allImprovements;N orthampton,M A
DearM r.P aulson:
O nbehalfofourClient,theCity ofN orthamptonDP W ,GZA ispleased toprovidethisre-
sponsetoN HES P ’sreview commentletterdatedJune14,2016,inreferencetotheR iverR oad
R etainingW allImprovementsM ES A R eview filedwithyourofficeon5/16/2016. N HES P ’s
letterstatedthatadditionalinformationwasrequiredfortheDivisiontocompleteitsreview.
Detailedbelow istheinformationrequestedandenclosedareupdateddrawingsthatinclude
applicablechangesandclarifications.T heresponsesbelow repeateachcommentfrom the
Division’sJune14,2016letter,withourresponsesinboldtype.
1.T heP rojectproposes±1,000 linearfeetofbank/retainingwallstabilization.T heexisting
stonewallisapproximately ±950 linearfeet.Based ontheinformationprovided,this
impliesthat50 linearfeetwillbeaddedtothewall.T hisisnotclearlydepictedonthe
plansornarrative.P leaseprovidearevisednarrativeandplan.
R ES P O N S E: T heexistingstonemasonrywallisapproximately950 feetinlength,allof
whichwillberemoved. S omeofthestonemasonry currently functionsasatraffic
barrier— thisfunctionwillbereplacedwithanew guardrailfollowingwallremoval.
W heretheexistingstonemasonryperformsasoil-orroad-retainingfunction,itwillbe
replacedwithanew cementconcreteretainingwallthatwillbe512 feetinlength.
T hus,thenew wallwillbeover400 feetshorterthantheexisting.T hetotalbankim-
pactof1,000 LFisreflectiveofthetotalareaofdisturbancealongthebank,some
associatedwithclearingandminorgradingbeyondthelimitoftheexistingstonewall
toallow foraccessandconstructionworktotakeplace.
2.S tream andHabitatR estorationareasareidentifiedontheplan;however,detailsabout
therestoration,includingaplantingplan,arenotprovided.P leasesubmitinformation
ontheproposed stream and habitatrestoration.P leasenotethatallseeds/seedlings
shouldbenativeto*County,perT heVascularP lantsofM assachusetts:A CountyCheck-
list,FirstR evision(Dow Cullina,Connolly,S orrie& Somers,2011),whichisavailablefrom
theM assachusettsstatearchiveat:
http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/120973/ocn747431427.pdf?sequence=1.
July21,2016
N HES P T rackingN o.14-33893
R iverR oadR etainingW allImprovements; N orthampton,M A
P age| 2
Proactive b yDe sign
R ES P O N S E: Habitatrestorationareasontheplansarenow calledoutmoreclearly,andaplantingtableispro-
videdfortheareasofupland(R iverfrontArea)re-planting.In-stream “LandU nderW ater” and“Bank” restoration
willconsistofreplacementofthegranularstream bottom andbanksubstrates,in-kindwithon-sitematerial.
R estorationoftheBankareasattheupstream endoftheP rojectentailsreplacementofexistingsand,gravel,
cobbles,andboulders,asthisbankareaislargelyun-vegetatedandconsistsofanopencobblebar— seephoto
below.
R e-plantingwilloccurwithinA “S pecialP lantingZone”,asmallareaofclearingandgradingontheupstream end
ofthewallrepair(~2,900SF),wheretreeswillbecleared(cutflushwiththegroundsurface)forstagingandaccess
totheriver.
Atthedownstream endoftheproject,thedrawingshavebeenrevisedtoclarifythatonlyasmallareaoftreesat
theverytopofthebankwillberemovedinthislocationtofacilitatewallremovalandreplacementwithguard
rail.Ingeneral,habitatswillbereplacedin-kind,withexistingstream substratesreplacedwithinin-stream areas
andnativevegetationreplacedinareasofgradingandvegetationremoval.
3.T heprojectplansproposetheuseofonsite/existingrip-rapandboulderstoprotecttheretainingwall.T henarrative
statesthatthematerialwillcomefrom thefrontoftheexistingwallandthestream channel.P leaseprovideaddi-
tionalinformationonthisaspectoftheproject.S pecifically,pleaseclarifyifmachinesbeworkingintheriverbeyond
theproposedcofferdam anddewateredarea.Additionally,pleaseprovideclarificationontheamountmaterialthat
willberemovedfrom thestream channelinordertoarmortheretainingwall.
July21,2016
N HES P T rackingN o.14-33893
R iverR oadR etainingW allImprovements; N orthampton,M A
P age| 3
Proactive b yDe sign
R ES P O N S E: Exceptspecificallywithinthetwoareaswhere
temporarycofferdamswillbeemployed,machineswillnot
beoperatinginareasbelow themean annuallow water
lineshownonthedrawings. Inmany areas,theexisting
banksoftheriverconsistofcobbles,boulders,andriprap
placedagainsttheexistingwall.T hesematerialswillbere-
movedtoallow forremovaloftheexistingstonemasonry
andwillbereplacedinthesameorsimilarpositionsand
locationsafterconstructionofthenew retainingwall.M a-
terialwillnotberemovedfrom thestream channelinorder
toarmortheretainingwall.S eephotototherightofatyp-
icalsection ofthe existing wall,showing the existing
riprap/boulder/cobbleslopebelow thewall.
4.T heDivisionrecognizesthattheproposalwishestolimitthe
extentofoffsitematerialthatisbeingusedtoarmorthere-
tainingwall.T heDivisionrequestsanalternativesanalysisto
lookatotherstabilizationtechniques(besidesriprap)that
canbeincorporatedintotheprojectplans,includingbutnot
limitedtotheuseofboulderdeflectors,floodplainbenches,
logjams,root wads,bioengineering,and otherstrategies
thatincorporategeofluvialprinciplesandresultinmorenat-
uralstream bankcharacteristics.
R ES P O N S E: AlthoughnotspecificallydiscussedintheN o-
tice ofIntentapplication,naturaland/orbioengineering
measureswereconsideredinearlierscreeningofalterna-
tives. T he “S tream R estoration Design” handbook (P art
654 ofthe N ationalEngineering Handbook [N aturalR e-
sourcesConservation S ervice— U S DA]) recommendsan
earlydeterminationofprojectconstraints,whichtogether
withthegoalsandobjectivescanaffecttheselectionofal-
ternatives. Constraintslimitthepossibleactionsforstream restorationorstabilization. Asistypicalforurban
locationsandinthecaseofthisreachoftheM illR iveralongR iverR oad,theconstraintsareprimarilyanthropo-
genicandincludethefollowing:
Historicaldevelopment,criticalinfrastructure(W illiamsburgsewerinterceptor),andpreservationofthe
landareasimmediatelyoutsideofthetopofbank,whichlimitschannelplanform
Low toleranceofriskofprojectfailure
Economicfactors(relatedtothelow toleranceofrisk,above). T heCity hasobtainedaFEM A/M EM A
HazardM itigationgrantthatwillpayforupto75% ofthecostsofimprovement.Fundsareavailablefor
ashortperiodoftime,andthereisnoexpectationofcostsharingiftheinitialimprovementsarenot
successful.
July21,2016
N HES P T rackingN o.14-33893
R iverR oadR etainingW allImprovements; N orthampton,M A
P age| 4
Proactive b yDe sign
Additionally,anevaluationofrisk,consequences,anduncertaintycanhelpdesignersandstake-holdersevaluate
alternatives.T hefollowingexcerptisfrom Chapter2 ofP art654:
Inruralsettings,theriskfactorisnormallysomewhatlowerthaninanurbansetting.Ifthestream
restoration project fails, the consequences are often much greater in a heavily developed area
than in an undeveloped area. At the same time, a rural setting can have a high risk factor when
infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and buildings, is involved. Generally, themore risk involved
in a potential failure, the more caution should be taken in the recommendation and design. This
risk assessment should always be considered and discussed with the landowner so that all par-
ties are aware of the level of risk taken. In a low-risk location where only moderate damage may
occur, many landowners are willing to accept possible damage that would need some repair, ra-
therthanacceptsubstantialcostincreasestolowerthepotentialdamage. Astheripariancorridor
matures,awell-designedstreamrestorationprojectbecomesmorestableovertime. Thegreatest
risk of damage normally occurs in the period immediately after installation.
More often than not, as a result of increased infrastructure, as well as compromised ecosystem
health, the risks of action or inaction tend to be higher in a developed watershed than in a rural
watershed. Therisksassociatedwithanyoneparticularprojectvarybasedonthescopeand scale
ofthesubjectstreamreachandwatershed. Althoughtherisksassociatedwithstreamrestoration
are often interrelated, they can be related to the objectives for the social and biological commu-
nities.
InthisreachoftheM illR iver,theCityofN orthamptonhasalow toleranceforrisk. Continuedwallandslope
instabilityinthiscriticallocationisunacceptable,asitwouldthreatenpublichealthandsafetyandthepotential
disruptionofsignificantinfrastructure(ruralcollectorroadwayandinter-municipalsewerinterceptor). Associ-
atedriskaversionrelatestothecostofdesign,permitting,andconstructionofthewallimprovementmeasures,
andalsothecalendartimethattheseactivitiesconsume. T heCity hasanexpectationandfiscalneedforan
effective,low-riskwallimprovementproject.
Giventheknownrisksanduncertaintiesassociatedwiththeestablishmentofeffectivenaturaland/orbioengi-
neeringmeasures,thesealternativeswerescreenedfrom thelistofdesirable,minimal-riskoptions.Inmostareas
wheretheexistingstonemasonrywallisveryclosetothetopoftheriverbank,theslopeiscurrentlyprotected
withexistingriprapandcobblesandboulders(seephotoabove).Intheseareas,thesamematerialswillbeused
toprotecttheslopeafterwallremovalandreplacement. Inareaswheretheexistingwalldoesnothavestone
(ripraporcobble/boulder)slopeprotectionbelow,onlyathinbankofnew riprap/cobbles/boulderswillbein-
stalledandgenerallywithinthefootprintoftheexistingwall. T hereisasmallareaabout85-90 feetinlength
wheretheexistingbankisverysteep(almostvertical)andincludesanunstablesectionofexistingwallthatwill
beremoved. Inthissmallarea,thesteepbankwillbemademorestableby theadditionofnew riprap/cob-
bles/boulders.Becausetheexistingroadissoclosetothetopofbank,layingtheslopebacktoinducestabilityis
notaviableoption.
July21,2016
N HES P T rackingN o.14-33893
R iverR oadR etainingW allImprovements; N orthampton,M A
P age| 5
Proactive b yDe sign
S houldyou haveanyquestionsregardingtheseresponses,pleasecontacttheundersignedatyourconvenienceat1-413-
726-2100.
Verytrulyyours,
GZA
S tevenR iberdy,M S ,P W S ,CW B,CE M atthew A.T aylor,P .E.
S eniorEcologist AssociateP rincipal
T homasE.Jenkins,P .E.
P rincipal-in-Charge
Attachments:
U pdatedP rojectDrawings
P lansfortheR iverR oadR etainingW allImprovementP roject;GZA,R ev.2,July19,2016:
No.Title
1 Cover Sheet
EX-1 Existing Topographic Plan of Land (1 of 2)
EX-2 Existing Topographic Plan of Land (2 of 2)
2 Existing Conditions Plan No. 1
3 Existing Conditions Plan No. 2
4 Overall Site Plan
5 Sediment & Erosion Control Plan
6 Wetland Permitting Plan
7 Retaining Wall Plan & Profile Sta 0+00 –4+25
8 Retaining Wall Plan & Profile Sta 4+00 –9+18
9 Sections
10 Retaining Wall Details
11 Details
N ew EnglandW etlandP lantsS eedM ixLists(2 pages)
cc: M r.DavidVeleta– N orthamptonDP W
N orthamptonConservationCommission
M ADEP -W ER O
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
249 Vanderbilt Avenue
Norwood, MA 02062
PHONE (781) 278-3700
AS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
COVER SHEET
DRAWING
MAY 2016 172065.00
1
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
EDM
CHECKED BY:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
MAT MAT
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NLR
TEJ
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP)
"A Federal, State, and Local Partnership through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)"
HMGP GRANT NUMBER 1813-32
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
CHARLIE BAKER, GOVERNOR
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
KURT N. SCHWARTZ, DIRECTOR
Department of Conservation and Recreation
LEO ROY, COMMISSIONER
EX-1
EX-2
-
MT
NLR
TEJ MT
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
125 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MA
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON, MA
EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN No. 1
DRAWING
MAY 2016 172065.00
2EDM1"=20'
”
G
Z
A
G
e
o
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
,
I
n
c
.
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
w
w
w
.
g
z
a
.
c
o
m
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
:
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
N
O
.
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
P
R
O
J
M
G
R
:
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
B
Y
:
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
:
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
F
O
R
:
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
N
O
R
T
H
A
M
P
T
O
N
,
M
A
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
&
D
E
M
O
L
I
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
N
o
.
2
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
M
A
Y
2
0
1
6
1
7
2
0
6
5
.
0
0
-
3
M
T
N
L
R
T
E
J
E
D
M
M
T
1
"
=
2
0
'
N
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
C
A
L
E
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
C
I
T
Y
O
F
N
O
R
T
H
A
M
P
T
O
N
1
2
5
L
O
C
U
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
A
M
P
T
O
N
,
M
A
”
15-00172065.00
DRAWING
4
NLR
NLR
MAT
EDM
TEJ
AS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
OVERALL SITE PLAN - PROPOSED CONDITIONS
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
N
0 15 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
MAY 2016
GRAPHIC SCALE
“
”
MAY 2016 172065.00 REV NO
5EDMAS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON, MA
SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
DRAWING
N
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
125 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MA
MT
NLR
TEJ MT
REV NO
MT
NLR
DN MT
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
125 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MA
N
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON, MA
WETLAND PERMITTING PLAN
DRAWING
MAY 2016 172065.00
6EDMAS NOTED
N
N
0 10 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
N
.
172065.00
DRAWING
7
NLR
NLR
MAT
EDM
TEJ
AS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE
STA.0+00 - 4+25
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
N
0 10 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
MAY 2016
0
0
5 10 20
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
10 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
”
172065.00
DRAWING
8
NLR
NLR
MAT
EDM
TEJ
AS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
MAY 2016
N
0
0
5 10 20
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
10 20 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
RETAINING WALL PLAN AND PROFILE
STA.4+00 - 9+18
0 10 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
”
172065.00
DRAWING
9
NLR
NLR
MAT
EDM
TEJ
AS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
SECTIONS
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
MASSACHUSETTS
MAY 2016
SECTION
(STA 1+44)
0
0
2.5 5 10
VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET
2.5 5 10
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
SECTION
(STA 5+64)
SECTION
(STA 2+50)
SECTION
(STA 8+52)
MAY 2016 172065.00 REV NO
10EDMAS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON, MA
RETAINING WALL DETAILS
DRAWING
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
125 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MA
MT
NLR
TEJ MT
MAY 2016 172065.00 REV NO
11EDMAS NOTED
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Engineers and Scientists
www.gza.com
PROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.
DESIGNED BY:
PROJ MGR:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:
DRAWING
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
125 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MA
MT
NLR
TEJ MT
”
RIVER ROAD RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHAMPTON, MA
RETAINING WALL DETAILS
NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS, inc
______________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 820 West Street Phone: 413.548.8000
Amherst, MA 01002 Fax: 413.549.4000
email: info@newp.com
web address: www.newp.com
New England Conservation/Wildlife Mix
Botanical Name Common Name Ind.
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye FACW-
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem FACU
Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue FACU
Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem FAC
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea FACU
Panicum clandestinum Deer Tongue FAC+
Panicum virgatum Switch Grass FAC
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass UPL
Helenium autumnale Common Sneezeweed FACW+
Heliopsis helianthoides Ox Eye Sunflower UPL
Verbena hastata Blue Vervain FACW
Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed FACU-
Aster umbellatus Flat Topped/Umbrella Aster FACW
Eupatorium purpureum Purple Joe Pye Weed FAC
Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod
Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders FAC
The New England Conservation/Wildlife Mix provides a permanent cover of
grasses, wildflowers and legumes to provide both good erosion control and
wildlife habitat value. This mix is designed to be a no maintenance seeding, and
it is appropriate to cut and fill slopes, detention basin slopes, and disturbed areas
adjacent to commercial and residential projects. Always apply on clean bare soil.
The mix may be applied by hydro-seeding, by mechanical spreader, or on small
sites it can be spread by hand. Lightly rake, or roll to ensure proper seed to soil contact. Best results are obtained with a
Spring seeding. Late Spring through early Summer seeding will benefit with a light mulching of weed-free straw to
conserve moisture. If conditions are drier than usual, watering will be required. Late Fall and Winter dormant seeding
require an increase in the seeding rate. Fertilization is not required unless the soils are particularly infertile. Preparation
of a clean weed free soil surface is necessary for optimal results.
New England Wetland Plants, Inc. may modify seed mixes at any time depending upon seed
availability. The design criteria and ecological function of the mix will remain unchanged.
Price is $/bulk pound. FOB warehouse, plus S&H and applicable taxes.
Price per lb. $36.50
Min. quantity: 2 lbs.
Total $73.00
Apply: 25 lbs/acre
1lb/1750 sq ft
Minimum quantity: 2 lbs
NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS, inc
______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 820 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002
phone: 413-548-8000 fax: 413-549-4000
email: info@newp.com web address: www.newp.com
New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix
For Dry Sites (00324)
Botanical Name Common Name Ind.
Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue FACU
Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye FACU+
Lolium multiflorum Annual Ryegrass
Lolium perenne Perrenial Ryegrass
Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem FACU
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass UPL
Agrostis scabra Rough Bentgrass/Ticklegrass FAC
Agrostis perennans Upland Bentgrass FACU
The New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix For Dry Sites
provides an appropriate selection of native and naturalized grasses
to ensure that dry and recently disturbed sites will be quickly
revegetated and the soil surface stabilized. It is an appropriate seed
mix for road cuts, pipelines, steeper slopes, and areas requiring
quick cover during the ecological restoration process. The mix may
be applied by hydro-seeding, by mechanical spreader, or on small sites it can be spread by hand. Lightly
rake, or roll to ensure proper soil-seed contact. Best results are obtained with a Spring or late Summer
seeding. Late Spring through Mid-Summer seeding will benefit from a light mulching of weed-free straw
to conserve moisture. If conditions are drier than usual, watering will be required. Fertilization is not
required unless the soils are particularly infertile. Preparation of a clean weed free seed bed is necessary
for optimal results.
New England Wetland Plants, Inc. may modify seed mixes at any time depending upon seed
availability. The design criteria and ecological function of the mix will remain unchanged.
Price is $/bulk pound, FOB warehouse, plus S&H and applicable taxes.
Price per lb. $15.00
Req. quantity: 5 lbs.
Total $75.00
Apply: 35 lbs/acre
1 lb/1250 sq ft
Minimum quantity: 5 lbs