Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surry seeks $84,000 pre-construction funds to study Cross Road culvert and protect salt marsh
Summary
The Town of Surry applied for $84,000 in pre-construction funding to evaluate replacing an undersized culvert on Cross Road, with the town responsible for a 25% match. Public commenters urged immediate removal; town staff and the consultant emphasized engineered plans and regulatory compliance before construction.
Allen Kratz, Surry grant consultant, told the Select Board on Oct. 1 that the town has applied for $84,000 in pre-construction and pre-engineering funds to study improvements at Newbury Neck and Cross Road, including options for the culvert, stream crossing and adjacent salt marsh.
The study request — for which the town would provide a roughly 25% match — is intended to produce engineering that aligns with current regulatory definitions of sustainable, nature-based resilience and to support competitive funding applications to FEMA, MEMA and state programs.
"There is a real emphasis on nature based solutions for resilience," Kratz said, referencing a state program discussed earlier in meetings. Kratz and board members cited comments from DEP Commissioner Melanie Loyzim about a new ‘‘Our Shores’’ approach to biodiversity, green engineering and context‑sensitive shoreline design that the board said would guide potential designs.
During public comment, Mark Baldwin urged immediate action to restore tidal flow. "It's not a scientific or engineering mystery about what should be done," Baldwin said, arguing the town should remove the existing culvert and "install as big of a box culvert as quickly as possible and then get paid for it later." Baldwin shared photographs he said show repeated high tides saturating and eroding marshland.
Kratz and Select Board members cautioned that many funding sources require a completed engineering plan, regulatory compliance and documented community engagement before construction funding will be awarded. Kratz warned that unpermitted or inadequately engineered work can fail or lead to enforcement: he cited an example in which a town installed a seawall without permits and was fined.
Because of those constraints, the board and consultant recommended arranging a DEP site visit to explore interim measures and to confirm which engineered solutions would meet permitting and funding requirements while the town awaits decisions on grant applications. Kratz said the town expected to learn by the end of the week whether the pre‑construction application would be forwarded for further consideration.
The board did not take a construction vote; members agreed to pursue the pre‑engineering grant, coordinate a DEP site visit and continue community engagement as part of the application process.
