An Independent-minded calendar of arts and events for Outer Cape Cod

Advertise in the Indie.

Reach more readers from Eastham to Provincetown.

Unchained news for Outer Cape Cod

The Provincetown Independent

Let us bring you the paper.

Your subscription supports real community journalism.

Nauset Estuary Dredging Project

    ON THE WATERFRONT

    Eastham Pulls Out of Nauset Dredging Plan

    After investing $600K, Orleans unlikely to find a way forward

    By

    EASTHAM — At a joint meeting with the Orleans Select Board on Dec. 13, the Eastham Select Board voted unanimously to pull out of the Nauset Estuary Dredge permitting process. That leaves the future of the project, which has been in the works since 2015, uncertain.

    All five Eastham board members expressed concerns about sharing the cost of the $3.1-million project without sufficient economic data showing how their investment in the water economy would pay off.

    “We’re talking about a multi-million-dollar project over a number of years,” said the Eastham board chair, Art Autorino. “But there’s nothing that says, ‘Here’s the economic benefit, here’s what you’re going to save.’ ”

    A memorandum of understanding (M.O.U.) signed by the towns in May stipulated that both towns would produce a study detailing the economic benefits of the dredging, but that never materialized.

    Meanwhile, the M.O.U. established that Orleans would pay for the cost of permitting the project. Since 2016, Orleans has spent $670,000 for permit-related work done primarily by Woods Hole Group, an environmental engineering firm in Bourne. Townspeople committed another $160,000 for that effort at last spring’s town meeting.

    The agreement gave Eastham the right to back out of the permitting process. And it appears unlikely that the permitting could go forward successfully without Eastham on board.

    “I don’t think it would get very far without Eastham on that permit,” said select board member Aimee Eckman of Eastham, a longtime opponent of the project.

    Aiding Fishermen

    Shoaling has made the estuary channels difficult to navigate, especially when the tide is low. As a result, lobstermen have to keep their boats moored near the inlet, using skiffs to bring in fuel and other supplies.

    Nauset Estuary and its barrier beach. (Photo Nancy Bloom)

    Garrett Loparto, a second-generation lobsterman and Eastham resident, said it’s impossible to get his boat, a 33-footer, into Town Cove without “the highest freakin’ tide.”

    In 2018, Orleans commercial fishermen brought in a collective catch worth $2.66 million, according to the Mass. Div. of Marine Fisheries. In Eastham, the catch was worth $1.25 million.

    The dredging project would deepen the channel behind Nauset spit, the long, sandy barrier protecting Nauset Marsh. Two smaller dredging operations would deepen and widen the channels to Priscilla Landing and Mill Pond. The entire project would move 155,560 cubic yards of sand and silt, more than the Barnstable County Dredge relocated in all of 2021. Maintenance dredging would be required every year behind the barrier beach and every 8 to 15 years in the other areas, according to the town of Eastham website.

    Proponents believe the dredging will benefit commercial fishermen and water-based businesses like Goose Hummock Shops, the recreational outfitters. They also believe it will improve water quality for aquaculture in the estuary.

    Eastham Select Board member and oyster farmer Jared Collins said he understood why Orleans wanted to support the project. “Stationed at Collins Landing, I’ve seen basically every shellfish person move out and move their vessels to Hemenway or sell things completely,” Collins said. “I feel for the people who now have restricted times to get in and out and the inconvenience of having to moor their boats in different places.”

    Protecting Private Property

    Eastham Town Administrator Jacqui Beebe brought up Eastham’s low-lying waterfront property owners at the Dec. 13 meeting, saying they depend on the barrier beach for protection. “The total amount of assessed value of those properties is $82,660,200,” she said.

    Beebe said Eastham had a responsibility to protect its property owners. “If we do something that impacts this barrier beach and the barrier gets smaller and the marsh goes away, then those property owners are at the risk of the ocean,” she said.

    “The assessed value of your two big businesses,” she told the Orleans board, referring to Goose Hummock Shops and Nauset Marine, “is $1,000,693.”

    What About Safety?

    One purpose of the project is to enhance safety and navigability for commercial and recreational users of the inlet. But Eastham and Orleans officials disagree on the need from that point of view.

    At the Dec. 13 joint meeting, Eckman dismissed the dredging as a safety project and said that Eastham’s first responders “can get to anybody” on the water.

    At a public forum in June, Eckman contended that, because the dredge would not touch Nauset inlet itself, it would not help first responders reach people in open water.

    At that time, Nate Sears, the Orleans harbormaster, disagreed, responding, “You can probably monkey around on the sandbars, but you’re not going to get anywhere in a hurry.”

    When it comes to the possibility that the permits could go forward without Eastham on board, the issue of safety is important, said Orleans Town Administrator John Kelly at the Dec. 8 meeting of the Orleans Select Board. That’s because the Cape Cod National Seashore, which also owns land that would be dredged, will not sign off on permits for an economic improvement project.

    A Tough Decision

    When it came time to vote, Eastham board members Al Cestaro and Collins each paused for several seconds before joining the rest of the board and backing out of the project.

    “I feel for everyone, but ultimately it’s the cost,” said Collins. “I don’t think the constituency in this town is going to go for it.”

    Cestaro, who is a fisherman, said Eastham has a number of other costly infrastructure projects on the horizon, including wastewater management and a Route 6 redesign.

    “Nauset Harbor has been an economic asset for 400 years,” said Orleans Select Board Chair Meff Runyon. Runyon asked that the permitting process continue and suggested that a final decision on the dredging itself should wait until both towns signed off on permits and more data is gathered.

    But Beebe said that extending the process would only make it harder for Eastham to pull out. “Let’s be really honest,” she said. “When you apply for a permit, you are saying, ‘We want to do this, and this is how we want to do it.’ It is a commitment.”

    One other element of the M.O.U. between the towns: it gave Eastham the right to “comprehensively deny any dredging activities within the Town of Eastham boundaries.” Some of the dredging is set to take place on Eastham land and would require approval from the Eastham Conservation Commission.

    When asked by a member of the Orleans board whether they would exercise their right to deny permits for dredging within town boundaries, none of the Eastham officials responded.

    When the Orleans Select Board met on Dec. 15, two days following their joint meeting with the Eastham board, the possibility of terminating the dredge project was raised. Kelly told the board that the Woods Hole Group was being paid on a step-by-step basis, so only a small closeout bill would be due.

    The board decided to table a decision until Jan. 5, but Kelly gave the project a gloomy prognosis.

    “The voters were told that Eastham was cooperating with the project, but that we were funding it,” he said. Now, he continued, “you’re potentially working against not only the financial but the political side as well. And that seems to be where we’re at now.”

    BIG DIG

    Dredging Project’s Effects on Nauset Dunes Feared

    East Orleans group ‘will expend whatever is necessary’ to stop it

    By

    EASTHAM — A group called Saving Nauset Dunes, represented by Mackie Shea Durning PC, a Boston-based boutique law firm focused on environmental and land use law, has fired a shot across the bow of the proposed Nauset Estuary dredging project.

    What they’re challenging at this stage is the plan to pump 26,080 cubic yards of material from the Priscilla and Mill Pond channels to a dewatering basin covering nearly seven acres of the coastal dune north of Nauset Beach.

    “They are committed to the long fight,” wrote the group’s attorney, John F. Shea, in a July 1 letter to the Orleans Select Board. He also warned that the group “will expend whatever resources are necessary to prevent the desecration of the dunes and natural environment, and the devaluation of their properties and lives.

    “Rather than embark on a costly war for all parties, our clients are hopeful Orleans and Eastham will reconsider,” Shea wrote. The group wants both towns to abandon the current dredge spoils disposal plan. They are asking for an alternative to what is planned.

    Shea stated that Saving Nauset Dunes was a large and growing group of residents and homeowners in the area of East Orleans known as Nauset Heights and beyond. He wrote that the group intended to participate in public forums to voice their opposition to the project as proposed. And they won’t go it alone: “They will participate with experts and lawyers,” he wrote, adding that his clients are prepared to appeal any decisions that allow the use of the coastal dunes for dewatering and disposal of dredged materials.

    The current proposal is to construct a dewatering basin covering 6.8 acres of coastal dune on town land north of Nauset Beach. The plan is to use 28,000 cubic yards of excavated sand to construct 13.7-foot-high berms and to stockpile another 22,000 cubic yards of excavated sand.

    The dredged material would be pumped through 3,185 linear feet of 16-inch-diameter pipe that would cross property owned by the Cape Cod National Seashore, the town of Orleans, and two private land owners.

    Under the current proposal the dredge spoils would remain as the core of the dune, which would be restored to pre-existing grades. Plans include building a secondary dune on the landward side of the basin site. The area would be revegetated with beach grass.

    In the three-page letter, Shea listed 14 of his clients’ concerns and wrote that more detailed engineering, environmental, and legal comments would be provided later. Included in the list were concerns about adverse effects on wildlife habitat and species, property damage, and personal injury from disposal of dredge spoils, air quality issues and odors from the dewatering process, and damage to the excavated dune.

    In the letter, Shea calls the proposed changes to the dunes a “mutant landform,” and argues it will not provide effective storm damage prevention or flood control in the same way the existing natural dune does.

    Dredged sand would be used to build what opponents call “mutant landforms” on the Nauset dune. (Photo Linda Culhane)

    Another problem opponents have raised is the possibility that the dredged material will contain red tide cysts. According to a pilot study done as part of the project, those would no longer be viable six months after being buried in a dune. But residents at the project’s June 29 public forum questioned the reliability of that study.

    “The importation and disposal of dredge spoils bearing red tide cysts will present ecological hazards and health risks to residents, property owners, and users of Nauset Public Beach,” Shea’s letter stated.

    Shea referenced an exchange that occurred at the June 29 public forum where Woods Hole Group scientist Leslie Fields was asked if she could guarantee the dredging project would not be undone after one major storm, and she replied she could not.

    “This exchange raised the specter of wasting the estimated $3.1 million for the initial Project, and future additional or ‘maintenance’ dredging, with more dune destruction to repair and excavate a larger disposal area, with the attendant environmental and property damages,” wrote Shea.

    The project’s Expanded Environmental Notification Form being prepared by the Woods Hole Group could be submitted to the Mass. Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office as early as July 30. MEPA approval would be the first of at least eight permits required for the project.

    DREDGE REPORT

    Eastham Officials Question Benefits of Nauset Estuary Dredging Plan

    Eckman and Autorino doubt safety and economy arguments

    By

    EASTHAM — A mixed bag of concerns about the proposed dredging of the Nauset Estuary emerged from the first citizens’ forums on the project held on June 22 and 29.

    The towns of Orleans and Eastham, which share the estuary, are considering the removal of 155,560 cubic yards of material from 28,300 linear feet of channel to a depth of minus five feet at mean low water from Town Cove to the estuary inlet, including spur channels to Priscilla Landing and the entrance to Mill Pond in Orleans.

    The dredged channels would be 50 feet wide, except for the channel behind the barrier beach, which would be 100 feet wide.

    The inlet itself would not be dredged. This element of the plan led some at the June 22 forum to question how the project would achieve its stated goal of improving navigation and public safety.

    “First responders can already reach the boaters in the estuary at any time,” said Eastham Select Board Vice Chair Aimee Eckman at that meeting. “The real problem is going through the inlet, which will not be affected by the dredge proposal.” Eckman noted that she was speaking for herself and not as a representative of the board.

    Eckman said that, according to Eastham’s harbormaster, there is a sandbar across the inlet at astronomical low tides and only one or two feet of water in the inlet at normal low tides.

    A boat heads out through the inlet at Nauset Marsh. (Photo Linda Culhane)

    She said that Eastham was improving public safety in the estuary without dredging, by marking the channels behind the barrier beach, hiring additional personnel to patrol the marsh, purchasing several emergency response watercraft, and providing extra training to emergency personnel.

    “Is there any evidence to suggest that dredging behind the barrier beach or anywhere in the estuary would make the inlet any safer or even passable at low tide?” Eckman asked.

    “Because we’re not dredging to the inlet, no, it’s not going to make it easier to pass through,” acknowledged Leslie Fields, the project manager, who works for the Woods Hole Group. She added that, based on information from emergency responders, dredging would make it easier for them to respond more quickly to incidents behind the barrier beach and elsewhere in the estuary.

    Orleans Harbormaster Nate Sears agreed with Fields.

    “There’s a window where it’s low tide at the inlet that carries on through the estuary on both sides of the tide,” said Sears. “It shortens the amount of time that you can respond if you can’t get through some of that skinny water.”

    Other residents were concerned about what could get into the estuary through the deeper dredged channels.

    “We just saw seals for the first time last year in Mill Pond, and it was quite startling,” noted an Orleans homeowner. “You know, where there’s seals, there are sharks.”

    Another Orleans resident asked what the economic benefit would be for the town. The project is estimated to cost approximately $3.1 million.

    “The Eastham Select Board hasn’t seen that economic benefit, either,” said Art Autorino, chair of the board. “We would really like to see that defined as the project goes forward, as a justification to do it.”

    The June 29 forum focused on the disposition of the dredged material and drew comments from Nauset Heights residents concerned about the proposed pumping of 26,080 cubic yards of material that could contain red tide cysts from the Priscilla and Mill Pond channels to a dewatering basin that will cover 6.8 acres of coastal dune north of Nauset Public Beach.

    While a pilot project conducted for development of the proposal found that red tide cysts buried in a dune were not viable after six months, area residents questioned whether the cysts could pose a health hazard.

    “I encourage you to understand the liability you’re creating if, god forbid, any of my family or the neighborhood gets sick,” said one Nauset Heights resident. “And what happens if you potentially sicken those beachgoers along the beach.”

    Another Heights resident suggested a public health expert be consulted. “Is there an airborne risk?” he asked.

    A sidecast dredge method is proposed for the 119,830 cubic yards of material behind the barrier beach and eastern main channel reaches. A hydraulic cutter suction sidecast dredge would create a sand-and-water slurry that would be broadcast 60 to 80 feet west of the channel.

    The 9,660 cubic yards of material from the Town Cove and the central main channel reaches would be mechanically dredged to a barge and offloaded to trucks at the Goose Hummock Town Landing for transport to permitted sites in South Dennis.

    Once the initial project is completed, maintenance dredging is expected to be needed every 10 to 15 years for the Town Cove and central main channel reaches, every year for the barrier beach and eastern main channel reaches, and every 8 to 10 years for the Priscilla Landing and Mill Pond channels.

    The project’s Expanded Environmental Notification Form under the state’s Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) could be submitted for review as early as July 30, which would then open the MEPA comment period from Aug. 11 to 31.

    Approval under MEPA is the first of at least eight permits required for the project to go forward.

    ENVIRONMENT

    With Disclaimers, Select Board Signs Nauset Dredging Memo

    Eastham and Orleans have differing priorities, says Eckman

    By

    EASTHAM — The select board voted on May 17 to sign the second memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Orleans on the Nauset Estuary Dredging Project, agreeing to continued coordination between the two towns. But the members made it clear that they were signing on for a fact-finding mission only, and that the question of whether and how to dredge had not been decided.

    “We need everybody to understand there’s no final decisions,” said board member Art Autorino at the May 13 joint meeting with the Orleans Select Board. “That, in the end, the select boards may say no, we’re not going to do it, or the select boards may say yes, or we may split.”

    The proposed $3.1-million project would dredge 155,560 cubic yards of material from a 5.6-mile channel from Town Cove to the inlet via the channel behind the Nauset barrier beach. The inlet would not be dredged.

    Shoaling in the channels and mooring areas has prevented commercial fishing vessels from accessing town landings, leaving them moored in the navigation channel south of the inlet.

    The Eastham board had appeared to be leaning away from signing the document at its May 3 meeting after reviewing the draft Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) prepared by the Woods Hole Group and paid for by Orleans.

    The Nauset Estuary with the barrier beach in the distance. (Photo Linda Culhane)

    Select board vice chair Aimee Eckman said on May 13 that board members had been mistaken at that May 3 meeting in their impression that the second MOU was their last chance to back out of the project. Town counsel had advised that was not the case, she noted.

    The board’s concerns, noted on May 3 and seconded by Eastham’s Projects and Procurements Director Shana Brogan on May 13, included the width of the dredged channel behind the barrier beach. It had been expanded from a previously discussed 50-foot width to 100 feet. Other concerns were that the channel would be within 100 feet of the back of the barrier beach, that side cast dredging was proposed for that channel, that the ongoing Center for Coastal Studies study of the area would not be completed until 2022, and what effects the project would have on nearly 60 acres of shellfish flats.

    Board chair Jamie Demetri noted a proposal in the draft EENF to relocate the shellfish. “Some shellfish are easy to relocate,” said Demetri on May 13, but she cautioned that other species, such as soft-shell clams and mussels, did not like to be moved. “They really set up shop where they are. They like their habitat,” Demetri said. “I would hate to see us decimate one form of livelihood for folks to encourage another.”

    Eckman said there seemed to be different priorities between the two towns and noted that, while Eastham has a few commercial fishermen, the dredging project had more support in Orleans with its larger number of commercial fisherman and businesses advocating for the project to move forward.

    “We definitely have more people concerned about the environmental impacts on the estuary, and it’s very important that we protect that resource,” said Eckman.

    Woods Hole Group coastal geologist Leslie Fields explained at the May 13 meeting that the EENF was the first “in a long line of regulatory reviews that the project will have to undergo.”

    Fields said meetings to receive comments on the draft EENF would be scheduled in May with the Nauset Estuary Stakeholders group and a public meeting would be held in June for residents of Eastham and Orleans.

    The draft EENF is posted on Eastham’s town website.

    © 2025 The Provincetown Independent, all rights reserved.

    terms of service