Natural resources staff outline capital requests for downtown flood barrier, dredging and other resilience work

Natural resources Director Jeff Carlson told the Coastal Resilience Advisory Committee on April 8 that the department has submitted several capital articles for the town’s upcoming annual meeting, including funding to continue downtown flood-barrier design, begin implementation of a sediment transport and dredge plan and to advance design and permitting for property adaptation projects.

Carlson said the downtown neighborhood flood barrier request is intended to fund additional outreach and detailed design work and cautioned that the dollar figure in the warrant is intended to cover design and permitting of a selected alternative. “That $2,400,000 is to get through design and permitting of a selected alternative,” Carlson said.

Why it matters: the requests map directly to priorities in the town’s coastal resiliency planning and to projects that would alter transportation access and shorelines in and around Nantucket Harbor. Committee members focused discussion on how the capital requests align with the committee’s priority list, how the town will pay for projects that exceed grant funds and how to avoid leaving projects in a multi-year planning queue.

Carlson said the department also proposed a continuing “blanket placeholder” for coastal resiliency planning — a recurring capital item that in prior years has ranged from about $1 million to $1.5 million and which can be used for project development, engineering and grant-match funds. He described other requests that will appear on the warrant:

- A $2,400,000 request to continue design and permitting for the downtown neighborhood flood barrier project, to bring a selected alternative farther than the grant-funded 30% design phase if stakeholder feedback and state agency input require additional outreach and analysis.

- A construction estimate for a protection project at a low-lying Pulpus Road site (described by staff as a bulkhead in front of a living shoreline and a reef-ball approach); Carlson said permitting conversations with Mass Natural Heritage have complicated options for the living-shoreline component.

- A $250,000 request for design and permitting work at the Brandt Point hatchery dock as a pilot building-adaptation project, including updated deck and flood-elevation work for a historic structure.

- A $2,000,000 set-aside to move the sediment-transport and dredge plan into implementation, including early-stage contracts or stockpiling and the ability to leverage grants for dredging work.

- Continued funding for the department’s baseline environmental data program (monitoring eelgrass, scallop beds and water quality) and for a climate action and sustainability framework and environmental justice work already in procurement.

Carlson warned that construction-price volatility means capital warrant numbers may not reflect final construction costs and that the town often budgets projects at 100 percent of cost so a project remains feasible if anticipated grant or partner funds do not materialize. “We generally assume 100% of the cost to the town. That way the project can still get accomplished,” he said.

Committee reaction and follow-up: committee members pressed staff on alignment between the committee’s top priorities and the capital articles that will be presented to voters. Garrett (committee member) asked how the once‑a‑year town meeting process reflects the committee’s priority list. Carlson described an internal project‑charter process that identifies goals, permitting pathways, risks and partners prior to submitting projects to capital.

On the Pulpus Road living‑shoreline project, Carlson said botanical surveys found a rare plant and Mass Natural Heritage has been inflexible about allowable impacts. “It may have been the most frustrating discussion I’ve ever had with Mass Natural Heritage,” he said, adding that regulators effectively constrained options for the living‑shoreline portion of the project and that the town may have to pursue a less desirable (and potentially less expensive) alternative.

On dredging, Carlson said staff have completed public information sessions and modeling and intend to present prioritized areas, permitting needs and next steps to the Select Board and to the committee before moving to implementation. He said the department hopes to begin permitting and that, without funds set aside now, work could be delayed into the following fiscal year: “If we don’t have money set aside … we wouldn’t be able to start any work until July of 2026,” Carlson said.

What remains unresolved: committee members repeatedly raised questions about funding mechanisms for larger, multi‑million‑dollar projects and whether the town should pursue stabilization funds, borrowing, or other mechanisms. Joanna Roach and others urged the creation of a consistent “resiliency lens” for capital budgeting and suggested bringing the finance director and Select Board into a conversation about timing and priorities. Carlson and staff agreed to provide follow‑up briefings and to bring more detailed cost estimates, 3D visualizations and regulatory feedback when available.

Ending: Carlson offered to return with project leads and to provide updates as permitting and design work proceed. Committee members requested that staff bring a clearer linkage between the committee’s priority list and which capital articles are advanced to the town warrant so voters better understand what they would be funding.