CRMC: Matunuck Shore Not Manmade

SOUTH KINGSTOWN – Despite the riprap, scattered seawalls and foundations that now kiss the ocean on Matunuck’s coast, its shoreline is not manmade, according to a vote Tuesday by the state Coastal Resources Management Council.

The vote was the second denial of town efforts that would have allowed Matunuck’s home and business owners to erect hard structures to help stave off erosion and further loss of property.

However, residents were not left without hope for a solution that could save homes, infrastructure and even re-grow the sandy beaches that were once characteristic of the area.

At the opening of the meeting, the council voted 7-0, with Anthony Affigne abstaining, to reconsider its April 10 denial to review the town’s application to build a 202-foot steel sheet-pile wall that would protect an exposed portion of Matunuck Beach Road and its interred utilities. The application will be heard at the council’s May 8 meeting.

Four hours of testimony by the town, environmental interest groups, and Matunuck home and business owners detailed a situation that is threatening to undermine private property investments, dozens of jobs, and public utilities as well as the coastal ecology.

After the CRMC handed down its 6-2 denial to allow for the construction of a seawall-type structures on a 1,400-foot stretch of Matunuck’s shrinking shoreline, South Kingstown Town Manager Stephen Alfred said greater collaboration between property owners, the CRMC and the town would be needed.

“I think a lot of responsibility is going to turn back onto the CRMC,” Alfred said. “Across the state we have got issues in Block Island, Westerly, Bristol, and we are trying to deal with each individually rather than to come up with some sort of global solution that can be done.”

On behalf of the town, Alfred argued that 1,400 feet of Matunuck’s coast should be reclassified as a manmade shoreline.

Under its current classification as a coastal headland and bluff, hard structures to stave of erosion from ocean waves are prohibited except for in cases where continued erosion could pose an imminent threat to public health and safety. Alfred envisioned a situation where private property owners would have the flexibility to erect walls – in combination with soft beach nourishment techniques – to save their investments.

“The requested change in classification will provide the necessary administrative vehicle to potentially allow residential and commercial property owners greater flexibility in design and response to the recently accelerated coastal erosion,” Alfred said.

He added that more than 70 percent of the shoreline in question was already dominated by manmade structures, a fact many in opposition to the classification change were quick to point out was only a factor because the watermark had receded so high.

Alfred urged the council to reclassify the coast and allow property owners to protect their homes and businesses after accelerated erosion over the past two years had created a near-emergency situation.

“I feel a great deal of frustration that we are at the eleventh hour and being presented with an imminent peril situation,” Affigne said. “The impact has been known for several decades. Town officials are responsible for maintaining and protecting roads and we have known for decades that the ocean was approaching. It is frustrating to find ourselves in this situation with out backs against the wall when everyone involved has had ample notice that this was coming.”

Lawyers arguing for Save the Bay and other state environmental organizations said a sweeping reclassification of such a large segment of the south shore could set a precedent for areas across Rhode Island’s coast that are also struggling with erosion.

“I call this the Chinese wall proposal for Matunuck,” said S. Paul Ryan, a lawyer for Save the Bay.

“Let’s just build a wall around Rhode Island in all of these spots where the coastline is eroding, because that’s where we are heading with this,” said Tricia Jedele, a lawyer and vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation.

In a report, the CRMC staff agreed that in its current condition Matunuck’s coast could be considered manmade. However, the report stipulated that were a massive seawall project to move forward, the 1,400-foot section would need to be secured with 15-foot armored granite wall.

CRMC engineers did not endorse this idea, as it would effectively destroy the little beach that remains in the area. The wall could, however, slow the erosion.

Local property owners – to the surprise of many on the coastal council – presented an alternative on Tuesday.

William Landry, the lawyer for the Ocean Mist and Tara’s Joyce Family Pub, suggested a combined effort of hard structure revetments and beach nourishment that could address the immediate need to slow the erosion while working on a long-term goal of replenishing the once-sandy beaches.

Landry identified three stakeholders and their issues tangled in the issue of Matunuck’s erosion: property owners, the town’s interests in protecting its road, and the state’s interest in the environmental concerns of trying to preserve and protect erosion on the beach.

“I’m here tonight to advocate a result that would protect all three of those interests, and believe that the solution is within the council’s grasp in context of this position,” Landry said.

Landry urged the council to reclassify Matunuck’s shoreline as man-made in order to allow property owners to erect structures – in the short term – that would protect from immediate erosion as they engaged in long-term beach nourishment projects that could naturally alleviate erosion in the area.

“My heart tells me that there are a lot people with a lot of concern and with a lot investment and we cannot sit here and let Rome burn,” said Paul Lemont, the vice chairman to the CRMC. “I look at this from a legal standpoint and from my mind it is telling me that if we don’t do something here, we are going to fail our own duties. I don’t want to do that we have got to make a decision - right or wrong - but I think it’s going to be right if we look at the magnitude of the problem people are displaying.”

“We are going to give a lot of people, and a town, some solace if we pass it this evening,” Lemont added. “The application still has to come before us; we still control it if we pass it this evening.”

Although all the members on the council advocated for a plan that could protect property while replenishing the beaches, their voices were not in favor of a reclassification.

“I have heard a willingness on the part of property owners, the town, abutting neighbors, and staff to explore a complete solution that restores the beach, protects public access to the beach and recognizes needs,” Affigne said. “When you come back to us - whether it is the town or property owners – with a plan that combines soft or minimum reinforcement to protect a replenishment project, I will vote for it. But, I cannot in good conscious vote for an open-ended reclassification of a beach.”

Under the reclassification, hard seawall-style structures could be allowed and members worried this would inhibit public access to the coast.

“I will vote for whatever hybrid plan you can come up with that allows us to protect the beach, protect public access and serves the needs of residents,” Affigne added.

CRMC Executive Director Grover Fugate said the 202-foot section of Matunuck Beach Road that the town sought approval of a special exception to barricade the wall against further erosion did meet the criteria of imminent peril. The application will be reconsidered at the CRMC’s next meeting on May 8.

Want to be e-mailed when we post new articles about the Matunuck erosion issues? Click the “keep me posted!” button below.