Dunedin staff and consultants propose living shoreline for Weaver Park to curb erosion

City staff and consultants presented a phased living‑shoreline proposal for Weaver Park during the Dunedin City Commission workshop on July 7, 2026, saying the approach blends immediate gray infrastructure with longer-term nature-based protections.

Natalie Gass, the city’s sustainability program manager, said site assessments showed continued shoreline erosion at Weaver Park and described the project scope: a waterward riprap revetment to stabilize the bank, mangrove and upland native-plantings to increase resilience, oyster recruitment structures to attenuate wave energy, and a potential ADA-compliant floating kayak launch to improve public access. She told commissioners the project team selected CPH Consulting to complete design and permitting and that the commission had previously approved that contract.

CPH’s Amanda Martin described a three-phase approach: Phase 1 stabilizes the shoreline with riprap/revetment and limited signage and mobilization; Phase 2 adds living-shoreline components (oyster domes/reefs and mangrove plantings plus upland native vegetation); Phase 3 would create the ADA kayak launch and associated ADA parking access. CPH’s preliminary design places mangroves at the toe of the revetment in locations intended not to obstruct common sightlines across the park.

The project team reported results from a June 2, 2026 benthic survey. Gabriela, the project’s lead environmental scientist, said the survey found shoal-grass/manatee-grass covering a small portion of the study area and that “the design actually is avoiding all seagrass resources, with the current design.” That avoidance was a central point of the presentation and a factor in proposed oyster‑dome siting and permitting strategy.

Gass said the city currently has $250,000 budgeted for the project, of which $150,000 has been paid to CPH for design and permitting, leaving $100,000 intended as a grant match. Staff said they continue to pursue grant opportunities (including Resilient Florida) and are exploring sponsorships and community volunteer programs (for example, “adopt an oyster dome”) as cost-saving measures.

Commissioners pressed staff and CPH on multiple technical and programmatic questions during a lengthy Q&A. Topics included whether the pier could serve as an ADA launch (staff said pier height and configuration complicate ADA use), how oyster domes may affect kayak ingress/egress, options to reuse existing riprap to lower construction costs, and long-term mangrove trimming and permitting to preserve views. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to quantify the current rate and urgency of erosion; staff said they would provide more detailed wave and erosion analyses and emphasized that permitting coordination with agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Pinellas County is already underway.

Pinellas County Water Navigation staff had already advised the city that, under county code, the site is not eligible for a seawall because the shoreline section is longer than 100 feet and lacks two adjacent seawalls — a determination staff said allowed the project to reallocate budget toward design and permitting for a living shoreline instead. Staff added the project will be reviewed by local advisory bodies (Stormwater Advisory Committee, Causeway and Coastal Waterways Committee, Development Review Committee) as it moves through permitting.

Commissioners expressed general support for advancing design and permitting while deferring major construction decisions until the city secures funding. Next steps staff listed include preparing a 60% design submittal, agency pre-application meetings, and continued public engagement and cost‑estimates to support grant applications. Staff also noted concerns raised during public input about mangrove height and viewshed management and said maintenance and trimming plans will be part of the permitting and implementation discussion.

The commission did not take a final vote; staff were asked to return with more detailed erosion-rate data, refined cost estimates, and a permitting timeline to inform funding decisions.